1989-05-09CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW AND REGULAR MEETING
6:30 P.M. TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
6:30 P.M. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW
Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt will be present.
We will accept complaints on taxable market value from resi-
dents. The assessor will then review these properties and
bring back recommendations at the May 23, 1989, Reconvened
Board of Review. The Council will take action on the total
assessment at the May 23, 1989, Meeting.
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1989
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
Approve the Minutes of the April 25, 1989,
Regular Council Meeting
Pg. 1383-1393
3
CASE $89-808:
David & Virginia Herzenach, 5101
Woodland Road, Lots 23 & 24, Block 12,
Woodland Point, PID #13-117-24 12 0209.
Request: Side & Rear Yard Setback Variances.
Pg. 1394-1406
CASE ~89-810:
Paul Olson, 2636 Wilshire Blvd.,
Lot 2, Wilbur K. Palm Addition,
PID #24-117-24 13 0027.
Request: Lakeside & Front Yard Setback Variance. Pg. 1407-1419
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE #89-811: Jon R. Nelson, 5545
Three Points Blvd., Part of Lot 27 & Part of
Govt. Lot 4, Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka,
PID #13-117-24 22 0023.
Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
Pg. 1420-1452
o
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~89-812: Jon R. Nelson, 5545
Three Points Blvd., Part of Lot 27 & Part of
Govt. Lot 4, Lafayette Park Lake Minnetonka,
PID #13-117-24 22 0023.
Request:
Conditional Use Permit and Variance
(Lot Size, Lot Width, and Side Yard
Setback Variances)
Pg. 1420-1452
Page 1379
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~89-813: Desperado's, Inc',
4451 Wilshire Blvd., Lots 3-18, Block 8,
Avalon, PID #19-117-23 31 0021·
Request:
Rezoning from B-3 Neighborhood Business
to B-2 General Business. Pg. 1453-1465
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE %89-814: James Ratican, 2313
Commerce Blvd., Part of Lot~ ~ & ES, Lynwol~
Park, PID #14-117-24 44 0042·
Request:
Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Bingo
Hall. Pg. 1466-1483
CASE %89-816:
Triax Midwest Assoc., L.P., 2385
Wilshire Blvd., Lots 24, 25, 26 & 27,
Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F.
Request: Side Yard Variance.
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present.
Pg. 1484-1497
Review of Dock Applications for Lakewinds,
Minnetonka Boat Rental and Edgewater Marina,
Seahorse Condominiums and Chapman Place.
Review of Application to DNR by Hennepin County
to Perform Maintenance Dredging in Certain
Channels on Lake Minnetonka.
Review of Application to DNR by Chapman Place
for installation of docks, .removal of wooden sea
wall and installation of rip-rap.
Approval of 1989 Dock Refunds.
Additional Concrete - Hennepin County Road 15
Project.
New License Application.
Recycling Update.
Set Public Hearing Date on Proposed Vacation of
a Utility Easement on Private Property.
Pg. 1498-1524
Pg. 1525-1533
Pg. 1534-1541
Pg. 1542
Pg. 1543-1545
Pg. 1546
Pg. 1547
SUGGESTED DATE: June 13, 1989
Payment of Bills.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Pg. 1548
Pg. 1549-1562
Department Head Monthly Reports for April
1989.
Pg. 1563-1598
Page 1380
Be
Ce
De
Ee
Fe
Memo dated April 25, 1989, regarding Hennepin
County's plan to store newspapers at the Public
Service Facility in Hopkins. The City of Mound'
has been allocated a maximum of 12 tons. Pg. 1599-16Ol
Letter from Governor Rudy Perpich on making
recycling a high priority.
Pg. 1602-1610
Letter dated April 19, 1989, from a resident on
Island View Drive regarding the City's Commons
Docks Program. Also attached is a letter from
Jim Fackler, Park Director dated April 28, 1989,
informing the resident that he should~appear at
the next Park Commission Meeting to present his
concerns to the Commission. Mr. Fackler has
responded to the issues raised and included is
his response which went into the Park Commission's
packet for the May 11, 1989, meeting. Pg. 1611-1619
Memo from Hennepin County Commissioner Randy
Johnson on plastic recycling. Pg. 1620-1628
LMCD Representative's April report.
LMCD Meeting Schedule for May 1989.
REMINDERS:
Pg. 1629-1630
Pg. 1631
Annual LMC Conference June 6-9, 1989,
Hyatt-Regency, Minneapolis. Let Linda
know by May 19, 1989, if you wish to
attend.
NLC Seminar on Economic Development
in conjunction with LMC Conference,
June 6, 1989, Hyatt-Regency. Let Linda
know by May 19, 1989, if you wish to
attend.
Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday,
May 16, 1989, 6:30 P.M., City Hall.
County Road 15 Grand Opening, Saturday,
May 6, 1989, 10:30 A.M. at the Marina
Shopping Center in Spring Park.
Page 1381
R£C"D I~tAY 2 1989
Local Board of Review
Mound aity Hall
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Sirs
I may not be able to attend the meeting, May 9 as I have other
thin~s schedule~. I am very disturbed with assessed valuation
t.hat has ~e. en placed on Prope.r'~y iD 13-117-24 22, Mo~d.
~st year it was ~ised 1~,000 which was too ~uch and now It
has been ~ise~ another 5,000. to l~,lO0. ~altors are not
in ~reement with this ~nd of assessed ~!ue.
I ~ve been t~i~ to sell and with taxes of ~773.~ it is
.ve~ difficult. Ne~' y~r they will be even higher. I don't
seem to get more than ~1000.00 rent so 4~ is to r~l estate
taxes which ts out of itae too.
Please lower the asses~e~ ~lu~tiom to a more acc~te fi~.
oo., o, m is, ¥
53
April 25, 1989
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 25, 1989
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, April 25, 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-
rens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, and Skip Johnson. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr, City . Clerk Fran Clark,
City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance
Director John Norman, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City
Auditor Gary Groen and the following interested citizens: Vic
Cossette, Oswin Pflug, Mark & Stacy Goldberg, Phil Lansing, Mike
Mueller, Louise and Mark Anderson, Neil Weber, Paul Henry, Lance
Cole, Shirley Spraguer, Freda Olson, Gona & Clay Olson, Jack
Cook, Jim Robin, Paul Withers, Jack Wang and Jim Jarenko.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten-
dance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MINUTES
The City Manager stated that there should be an amendment to the
April 11 Minutes. On page 1180, first paragraph under Triax
request, the second sentence which reads, as follows should be
deleted: "This would replace the two 15 foot satellite dishes
now in place."
MOTION made by Johnson seconded by Jensen to approve the
minutes of the April 11, 1989, Regular Meeting as amended
and the April 18, 1989, Special Meeting as submitted. The
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
City Manager Ed Shukle explained that the revised amount was
$5,488.60. Mayor Smith opened the Public Hearing regarding
delinquent utility bills. There was no one present in the
audience who wished to speak on this issue. The Mayor closed the
Public Hearing.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:.
RESOLUTION 89-40
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT
UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,488.60
AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF
WATER SERVICE TO THOSE ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
54
April 25, 1989
CASE %89-804=
MARK AND STACY C, OLDBER~, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE,
LOT 4t BLOCK 14t DEVON~ PID ~25-117-24 11 0037,
RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE DUE TO STRUCTURAL CON-
DITIONS
The Building Official explained that after Resolution %89-33 was
granted and the remodeling was started (without a permit), it
was discovered that the house did not have the proper frost foot-
ings, the garage walls did not have any footings, and the house
caved in. Also discovered was a sewer easement on the property
which will limit construction and where the boathouse can be
relocated on the applicants property. Mr. Goldberg is now asking
to be allowed to rebuild the home in the same footprint and
requesting that the boathouse be allowed to remain where it is on
public property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
the reconstruction in the same footprint, but asked that the
boathouse be relocated onto the applicant's property.
The Council discussed the problems and decided to amend resolu-
tion #89-33 allowing the reconstruction of the home in the same
footprint and granting a 3 foot side yard variance and 4 foot
setback variance for the boathouse which will be moved onto the
applicants property. The applicant also agreed to survey and
restake the property before the moving of the boathouse.
Jensen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %89-41
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION #89-33
AND ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME IN
THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND GRANT VARIANCES
FOR THE POSITIONING OF THE BOATHOUSE OFF
OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND ONTO THE AP-
PLICANTS PROPERTY, P & Z CASE #89-804,
PID #25-117-24 11 0037, LOT 4, BLOCK 14,
DEVON
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PRESENTATION BY JIM ROBIN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, RE:
TION OF COUNTY ROAD 15
BEAUTIFICA-
Jim Robin, Landscape Architect who has been retained by the Wes-
tonka Area Chamber of Commerce, presented his proposal for the
beautification of Shoreline Blvd. The design recommendations are
focused on resolving the issues which this project has brought to
light and on developing a unified design'that would give con-
tinuity to the appearance of County Road 15 from Navarre to
Mound. He recommended that the plan be adopted by the three par-
ticipating cities as a guide to be used in the design, review and
implementation of new development along the road.
55
April 25, 1989
MOTION made by Johnson, -seconded by Jensen to formally ac-
cept the beautification plan, as presented by James Robin,
for Shoreline Blvd. (County Road 15). The vote was unanim-
ously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE %88-732:
VIC COSSETTE, ARCO/CENTURY CO.t 5533 SHORELINE
BLVD., LOT 5 AND WESTERLY 50' OF LOT 6t AUDITOR'S
SUBDIVISION 170 ~ PID ~13-117-24 33 0007 & 0008.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
The Building Official explained that she has tested the decibels
at the property and that with the meter facing the microphone
towards the speaker, it read 55 to 65 decibels, with
background/traffic noise it increased to 70+ decibels. She fur-
ther reported that Mr. Cossette has now installed a volume con-
trol. She did inform Mr. Cossette that an air compressor on the
site read 75 to 80 decibels and he has ordered an intake filter
for the compressor to decrease the noise level of the unit. The
Planning Commission recommended amending Resolution %89-1, item
2, to read as follows: "Additionally, loud noises or noises over
loud speakers be permitted if not allowed to exceed 65 decibels
at the property line." Mr. Cossette agreed with the language and
the corrections.
The City Attorney suggested that this amendment to the Condi-
tional Use Permit be filed with Hennepin County.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the follOwing resolution:
RESOLUTION %89-42
RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION 989-1,
ITEM %2, FOR VIC COSSETTE, ARCO/CENTURY,
COS., 5533 SHORELINE BLVD., LOT 5 AND
WESTERLY 50' OF LOT 6, AUDITOR'S SUB-
DIVISION 170, PID %13-117-24 33 0007, P
& Z CASE %88-732
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPLICATION FOR OPERATIONS PERMIT: HBC, INC., 5340 SHORELINE
BOULEVARD
The Building Official explained that Helo Saunas from Finland
(HBC, Inc.) as applicant and Balboa as the owner of the building
are in violation of Section 23.650 for not securing all necessary
permits prior to initiating operations of the business. HBC,
Inc. has now applied for an operations permit to establish a
business which will distribute and manufacture saunas and
whirlpool tubs. There are three violations to building and/or
fire codes which are as follows:
1. The business does not contain proper separation between
storage areas and warehouse areas;
2. The rack storage in the warehouse area exceeds allowed
heights;
56
April 25, 1989
Propane tanks are not Droperly secured and stored on
the exterior of the building.
The Planning Commission and the Staff recommend approval subject
to full and immediate compliance with all code requirements.
Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-43
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS PER-
MIT FOR HBC, INC. , 5340 SHORELINE
BOULEVARD SUBJECT TO FULL AND IMMEDIATE
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE ~89-809:
JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, BLOCK 1, LOT 2,
AVALON, PID ~19-117-23-24 0002, VARIANCE
The Building Official explained the background and stated that
the Planning Commission and Staff recommended denial and that the
applicant be required to comply with the findings outlined in
Resolution #87-191.
The applicant stated that he and his neighbor, Sandra Konnad now
agree that the deck at a continuous level would look better than
one on different planes, even though it encroaches 1 foot onto
the property to-the west.
Mr. Cook stated that he would contact Ms. Konnad and see if she
were willing to sell a small piece of land to correct the
encroachment.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to table this item
until the May 23, 1989, Meeting to allow Mr. Cook time to
rectify the encroachment problem. The vote was unanimously
in favor. Motion carried.
REQUEST TO SELL CITY OWNED PROPERTY: LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 11,
DEVON
The City Clerk explained the background of this property and that
a neighbor has approached the City to purchase the property so
that it will not be developed.
The Park Commission recommended that the City Council retain
these lots as a passive park, post a sign "no dumping, nature
conservation area", and have the builder clean his debris from
the lot. Shirley Spraguer stated that the lot has been cleaned
up. Mark Anderson (neighbor) and Tom Casey (Park Commissioner)
agreed with the recommendation.
57
April 25, 1989
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen, to retain Lots
13 & 14, Block 14, Devon as a passive p~rk and send a
request to the Park Commission to develop sLgnage and pos-
sibly a name for the park. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were no comments or suggestions.
PRESENTATION OF 1988 FINkNCIAL AUDIT REPORT, DRAFT - GARY GROEN,
ABDO, ABDO & EICK
Gary Groen, Auditor, and John Norman, Finance Director high-
lighted the 1988 Financial Audit. The City Manager explained
that the final audit will be completed in 4 to 6 weeks. The
reason for the delay is that we will be applying for the Govern-
ment Finance Officers Association Certificate of Conformance
which had required more narrative and information. No action was
taken on this item.
APPLICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF RIP-RAP LAKEWINDS ASSOCIATION
The'Council had no comments on the application to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources for rip-rapping the shoreline at
the Lakewinds Condominiums.
TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY
The City Clerk explained that there are 6 parcels that have come
up tax forfeit. Two should be released for sale to adjoining
property owners only: PID #13-117-24 11 0107 and 13-117-24 14
0035. Four should be kept for drainage, wetlands or because they
are unbuildable: PID #19-117-23 32 0189, 24-117-24 44 0121, 25-
117-24 12 0030 and 30-117-23 22 0047.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-44
RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY)
CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE
STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO
APPROVE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID
TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE
SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS-
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-45
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR
CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX
FORFEIT LANDS
58
April 25, 1989
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
DENBIGH ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT PETITION
The City Engineer explained that he has received a petition for
concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving and storm sewer, Lots
88 through 99, Phelps Island Park, First Division, which is an
unimproved private road. This item has come up several times
before but since all the neighbors are not in favor of the im-
provement, it has been denied each time. The Engineer stated
that the estimated cost of the improvement is now $33,000.00, but
this does not include acquisition of right-of-way.
The following persons spoke in favor of the project:
Withers, Jack Wang, and Jim Jarenko.
Paul
The following persons spoke against the project:
Freda Olson.
Oswin Pflug and
The Council asked that the people in favor of the project nego-
tiate with those against the project to try and get full agree-
ment of all property owners to proceed with the project.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to table this item
until the May 23rd Council Meeting to allow the neighbors
time to get full agreement on the project. The vote was un-
animously-in favor. Motion carried.
STOP LIGHT AT COMMERCE BLVD. AND LYNWOOD BLVD.
The City Manager reported that the Hennepin County has now agreed
to leave the accesses from Commerce Blvd. to the Tonka West Shop-
ping Center open with "enter only" restrictions and install the
stop light at the corner of Commerce Blvd. and Lynwood Blvd. He
further reported that the County would be able to install the
signal light by late this year if the Council approves. Phil
Lansing and Mike Mueller, owners of the Tonka West Shopping Cen-
ter,. stated they are against the "enter only" restriction and
presented a letter from'their tenants which also stated objec-
tion.. The letter was signed by the owners of the following
businesses: West Lake Pharmacy, Brickley's Market, D'Vinci's
Italian Cafe and Home Laundry.
The Council discussed the objections and decided to go along with
the County's recommendation and review the situation after the
signal light is installed.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-46
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROPOSAL BY HEN-
NEPIN COUNTY TO INSTALL A STOPLIGHT AT
THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. AND
LYNWOOD BLVD.; MOVING CROSSWALK FROM MID
59
April 25, 1989
BLOCK OF COMMERCE BLVD. (BEN FRANKLIN)
TO SOUTH SIDE OF INTERSECTION AT COM-
MERCE BLVD. AND LYNWOOD BLVD. AND ALLOW-
ING ACCESSES TO PARKING LOT ON EAST SIDE
OF COMMERCE BLVD. (TONKA WEST CENTER) TO
REMAIN OPEN WITH "ENTER ONLY" RESTRIC-
TIONS WITH WORK TO BEGIN AS SOON AS POS-
SIBLE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
AMENDMENT TO SOLID WASTE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
(RECYCLING)
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to amend the 1988
Solld Waste Agreement No. 90351 with Hennepin County as
proposed by Hennepin County. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - MEChaNICaL CONTRACTORS
The Building Official explained that this ordinance is.being
brought back to the Council amended as they asked at the last
meeting. The Council discussed competency testing. The Building
Official will check to see if Mound can use Minnetonka's testing
procedure.
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #25-1989
AND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 311:00
AND 311:05 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
MECHANICAL AND GAS PIPING PERMITS AND
REGISTRATION OF CONTRACTORS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
LICENSE RENEWALS & NEW LICENSES
The following are license renewals:
Bowling - $ lanes - Mound Lanes & Pizza
Games of Skill - 2 - A1 & Alma"s
5 - Mack's Jock Club
Juke Box - 1 - American Legion #398
1 - VFW #5113
Pool Table - 4 - Mack's Jock Club
2 - VFW #5113
Restaurant - A1 & Alma's
American Legion #398
Domino's Pizza #1974
D'Vinci's Mound
Happy Garden
Hardee's
House of Moy
Mack's Jock Club
Mound Lanes & Pizza
Taco Deli
VFW #5113
60
April 25, 1989
The following are new license applications:
Restaurant - Subway Sandwiches & Salads
Gamblinq Licenses - Off site - Northwest Tonka Lions
Class C (Bingo only) - VFW #5113
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
issuance of the above licenses contingent upon all required
forms, insurances, etc. being turned in. The vote was un-
animously in favor. Motion carried.
GARDEN LEASE
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve a gar-
den lease for Ray Kramer for Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 4,
L.P. Crevier,s Subdivision Part of Lot 36 Lafayette Park.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of $162,360.16, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
STORM SEWER REPAIR - EMERALD DRIVE
The City Engineer explained that there is an old storm sewer lo-
cated in Emerald Drive, just northeast of its intersection with
Wilshire Blvd. that over this winter apparently broke out a sec-
tion of the pipe and the subgrade of the street keeps washing
into the opening. He then presented the proposal to repair this
area from Widmer which includes replacing approximately 98 feet
of 24" R.C.P., a new manhole and outlet structure at a cost of
$9,714.50.
MOTION made by~ Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to authorize the
replacement of an old storm sewer located in Emerald Drive,
.just northeast of its intersection with Wilshire Blvd. to be
done by Widmer at acost of $9,714.50. The vote was unanim-
ously in favor. Motion carried.
COUNTY ROAD 15 - ADDITIONAL CONCRETE
The City Engineer explained that there is an area approximately
40" wide between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the
sidewalk that is proposed to be sodded. The area in Mound af-
fected extends from just east of Wilshire Blvd. to approximately
Northern Road. Orono and Spring Park have already requested the
County to fill this with 4" thick concrete because sod will not
live in the area with the salt/sand in the winter. The County
has quoted a price of $2.20/S.F. l~ss $.34, their share of the
cost for a net cost to the City of $1.86/S.F., a total of ap-
proximately $23,622. Public Works and the City Engineer
61
April 27, 1989
recommend this area be paved to eliminate future maintenance
problems, not only from snow removal, but also dead sod.
The Council discussed this and the County Road 15 beautification
project.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith directing the City
Manager to find an alternative to concrete that would look
better than concrete for the area extending from just east
of Wilshire Blvd. to approxlmately Northern Road. This is
to be brought back to the next Council Meeting. The vote
was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. Motion carried.
WAIVER OF WAITING PERIOD FOR OFF-SITE GAMBLING LICENSE
MOTION made by Smith, seconded the Jessen to waive the 60
day waiting period for an off site gambling permit for the
Northwest Tonka Lions, for Friday, June 9th, at the Pond
Arena. The City Clerk will notify the Charitable Gambling
Commission of the waiver. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
COMMUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL
The City Clerk explained that the West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board (WHHS) has asked Mound, Spring Park and Wayzata to
jointly participate in a program to provide energy conservation
services to the residents of those cities. The program would be
administered by WHHS and the funds would come from the utilities
to pay for the service and Community Energy Council Grant funds
from the Minnesota Department of Public Service to cover ad-
ministrative costs. The programs provided would be home energy
audits and weatherization.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-47
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A JOINT COM-
MUNITY ENERGY COUNCIL BETWEEN THE CITIES
OF MOUND, SPRING PARK AND WAYZATA
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-48
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MOUND TO ACT AS
LEAD COMMUNITY IN INITIATING A JOINT
AGREEMENT WITH SPRING PARK AND WAYZATA
FOR THE SUBURBAN ENERGY CONSERVATION
PROGRAM TO BE FUNDED BY MINNEGASCO,
NORTHERN STATES .POWER AND THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA'S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERV-
ICE, ENERGY DIVISION
62
April 25, 1989
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #89-49
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GP. kNT FORM AP-
PLICATION FOR THE COMMUNITY ENERGY COUN-
CIL GRANT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
ae
March 1989 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman,
Finance Director.
B. Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 1989.
C. Park Commission Minutes of April 13, 1989o
D. LMCD Minutes of March 29, 1989.
Ee
Memo from Senator Gen Olson regarding S.F. 1129 and. S.F.
187, two bills that would affect Lake Minnetonka and Mobile
Home Parks.
Fo
Program Schedule for the Annual League of Minnesota cities
Conference to be held~June 6-9, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel
in downtown Minneapolis. The annual conference is an event
that I would recommend you attend. Let Fran know, if you
wish to attend, by May 19, 1989.
Ge
In conjunction with the LMC Conference, the National League
of Cities is sponsoring a one-day seminar called "Strategies
and Steps for a Dynamic Downtown". This will be held on
Tuesday, June 6th, from 8 AM to 5:30 PM. The LMC Conference
begins at 6:30 PM. The NLC seminar will also be held at the
Hyatt. I would recommend this to you as well. This seminar
may be valuable for our newly created Economic Development
Commission (EDC). If you have no objection, I will inform
the EDC at its first meeting, of this seminar, and I will
indicate to them that the City will pay their registration.
The Council agreed to paying the registration fees for the
EDC.
News Release from Hennepin County Board of Commissioners en-
titled, "Recycle Plastic - Don't Throw It Away and Don't Ban
It".
city of Mound received an award at the annual Recycling
Luncheon sponsored by Hennepin. County on April 19th. Mound
was awarded by achieving the County's 1988 Goal of Recy-
cling 9% of the solid waste stream. The award was presented
to Mayor Smith by Hennepin County Commissioner Randy
J®
63
April 25, 1989
Johnson.
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) has
developed a brochure on understanding property tax impact.
It is entitled "Property Tax Impact Made Understandable,,.
The Citizen's Task Force on Public Facilities has requested
that the City Council appear at their next meeting to dis-
cuss informally the Task Force's work. Please plan on at-
tending the meeting. It will be held Thursday, May 4 1989
7:00 PM, City Hall. ' '
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at
10:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, LMC, City Clerk
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-808
RESOLUTION 89-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO ALLOW A SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
LOTS 23 & 24, BLOCK 12, WOODLAND POINT; PID #13-117-24-12-0209
(5101- WOODLAND ROAD); P&Z CASE #89-808
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied For a variance to allow a
detached accessory building within 2 Feet of the south property
line and 1.5 Feet to the east property line For Lots 23 & 24,
Block 12, Woodland Point; PID #13-i17-24-12-0209; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the r-2 Single
Famtly Zoning District according to the City Code, which requires
a 4 foot rear and side yard setback for accessory buildings, a
maximum of 10 percent of the lot area For accessory buildings
with an 840 square feet maximum Floor area; and
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al-
terations may be made to a building containing a lawful conform-
ing use which will improve ~he livability thereoF; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and does recommend approval due to the topography.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE It RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City oF Mound, Minnesota, as Follows:
That the City does hereby authorize the applicant's request
'to construct the accessory building with a 2 Foot setback to
the south property 'line and a 1.5 foot setback to the east
property line at 5101 Woodland Road; PID #13-117-24-12-0209.
The City Council authorizes the structural setback violation
and. authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to
Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconForm-
ing use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions
oF Section 23.404.
It is determined that the residential unit will be improved
to afford the owner reasonable use of his property by
authorizing the construction of a detached accessory build-
ing within 2.0 feet to the south 1or line and 1.5 feet to
the east property line which allows For a 2.0 Foot and a 2,5
foot variance, respectively, upon the following conditions:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Page Two
Case No. 89-808
ae
The owner provide rain water gutters to divert water
away from the adjacent property at the slope 13ortion of
the roof.
be
The walls and the ceiling of the detached accessory
butlding wtll require I hour fire resistive construc-
tion as per the provisions of the Uniform Building
Code.
Ce
The eave 'dimensions will be limited to 12 Inches or
less.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lots 23 & 24, Block lZ, Woodland Point; PID #13-
117-24-12-0209.
Thls variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
with the Registrar of Titles In Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing
this resolution wtth Hennepln County and paying ali costs
for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued
unttl proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, l~B9
Case No. 89-80B: David & Vfrqtnta Herzenach, 510! Woodland
Road~ Block 127 Lots 23 & 24~ Woodland Point? PID #13-1]?-
2~-12-0209. SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants revtsed
request. The applicant has presented a new proposal to construct
an 18' x 25' detached garage ]-I/Z feet from' the east/side and Z
feet' from the south/rear, property lines. The required side and
rear yard setbacks are 4 feet with a 5 foot setback from the
house.
Staff recommends approval of a 2-1/2 foot side yard variance and
Z foot rear yard variance to construct an lB' x 25' Oetached ac-
cessory building upon the following conditions:
They provide rain gutters to divert water run-off away from
the adjacent property.
The walls and ceiling of the accessory building wtthtn 3
feet of the property line shall be constructed to meet the
Uniform Building Code for a ! hour fire resistive construc-
tion.
The eave dimensions be limited to IZ inches or less.
MOTION made by Michael., seconded by Jansen to approve stale
recommendation.
Andersen commented that Sohns had wanted it mentioned that he
does not agree with granting the rear yard variance because the
applicant is proposing an extra 5 feet in length to afford a work
Dench in the garage·
Motion carried with five in ~avor, three opposed (those in
favor: Thal, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Hlchael; those op-
posed Weiland, Andersen, Smith).
The opposing Commissioners stated their reason for opposing was
the 5'foot work area.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
Planning Commission Minutes
'April 10, 1989
Page Four
Case No. 89-808: David & Virginia Herzenach, 510! Woodland
Road~ Block 12, ,Lots 23 & 24~ Woodland 'Point, P1D #13-117-
24-12-0209. SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants reauest.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 15' x 25' detached
garage 6" from the east/slOe and 6" From the south/rear pro~erty
lines. The required side and rear yar~ setbacks are 4 feet with
a 5 foot setback from the house.
Staff recommends approval of a 3 foot side and rear yard variance
to construct an 18'..x 2q' detached accessory building with a
foot setback to the east and south property lines upon the fol-
lowing conditions=
They provide rain gutters to divert water run-off away from
the adjacent property. :
,'The walls dE the accessory building within 3 6eat dE the
property line shall be constructed to meet the Uniform
Building Code Eot a I hour fire resis%tve construction.
The eave dimensions be limited to 6' inches'or less·
Mr. Herzenach spoke on his behalf, and stated his neighbors
garage is 3' from their property line on the east side. He added
that they would like to construct the garage with a 2 foot over-
hang which would create 2 to 2-1/2 feet between the overhangs.
Wetland commented on the hazard this would create for fir,figh-
ters with the buildings so close. The Commission discussed pos-
sible alternatives for the placement~of the garage, and the pos-
sibility dE reducing the size requested. Mr. Herzenach stated
that the depth of 25 feet was to allow a 5 foot area with a
workbench. The Commission agreed that the proposed setbacks were
too close.
MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Michael to approve staff
recommendation.
The commission discussed with the applicant other alternatives
and offered them a chance to return with a new plan. They agreed
to research their options.
MOTION withdrawn by Thai and Michael.
HOTION made by Thai, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the
variance request until the applicant can research other al-
ternatives. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission Informed the app! icant that they wi 1 i hear the
case again in two weeks if they have a revised plan by that time.
CITX,' ()f lOt,, ND
534~ MAYWOOD PC, AD
MOUND MINNE~OTA~,£3~"
(612, 472-1155
CASE NO. 89-808
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~/~
Planning Commission Agenda of April 10, 19B9
CASE NO.: 89-808
APPLICANT: David & Virginia Hertzenach
LOCATION: 5101 Woodland Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lots 23 & 24, Block 12, Woodland Point
PID #13-117-24-12 0209
SUBJECT: Side and Rear Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicant has applied for a side and rear yard
setback to place a detached garage 6 inches from the east and
south property lines to the rear of his lot.
The R-2 zoning district requires a 4 foot side yard and 4 Foot
rear yard setback for detached accessory buildings and a 5 foot
setback from the existing, dwelling.
COMMENTS: The request to set the detached garage in the
,southeast corner of the property is a good proposal as the Finch
Lane property line has a block retaining wall 5 to 6 Feet in
height. The existing driveway access is From the north, Woodland
Road, at the present time. However, it may pose a drainage
problem to have the eaves and roof line within 6 inches of the
property line at the east and south. If the garage were shifted
Further to the west, the applicant feels the building would shade
the house a considerable amount and the rear yard is very small
in square Feet. Possibly the garage could be pulled to the west
and north to allow at least I foot tO the property line with rain
gutter to direct water to the north onto the existing driveway.
Page Two
Case No. 89-808
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 3 foot side and
rear yard variance to construct an 18' x 25' detached accessory
building with a 1 foot setback to the east and south property
lines upon the following conditions:
They provide rain gutters to divert water run-off away from
the adjacent property.
The wails of the accessory building within 3 feet of the
property line shall be constructed to meet the Uniform
Building Code for I hour fire resistive construction·
The eave dimensions be limited to 6 inches or less.
The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be
referred to the City Council on April 25, 1989.
P.S. April 18, 1989
As requested by the Planning Commission, Mr. Hertzenach has sub-
mitted a scaled drawing of the yard and buildings. He has
revised his original request for a variance to allow a one foot
overhang within 1-1/2 to 2 feet to the Side and rear property
lines. His usable yard space is very small due to the topog-
raphy and moving the garage/workshop will increase the shadowing
of his yard·
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the revised request upon the
condition that the owner provide rain gutters to divert water run
off away from the adjacent property at the sloped portion of the
roof; the wails and possibly the ceilings in the detached build-
ing will require 1 hour fire resistive construction as per the
provisions of the Building Code; and the eave dimensions be
limited to 12 inches or less.
L8~0'~8~' (7, L9) 3NOH8 · 60L(J(:J ~'.LOS3NNIR '-lr¢~'a 'J.S · 9g AYt~,~HOIH IS¥3 C~LLL
c!TT OF .OUND
PART II Case
Date Ftlecl
Fee. $50.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING CONNISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property -~/0/ /~q)6/~D Ag, ~4Q~D .
I%
~ner's Name ~4~8 ~V/Z~)~}~ ~~~ Day Phone ~/-~~[~~
Applicant's Name (if other ~hnn owner) ~ -' ~
Address'
Existt.ng Use of Property:
Zoning District ~-~__
Day Phone' -----
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this'property? yes /~. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolu~on numDer(s)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that a11 of the above statements and'the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
APP' I cane's S t'gnatupe ~Oj~J ~~/~..~2 ~/~J Date J4~SZ
IIIIIIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~ll/lllll~llllllllllllllll/l~ll/llllll
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
I lol
ANCE APPLICATION
Does the present use of the property conform to ali regulations for
in which it is locateJ?LxYe~(), No ( ). If
the
zoning
district
no,
specify each non-conforming use:
v
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located?
(72~(), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics o~ the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for a~y of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
(~.) too narrow (~) topography ( ) soil
" -(~) too.small ( ). drainage ' ' ( ) sub-surface
' ( ) too shallow ( ) ~hape ( ) other: specify
Was the hardship ~desc~ribed above created by the action of anyone
having property int/e~ests in the land after the zoning ordinance was
adopted? Yes' ( ), ~_~ ( ). If yes, explain
Se
Was the hardship created by anx ~ther man-made change, such
re]ocati'on of a road? Yes ( ), ~) ( ). If yes, explain
as the
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a va~ance
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? ~es~)( ),
No (). I~ no, how many other properties are similarly affec~-~d?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that wtil permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? .(Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions a~d writ-
Will granting oE 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-I/2"x11" stze. If larger
drawinqs are submitted? one must be 8-.l/Z"xlI"? and I5 larger 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 following information:
Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed= (Lot(s),
building(s), drlveway(s)/street access, off-street'parking, and
utilities.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building-and front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots·
Location of= signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
[ndtcate "north" compass direction.
Any additional information as may.reasonably be required by ~e
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance·
March 13, 1989
~'o whom it may concern:
David and Virginia Herzenach are planning on building a
garage. There are no concerns on the parts of Linda Rus~et~
or Gregory Cote as owners of the adjoining property at 16~!
~! ~ ~ if the planned garage boarders on the
property line. It is also not a problem if the overha~g
exceeds the property line as long as it does not exce~.?,~l t.'.,,.~o
feet.
Si~ed:
Linda Russeth
ROY C. CARl. SON, PRES.
t0600$HERIDAN AVl='. $0.
881'4870
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LAND SURVEYORS
Licensed, Insured & Bon..ded
WOODLAND
ROAD
WlLLI/,i
65431
.%
, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~.' .,-~ ~,~ .
' ,, /~-~: _.-~.v'~ /,,.~'
~ [~ ~, . ':1 ~ '
· __ ,'~ ~.~': ):..~
--""d ..... ......
". ,~ / /
" .: ~ ,~ L_ ,, ~a /
,~' . ~ ~ ~,~ ~/-/~'
.*. - ~ ~/~ =-',,,-
.
Proposed ~p fo~d&~loA [8 10
We horooy oortify ~hst th~s ~ ~ ~rue end oorr~ ~e~rooen~on of t surve~ of ~o
~unduries of ~ho ~and abov~ described and of the
~ us %hi8 16th da7 of Au~us~p 1971,
~linn. Re~, No. 5648
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-810
RESOLUTION #89-
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR
LOT 2, WILBUR K. PALM ADDITION; PID #24-117-24-13-0027
(2636 WILSHIRE BLVD.); P&Z 89-810
WHEREAS, the applicant has appited For a variance to recog-
nize an existing nonconforming Front yard setback of 17.8 feet
and nonconforming lakeshore setback of 45 Feet (+/-) to allow
structural modifications For a kitchen addition and a one stall
single story attached garage for Lot 2, Wilbur K. Palm Addition;
PID #24-117-24-13-0027; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I
Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code
requires a 50 Foot setback to lakeshore, l0 Foot side yard. set-
backs, and a 30 Foot Front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al-
. teratl°ns may be made to .a building containing a lawful noncon-
Forming residential unit When the alternation will improve the
livabIlity thereof, but the alteration may not increase the num-
ber of units; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and does recommend approval with modifications to the application
due to the shallowness of the parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as Follows:
That the City does hereby authorize the existing nonconform-
Ing principal structure setback to iakeshore and Front
~roperty line at 2636'Wtlshfre Blvd.; PID #24-117-24-13-
0027, with a 17.8 foot front yard setback and a 45 foot
(+/-) lakeshore setback·
The CIty Council authorizes the existing structure setback
violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below pur-
suant to 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful nonconforming
use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of
Section 23.404.
PROPOSED RESOLUT! ON
Page Two
Case No. 89-810
It is determined that the livability of the residential unit
will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to
a nonconforming use property due to the shallowness of the
parcel:
A one story garage addition will be added within lO
feet oF the Front property line requiring a 20 Foot
front yard setback as shown on exhibit I.
b. An interior kitchen and dining room addition within 44
feet of lakeshore requiring a 6 Foot lakeshore setback
variance the addttion to the southeast property line
wtthin 10 feet of the west boundary and the addition to
the west of 5 feet al lowing a 30.2 foot setback as
This variance is granted For the Fol lowing legally described
property: Lot Z, Wilbur K. Palm Addition, rID #24-117-24-
l 3-0027.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
with the Registrar oF Titl'es in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used·
5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying ali costs
For such recording. The building permit shall not be issued
until proof of recording has been Filed with the City Clerk.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 1989
Page Three
MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Jensen to approve staff
recom~endation.
Andersen commented that Sohns had wanted it mentioned that he
does not agree with granting the rear yard variance because the
applicant is proposing an extra 5 feet In length to afford a work
bench in the garage.
Motion carried with Ftve tn favor, three opposed (those In
Favor: Thal, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Michaell those ~
posed Wetland, Andersen, Smith).
The opposing CommisSioners stated their reason for opposing was
the 5 foot work area.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9, ]989.
Case No. 89-810= Paul Olson~ 2636 Wtlshire Blvd.? Lot 2~
Wilbur K. Palm Addttton~ PID #24-117-24-13-0027. LAKESIDF
AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants
revised proposal to add an attached one story single vehicle
garage requiring a 20 Foot front yard variance, and a one story
kitchen addition at the east end of the house. The kitchen addi-
tion has been revised to meet the front and side yard setbacks,
however will require a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance.
Staff recommends approval of the garage addition and the kitchen
addition creattng a 20 foot front yard setback variance and a 6
Foot lakeshore setback variance upon the condition that the ex-
isting dwelling is above the Ordinary High Water Elevation of
933.5 N.G.V.D. for Lake Mfnnetonka. The elevation must be
verlfied by a Registered Land Surveyor.
The Commission confirmed that the existing garage ts ]7.8 feet
from the front property line, therefore it is already encroach-
ing. It was noted that due to the location of the paved surface
of County Road #]25, the proposed garage addition will be 24 feet
~rom the paved surface of the road. Thal stated that h'e feels
the proposed garage will be projecting too close to the front
property line.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen, to recommend ap-
proval dE staff recommendation. Motion carried with seven
in Favor, one opposed (those In favor: Andersen, Weiland,
Meyer, Jansen, Ciapsaddle, Smith, Michael; one opposed:
Thai>.
This case will heard by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
PROPOSED RESOLUTI ON
Page Two
Case No. 89-810
it is determined that the livabtlity of the residential unit
will be Improved by authorizing the Following alterations to
a nonconforming use property due to the shallowness of the
parcel:
A one story garage addition will be aOded within lO
feet Of the front property line requiring a 20 foot
front yard setback as shown on exhibit 1.
b. An interior kitchen and dining room addition within 44
Feet of lakeshore requiring a 6 foot lakeshore setback
variance the addition to the southeast property line
within 10 feet of the west boundary and the addition to
the west of 5 feet allowing a 30.Z foot setback as
shown on exhibit 1.
4. This variance Is granted for the following legally described
property: Lot 2, Wilbur K. Palm Addition, PID
I3-00Z7.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
with the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of 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.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 1989
Page Three
MOTION made by Michael, seconded by densen to approve staff
recommendation.
Andersen commented that Sohns had wanted it mentioned that he
does not agree with granting the rear yard variance because the
app)fcant is proposing an extra 5 feet in length to afford a work
bench in the garage.
Motion carried with five In favor, three opposed (those In
Favor= Thal, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Michael; those op-
posed Welland, Andersen, Smith).
The op~ostng CommisSioners stated their reason for opposing was
the 5 foot work area.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9, ]989.
Ce
Case No. 89-810: Paul Olson? 2636 Wilshtre Blvd., Lot 27
Wilbur K. Palm Addition, rID #24-1]7-24-13-0027. LAKESIDE
AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants
revised proposal to add an attached one story single vehicle
garage requiring a 20 Foot front yard variance, and a one story
kitchen addition at the east end of the house. The kitchen addi-
tion has been revised to meet the front and side yard setbacks,
however will require a 6 Foot iakeshore setback variance.
Staff recommends approval of the garage addition and the kitchen
addition creating a 20 Foot Front yard setback variance and a 6
foot lek.shore setback variance upon the condition that the ex-
isting dwei)tng is above the Ordinary High Water Elevation of
933.5 N.G.V.D. for Lake Minnetonka. The elevation must be
verified by a Registered Land Surveyor.
The Commission confirmed that the existing garage is lT.B feet
From the front property line, therefore it is already encroach-
tng. It was noted that due to the location of the paved surface
of County Road #125, the proposed garage addition will be 24 feet
from the paved surface of the road. Thal stated that he feels
the proposed garage will be projecting too close to the front
property llne.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen, to recommend ap-
proval of staff recommendation. Motion carried with seven
in favor, one opposed (those in Favor: Andersen, Weiland,
Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Smith, Michael; one opposed:
Thai).
This case will heard by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
Case No. 89'-810: e Paul Oison~ 2636 Wflshtre Blvd.? Lot 2t
Wilbur K. Palm Addition, PlO ~24-117-24-13-0027. SIDE YARD
AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
The Bullcllng Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the ampllcants
proposal to. aclcl a one story single vehicle garage onto a single
vehicle attached garage with a second Floor, and a one story ad-
dition tO the southeast side of the house For a kitchen expan- '
sion, The garage woulcl be 10 feet to the northwest side yard and
10 Feet to the southwest ~=ront yard creating a 20 foot ~ront yard
variance. The kitchen exl~ansion would be al~l=roximately 4 feet to
the southeast side yard creating a 6 Foot side yard variance and
45 Feet to the lakeshore creating a 5 Foot lakesiOe variance.
County Road #125:has the paved surface of the road approximately
24 Feet From the proposed garage addition, however, there t s a
storm sewer system to the northeast of the pavement.
Staff.recommends only the one story garage addition to afford the
owner reasonable use of their property upon the condition that
the existing dwelltng is above the Ordinary High Water Elevation
of 933.5 N.G.V.D. For LaNe Minnetonka and it does not interfere
with the storm sewer system. Staff would recommend dental of the
kitchen addition encroachment Into the required side yard setback
which may require rearrangement of the Interior layout of the
dwelltng to allow For a larger kitchen. The kitchen addition
would only extend toward the lake another 4 Feet which is Fairly
insignificant compared to the proposed side yard setback.
Scott Moen, Attorney spoke on behalf of the owners, Dee and Paul
01son, Mr. Moan Informed the Con~nlsston that presently there is
a carport where the proposed garage w111 be constructed. He also
noted a change in the kitchen expansion, they' have re-designed
the addition to encroach only 3'5" to the southeast side yard,
therefore they are requesting only a 5'?" variance. Mr. Moan
added that with this addition they will be 28' From the neighbors
house. Mr. Moen read a letter from the owner, Paul Olson, since
he was unable to attend.
The Commission discussed alternatives for the kitchen expansion,
noting that there is plenty of yard space on the front of the
house For an expansion. Thai commented that he ts opposed to the
garage expansion. Jensen explained if the 01sons were to place a
detached garage with the door facing the side lot line they are
allowed to place the structure 8 Feet From the Front property
line.'
MOTION made be Sohns, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
staff recommendation. Morton carried wlth seven tn Favor (Sohns,
Weiland, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Smith, and Michael), and two
opposed (Andersen and Thal).
David Ruby, contractor for the Olsons, stated that he Feels the
Commission Is Inconsistent with their deciSion making. The Com-
mission discussed giving the applicant another chance to review
their options For a kitchen expansion.
MOTION withdrawn by Sohns and Clapsaddle.
Planning Commission Minutes
April ]0, ]989
Page Seven
NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Sohns to ~able 1:he
var i ante un= ! ! the app I i cant can l=ur~cher exp i ore ~he ! r Ol3-
~ 1 OhS for a k ! ~chen expans t on. Not i on cart t ed unan t mous ! y.
Thls case wtll be heard by the Planntng Commission at thetr
meeting on Aprtl 25, 1989.
·
l'O:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
dan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of April 10, 1989
CASE NO.: 89-810
APPLICANT:
Covenant Construction Co.
7904 73rd Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN
OWNER: Mr. Paul Olson
LOCATION: 2636 Wilshire Blvd.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Wilbur k. Palm additioh
SUBJECT: Side Yard and Front Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to add a one story addition
to a single vehicle attached garage with a second floor living
space above and a one story addition to the southeast side of the
existing house for a kitchen expansion. The garage addition
would be lO feet to the northwest side yard and lO feet to the
southwest front yard; the kitchen expansion would be ap-
proximately 4 feet to the southeast side yard and 45 feet to the
lakeshore Ordinary High Water level. The existing structure is
48 feet +/- from the Ordinary High Water level.
The R-I zoning district requires a 50 foot setback to the Ordi-
nary High Water level, a 30 foot front yard setback, and 10 foot
side yard setbacks for lots of record with a lot width of 100
feet.
COMMENTS: The lot is very level to the lakeshore with a slight
embankment to the water. The survey submitted did not give the
finish Floor elevation of the slab on grade existing structure.
County Road #i25 has the paved surface of the road approximately
24 feet from the proposed garage addition, however, there is a
storm sewer system to the northeast of the pavement. The
neighbor's lot has a one stall garage at the present time plus lO
feet to the southeast lot line. The lot. is shallow considering
the setback requirement of 50 feet from the lakeshore and 30 feet
from the front property line which leaves a building envelope of
24 Feet.
CASE NO. 89-810
Page Two
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend only the one story garage
aOdition to afford the owner reasonable use of their property
upon the condition that the existing dwelling is above the Ordi-
nary High Water Elevation of 933.5 N.G.V.D. For Lake Minnetonka
and it does not interfere with the storm sewer system. Staff
would recommend denial of the kitchen addition encroachment into
the required side yard setback which may require rearrangement of
the interior layout of the dwelling to allow for a larger kit-
chen. The kitchen addition would only extend toward the lake
another 4 feet which is Fairly insignificant compared to the
proposed side yard setback.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This case will be referred to the City Council on April 25, 1989.
P.S. April 17, 1989
Since the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1989, the ap-
plicant, Covenant Construction Co., has revised their request to
allow a lO foot side yard, a 30 foot front yard, and a 44 foot
lakeshore setback. This is in addition to the attached 10' x 23'
one story garage. The kitchen addition will only be requesting a
6 foot lakeshore setback variance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the one story garage ad-
dition and the kitchen addition as revised from the April 10,
]989 Planning Commission meeting due to the shallowness of the
lot to afford the owner reasonable use of their property, upon
the 'condition that the .existing dwelling is above th Ordinary
High Water elevation of 933.5 N.G.V.D. for Lake Minnetonka. This
elevation must be verified by the Registered Land Surveyor, Jim
Kyro.
PART II
Date Filed ,,~--~q
Fee. $50.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the Following information.)
AOdress of Subject Property J
LOt ~ O)ock
Addition
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
/
lsting Use of PropeKty:
Zoning District
Has an application' ever been made for zoning, variance, co/~.ittonal use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this'property? yes /~?. If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution numOer(s)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized o~ficial of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of p~ting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law. /\ -- ~ ' .
Appltcant's S i'gnatur~~.,,'J~k? ~'XIi' Dat~3~/Yq
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Co~issioh Recommendation
Date
)Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is locate~ Yes ( ), No (~). If no,
specify 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 amy of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
(~) too narrow
· ( ) too .small
(' ) too shallow
( ) topography ( ) soil
(. ).drainage (' ) sub-surface
( ) ~hape (' ) other= specify
Was the hardship .desc, rfbed above created by the action of anyone
having property interests in the land after the zon!ng ordinance was
adopted? Yes' ( ), No (). !~= yes, explain
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the
relocatt'on of a road? Yes ( ), No (~). IF yes, explain
Itll '
lANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
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 wi1 1 permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanat ion.
11 I/ ' ' ~,
Wtll granttng of the variance be mal~erially ~etr~mental to~roper~y ~n
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordtnance~
PART III
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments? etc.~ must be submitted in 8-1/Z"xll" size. If larger
drawinqs are submitted? one must be 8-.l/2"xlI"~ and 15 larger 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 following information:
Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and
utilities.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and prinblpai 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.
~"ILL
SURVEY FOR~ Covenant Construction,Co.
DESCRIPTIONs Lot 2, WILBUR K. PAL~ ADDITION,
City of Mound, Hennepin County,
o Denotes Icon Honument [found and set]
I
M inn.
~."=20'
Due to snow and ice conditions the top of bank and the driveway locations
sbo~n ace approxi~ate,
13621 VINEWOOD LANE
DAYTON, MN 55?_7
SURVEY FOR~ Covenant Construction Co.
DE$CRIPTION~ Lot 2, WILBUR £. PALM ADDITION,
City Of Mound, Mennepin County,
o Denotes Iron Monument [found and set]
,'3
Due to snow and ice conditions the top of bank and the driveway locations
shown are approximate.
$5'
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws
of the State of Minnesgta.~,/Dated this 15th day of March, 1989.
B~/~~/ ~ , Minneso ~.icense No. 12267
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER a MAJOR SUBDIVISION
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THREE (3) TOWNHOUSE UNITS TO
BE CONSTRUCTED IN A B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED AT
5545 THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARK LAKE MINNETONKA,
PART OF LOT 27 AND PART OF GOVT. LOT 4, PID #13-117~24-22-
0023.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council oF the City oF
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341Maywood
Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1989 to consider the is-
suance oF a major subdivision and conditional.use permit For
three (3) townhouse units to be constructed in a B-2 General
Business District located at 5545 Three Points Blvd., Legal
description:
LaFayette Park Lake Minnetonka', Part oF L°t.27 and part oF
Government Lot 4, PID #13-117-24-22-0023.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above
wll'l b~ heard at ~hls meeting. -
Francene C. Cl~rk, City Cleri~
Published in "The Laker" April 25, I989 and May l, 1989.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT, PRELIMINARY
PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL AND APPROVAL O.F VARIANCES FOR
HARRISON SHORES ADDITION, PID NO. 13-117-24-22-0023.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 9, lg89
pursuant to the Mound Code of Ordinances to consider the issuance
of a conditional use permit to establish a multiple dwelling
structure in the General Business {B-2) zone, approval of a
preliminary plat {replat) for Harrison Shores Addition and the
approval of variances as further described herein; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, multiple family dwelling units are allowed in the
General Business (B-2) zone by conditional use permit in accordance
with Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition site is
appropriate for multiple family usage given its proximity to
downtown Mound, its access to Lake Minnetonka and existing multiple
family uses in the immediate, vicinity, notwithstanding its present
B-2 zoning; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the
immediate vicinity for purposes already permitted, nor will it
substantially diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site is unique in its
shape and alignment with 'Lake Minnetonka, the existence of a
municipal well house effectively bisecting the property and its
proximity to Three Points Boulevard. The site's unique shape,
alignment and proximity create unique problems in providing road
access to the property; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site plan results in
the follOwing variances:
2.
3.
4.
A 7,750 lot area variance for Block 1, and
A 94 foot lot width variance for Block 2, and
A 5 to 7 foot driveway width variance, and
A curbing materials variance from literal interpretation
of the standards found in Section 23.620.7 (4d) of the
Mound Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, strict imposition of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance upon the site would, due to the site's unique shape and
alignment and proximity to the municipal pump house, deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances would not confer upon
the applicant a special privledge that is denied by the city
ordinances to the owners of other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district; and
WHEREA~, the Planning Commission has reviewed the subject
request and does r.ecommend approval.
NOW, THEREFORE,~BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is hereby
granted, the preliminary plat is hereby approved and the variances
are hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
This approval is granted upon the fol~owing plans and
exhibits which are incorporated as a part of this permit
or as are modified herein:
Site Plan with Grading and Utilities dated
March 21, 1989.
Preliminary Replat, Harrison Shores Addition
dated March 21, 1989.
2- ~r~e siJ~e~plan and the preliminary replat refer~e~c, ed aba·are,
O~ ~ /sh~all/be ~odif~~t~s~?~ y_a~r/~ se)>~)<~ inX,.
~, /~h Sect'l'oi~2~3.620.7 of tl~e Mound Zoning
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan
for the site identifying the proposed locations of all
plant materials. Additionally, the plan shall identify
the genus and species of all plant materials, size at
installation and root form. The landscaping plan shall
be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to
issuance of foundation or building permits.
Grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the watershed district.
All bylaws, home owners articles of incorporation and
protective covenants shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney and filed prior, to full building permit
issuance.
2
Park dedication fees shall be paid in the amount of
$300.00 per unit.
10.
11.
Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the
LMCD.
Easement documents granting the City of Mound permanent
easement rights to the pump house property shall be
prepared at the expense of and by the applicant. Such
documents, shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney·
The driveway entrance to Threel.~oints Boulevard shall be
shifted westerly, a m-~~of~t-B-feet and grades revised
to meet the maximum City standard of 8%.
Easements shall be added to the final plat, sufficient.
to cover the City's needs for utilities and drainage as
determined by the City Engineer.
The following variances are approved by the Council.with
a finding that the site is unique and there are spec.ial
circumstances (as stated above) which would create a
hardship if variances are not approved:
Lot Area Variance, Block I - Block I is granted
a 7,750 square foot lot area variance from the
minimum requ~irement of 20,000 square feet under
the provisions of the B-2 zone. Block 1 is
effectively severed from the balance of the
property due to the placement of the municipal
pump house.
Block 2, Lot Width Variance - Block 2 is
granted a 94 foot lot width variance from the
120 foot ordinance requirement. Block 2
exceeds the 120 foot requirement in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed structures.
Driveway Width Variance - A 5 to 7 foot
driveway width variance is granted for all
interior access roads. The existence of the
municipal pump house precludes driveway widths
in excess of 20 feet.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER a MAJOR SUBDIVISION
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THREE (3) TOWNHOUSE UNITS TO
BE CONSTRUCTED IN A B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LOCATED AT
5545 THREE POINTS BLVD., LAFAYETTE PARK LAKE MINNETONKA,
PART OF LOT 27 AND PART OF GOVT. LOT 4, PID #13-117~24-22-
0023.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council oF the City oF
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, S341Maywood
Road, at ?:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1989 to consider the is-
suance oF a major subdivision and conditional.use permit For
three (3) townhouse units to be constructed in a B-2 General
Business District located at 554S Three Points Blvd., Legal
description:
LaFayette Park Lake Minnetonka', Part oF L°t.27 and part oF
Government Lot 4, PID #13-117-24-22-0023.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above
wtl'! b~ heard at 2his meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Cler~
Published in "The Laker" April 25, 1989 and May 1, I989.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY
PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FOR
HARRISON SHORES ADDITION, PID NO. 13-117-24-22-0023.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 9, 1989
pursuant to the Mou'nd Code of Ordinances to consider the issuance
of a conditional use permit to establish a multiple dwelling
structure in the General Business {B-2) zone, approval of a
preliminary plat {replat) for Harrison Shores Addition and the
approval of variances as further described herein; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, multiple family dwelling units are allowed in the
General Business {B-2) zone by conditional use permit in accordance
with Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition site 'is
appropriate for multiple family usage given its proximity to
downtown Mound, its access to Lake Minnetonka and existing multiple
family uses in the immediate vicinity, notwithstanding its present
B-2 zoning; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the
immediate vicinity for purposes already permitted, nor will it
substantially diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site is unique in its
shape and alignment with 'Lake Minnetonka, the existence of a
municipal well house effectively bisecting the property and its
proximity to Three Points Boulevard. The site's unique shape,
alignment and proximity create unique problems in providing road
access to the property; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site plan results in
the following variances:
2.
3.
4.
A 7,750 lot area variance for Block 1, and
A 94 foot lot width variance for Block 2, and
A 5 to 7 foot driveway width variance, and
A curbing materials variance from literal interpretation
of the standards found in Section 23.620.7 {4d) of the
Mound Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, strict imposition of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance upon the site would, due to the site's unique shape and
alignment and proximity to the municipal pump house, deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances would not confer upon
the applicant a special privledge that is denied by the city
ordinances to the owners of other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the subject
request and does recommend approval.
NOW, THEREFORE,~BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is hereby
granted, the preliminary plat is hereby approved and the variances
are hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
This approval is granted upon the following plans and
exhibits which are incorporated as a part of this permit
or as are modified herein:
Ae
Site Plan with Grading and Utilities dated
March 21, 1989.
Preliminary Replat,. Harrison Shores Addition
dated March 21, 1989.
The site plan and the preliminary replat referenced above
shall be modified to show a~]~_O_~ side yard setback in
conformance with Section~~of~ the Mound Zoning
Code.
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan
for the site identifying the proposed locations of all
plant materials. Additionally, the plan shall identify
the genus and species of all plant materials, size at
installation and root form. The landscaping plan shall
be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to
issuance of foundation or building permits.
Grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved
bY the watershed district.
All bylaws, home owners articles of incorporation and
protective covenants shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney and filed prior~ to full building permit
10.
11.
Park dedication fees shall be paid in the amount of
$300.00 per unit. ? ~ ~ ~Y /0 ~u ~~,~ ~
?
Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the
LMCD.
Easement documents granting the City of Mound permanent
easement rights to the pump house property shall be
prepared at the expense of and by the applicant. Such
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
The driveway entrance to Three Points Boulevard shall be
shifted westerly, a minimum of.~feet and grades revised
to meet the maximum City standard of 8%.
Easements shall be added to the final plat, sufficient
to cover the City's needs for utilities and drainage as
determined by the City Engineer.
The following variances are approved by the Council with
a finding that the site is unique and there are spec.ial
circumstances (as stated above) which would create a
hardship if variances are not approved:
Lot Area Variance, Block 1 - Block I is granted
a 7,750 square foot lot area variance from the
minimum requ-irement of 20,000 square feet under
the provisions of the B-2 zone. Block I is
effectively severed from the balance of the
property due to the placement of the municipal
pump house.
Block 2, Lot Width Variance - Block 2 is
granted a 94 foot lot width variance from the
120 foot ordinance requirement. Block '2
exceeds ~ the 120 foot requirement in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed structures.
Driveway Width Variance - A 5 to 7 foot
driveway width variance is granted for all
interior access roads. The existence of the
municipal pump house precludes driveway widths
in excess of 20 feet.
Curbing Materials Variance - A variance is
granted from the ~strict interpretation of
Section 23.620.7 (4d) to require concrete
curbing only along the east side of the
driveway area. Curbing along the entire drive
area is impractical due to snow removal
practices.
The applicant shall erect a stop sign conforming to
normal City standards at the intersection of the return
driveway loop and the main entrance drive.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following
legally described property:
Legal Description as per Attachment 1
PID ~ 13-1~17-24-22-0023
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the
County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin
County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595,
Subd, 4.
This shall be considered as a restriction on how this
property may be used.
14.
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
be issued until proof of recording has been filed
the City Clerk.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Address': 5545 Three Points Boul¢','ar~
County: Hcrmepin
C~,mer: Catalyst Properties, Inc.
Attachment '1
The East 125.00 feet of the West 400.00 feet. measured at right angles from
the West line of C~overnment Lot 4, Section 13, To~,u~ship 117 North, Rathe 24
West, of the following described property:
That part of Lot 27, Lafayette I~rk Lei- ~e Minneto~m, accordin_~ to the
'recorded plat t~hereof lying Southerly of the Southerly right-gf-~y line of
Three Points Boulevard and Northerly of a line, hereinafter referred to as
Line A, and w'nich begins at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 4
distant 1446.71 feet South from the k.%: corner of said Lot 4, said West line
havin_~ a bearing of North for the purposes of this description; thence North
89 degrees 55 minutes East a distance of 39~.34 feet; the[~ce 'South 5'3 de_~rees
46 minute's East a distance of 30.00 feet and there terminating,
~XCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as follows: Commencing
nt the said ,xS~ corner of Gore .rnment Lot 4; thence South (-assumed
bearing), along said West line of Lot 4; a d/stance of 1345.38
feet; thence South 84 degrees 40 minutes F~st a distance of
138.~4 feet; thence South 65 degrees 04 minutes East a distance
of 100.00 feet;' thence South 62 de~rees 26 minutes East a
dis~3_nce 6f 51.9 feet; t, hence South 85 degrees 16 .mimute~ 40
seconds East a distance of 101.41 feet to the point of beginning;
thence North ! degree 21 minutes East a distance of 25.00 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes West a distance of 101.72 feet
to the East line of the West 275.00 feet of 'said Lot 4, thence
South, along said East line to said point on a line ~ich bears
South 53 degrees 46 minutes East from said point of beginning;
t]%ence North 53 degrees 46 minutes West to said point of beginning.
Also, ~YCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as follo~: The East 100.00
feet of. the West 375.00 feet,'measured at right angles from the West line of
said Government Lot 4, of the North 100.00 feet of the South 530.00 feet
measured at right angles to and lying North of a line which is ~erpendicular
to said West line of Government Lot 4 and intersects said ~.icst line at a point
1525.00 feet South of said NM corner of Lot 4.
12.
13.
14.
D
Curbing Materials Variance - A variance is
granted from the strict interpretation of
Section 23.620.7 (4d) to require concrete
curbing only along the east side of the
driveway area. Curbing along the entire drive
area is impractical due to snow removal
practices.
The appl.icant shall erect a stop s.ign conforming to
normal City standards at the intersection of the return
driveway loop and the main entrance drive.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following
legally described property:
Legal Description as per Attachment 1
PID # 13-117-24-22-0023
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the
County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin
County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595,
Subd. 4.
This shall be considered as a restriction on how this
property may be used.
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.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Address': 5545 Three Points Boulevard
County: Hcr~epin
(~er: Catalyst Pro~rties, Inc.
Attachment" '1
The East 125.00 feet of the West 400.00 feet. measured at right angles from
the. West line of G-overnment Lot 4, Section 13, To~u%ship 117 North, Range 24
West, of the following described property:
That part of Lot 27, Lafayette ~rk La]ce Minneto]~a, according to the
recorded plat t~hereof 1.ving Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of
Three Points Boulevard and Northerly of a linc, hereinafter referred to as
Line A, and ~,"nich begins at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 4
distant 1446.71 feet South from the ,k.~? corner of said LOt 4, said West line
havin_~ a bearing of North for the purposes of this description; thence North
89 degrees 55 minutes East a distance of 395.34 feet; thence 'South 5'3 degrees
46 minute's East a distance of 30.00 feet and there terminating,
EfCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as follows: Commencing
mt the said N]~ corner of Government LOt 4; thence South (assumed
bearing), along said West line of Lot 4, a distance of 1345.38
feet; thence South 84 degrees 40 minutes East a distance of
138.94 feet; thence South 65 degrees 04 minutes East a distance
of 100.00 feet;' thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes East a
distance df 51.9 feet,; t~hence South 85 degrees 16-minutes 40
seconds East a distance of 101.41 feet to the point of beginning;
thence North 1 degree 21 minutes East a dis -tance of 25.00 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes West a distance of 101.72 feet
to the East line of the West 275.00 feet of 'said Lot 4, thence
South, along said East line to 'said point on a line ~ich bears
South 53 degrees 46 minutes East from said point of beginning;
t]]ence North 53 degrees 46 minutes West to said point of beginning.
Also, EfCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as fol!o~m: The East 100.00
feet of the West 375.00 feet,· measured at right angles from the West line of
said Government Lot 4, of the North 100.00 feet of the South 530.00 feet
measured at right angles to and lying North of a line which is perpendicular
to said West line of Government LOt 4 and intersects said %'cst line at a point
1525.00 feet South of said ,~ corner of Lot 4.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY
PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FOR
HARRISON SHORES ADDITION, PID NO. 13-117-24-22-0023.
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on May 9, 1989
pursuant to the Mound Code of Ordinances to consider the issuance
of a conditional use permit to establish a multiple dwelling
structure in the General Business (B-2) zone, approval of a
preliminary, plat (replat) for Harrison Shores Addition and the
approval of variances as further described herein; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, multiple family dwelling units are allowed in the
General Business (B-2) zone by conditional use permit in accordance
with Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition site is
appropriate for multiple family usage given its proximity to
downtown Mound, its access to Lake Minnetonka and existing multiple
family uses in the immediate vicinity, notwithstanding its present
B-2 zoning; and '
WHEREAS, the proposed Harrison Shores Addition will not be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the
immediate vicinity for purposes already permitted, nor will it
substantially diminish or impair property values within the
immediate vicinity; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site is unique in its
shape and alignment with Lake Hinnetonka, the existence of a
municipal well house effectively bisecting the property and its
proximity to Three Points Boulevard. The site's unique shape,
alignment and proximity create unique problems in providing.road
access to the property and in establishing conforming side yard
setbacks; and
WHEREAS, the Harrison Shores Addition site plan results in
the following variances:
A 7,750 lot area variance for Block 1, and
A 94 foot lot width variance for Block 2, and
3. A 5 to 7 foot driveway width variance, and
A curbing materials variance from literal interpretation
of the standards found in Section 23.620.7 (4d) of the
Mound Code of Ordinances, and
5. A 5 foot side yard setback variance; and
WHEREAS, strict imposition of the provisions of the zoning
ordinance upon the site would, due to the site's unique shape and
alignment and proximity to the municipal pump house, deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the granting of the variances would not confer upon
the applicant a special privledge that is denied by the city
ordinances to the owners of other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the subject
request and does recommend approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is hereby
granted, the preliminary plat is hereby approved and the variances
are hereby approved subject to the following conditions:
This approval is granted upon the following plans and
exhibits which are incorporated as a part. of this permit
or as are modified herein:
Site Plan with Grading and Utilities dated
March 21, 1989.
Preliminary Replat, Narrison Shores Addition
dated March 21, 1989.
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan
for the site identifying the proposed locations of all
plant materials. Additionally, the plan shall identify
the genus and species of all plant materials, size at
installation and root form. The landscaping plan shall
be submitted and approved by the City Planner prior to
issuance of foundation or building permits.
Grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved
by the watershed district.
All bylaws, home owners articles of incorporation and
protective covenants shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney and filed prior to full building permit
issuance.
2
10.
Park dedication fees shall be paid in the amount of
$300.00 per unit.
Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the
LMCD.
Easement documents granting the City of Mound permanent
easement rights to the pump house property shall be
prepared at the expense of and by the applicant. Such
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney.
The driveway entrance to Three Points Boulevard shall be
shifted westerly, a minimum of 15 feet and grades revised
to meet the maximum City standard of 8%.
Easements shall be added to the final plat, sufficient
to cover the City's needs for utilities and drainage as
determined by the City Engineer.
The following variances are approved by the Council with
a finding that the site is unique and there are special
circumstances (as stated above) which would create a
hardship if variances are not approved:
Lot Area Variance, Block I - Block I is granted
a 7,750 square foot lot area variance from the
minimum requirement of 20,000 square feet under
the provisions of the B-2 zone. Block I is
effectively severed from the balance of the
property due to the placement of the municipal
pump house.
Block 2, Lot Width Variance - Block 2 is
granted a 94 foot lot width variance from the
120 foot ordinance requirement. Block 2
exceeds the 120 foot requirement in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed structures.
Driveway Width Variance - A 5 to 7 foot
driveway width variance is granted for all
interior access roads. The existence of the
municipal pump house precludes driveway widths
in excess of 20 feet.
Curbing Materials Variance - A variance is
granted from the strict interpretation of
Section 23.620.7 (4d) to require concrete
curbing only along the east side of the
driveway area. Curbing along the entire drive
area is impractical due to snow removal
practices.
11.
12.
13.
Side Yard Setback Variance - Side yard setback
variances of 5 feet are granted due to the
unique shape of the site.
The applicant shall erect a stop sign conforming to
normal City standards at the intersection of the return
driveway loop and the main entrance drive.
This Conditional Use Permit is granted for the following
legally described property:
Legal Description as per Attachment 1
PID ~ 13-117-24-22-0023
This Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the
County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin
County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3595,
Subd. 4.
This shall be considered as a restriction on how this
property may be used.
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 ~as been filed
with the City Clerk.
· Attachment 1
Address':
CountT:
C~.~ae r:
5545 Three Points Boulevard
~lom~d, )L~
Hermepin
Catalyst Properties, Inc.
The East 125.00 feet of the West 400.00 feet. measured at right angles from
the Mest line of C~overnment Lot 4, Section 13, To~,ulship 117 North,~Range 24
West, of the following described property:
That ..mart of Lot 27, Lafayette Par][ Lake ~linneto:~[a, according to the
recorded plat thereof lying Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of
~ree Points Boulevard and Northerly of a line, hereinafter referred to as
Line A, and ,2nich begins at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 4
distant 1446.71 feet South from the ~ corner of said Lot 4, said West line
having a bearing of North for the purposes of this description; thence North
89 degrees 55 minutes East a distance of 395.34 feet; thence 'South 53 degrees
46 minutes East a distance of 30.00 feet and there terminating,
~-fOEPT that part of said LOt 27 described as follows: Commencing
at the said }~ corner of Government Lot 4; thence South (assumed
bearing), along said West line of Lot 4, a distance of 1345.38
feet; thence South 84 degrees 40 minutes East a distance of
138.94 feet; thence South 65 degrees 04 minutes East a distm~ce
of 100.00 feet;' thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes East a
dis~3nce 6f 51.9 feet; ~hence South 85 degrees 16.minutes 40
seconds East a distance of 101.41 feet to the point of beginning;
thence North 1 degree 21 minutes East a distance of 25.00 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes West a distance of 101.72 feet
to the East line of the West 275.00 feet of 'said Lot 4, thence
South, alon~ said East line to said point on a line which bears
South 53 degrees 46 minutes East from saidpoint of beginning;
thence North 53 degrees 46 minutes West to said point of beginnin_~.
.Also, k~fCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as folloum: The East 100.00
feet of the West 375.00 feet,'measured at right angles from the West line of
said Government Lot 4, of the North 100.00 feet of the South 530.00 feet
measured at right angles to and lying North of a line which is perpendicular
to said West line of Government Lot 4 and intersects said West line at a point
1525.00 feet South of said ~ corner of Lot 4.
Planning Commission Minutes-
A~rll ]0, i989
Page Seven
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Sohns to tab! e the
variance until tJae applicant can ~=ur~her explore their
ttons For a kitchen expansion. Motion carrfecl unanimously-
This case will be heard by the Planning Commission at their
meeting on April 25, ]989.
ge
Case No. 89-811: Jon R. Nelson? 5545 Three Points Blvd.?
Part of Lot 27 & Part of Govt. Lot 4, Lafayette Park Lake
Minnetonka, PID #13-I17-24-22-0023.
(PUBLIC HEARING)? and
PRELIMINARY PLAT
Case No. 89-8]2: J~n R. Nelson, 5545 Three Points Blvd.?
Park of Lot 27 & Part of Govt. Lot 4~ Lafayette Park Lak~
Minnetonkat PID #13-llT-Z4-ZZ-OOZJ. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE (LOT SIZE? LOT WIDTH~ AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS)
(PUBLIC HEARING).
City-Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed applicant's requests:
'preliminary plat, conditional use permit, side yard setback
variance, driveway width variance, lot size variance, lot width
var-lance and curbing mater.tala variance· The applicant is
proposing to construct a three unit townhome~ in 1983 the City
approved the construction of a 9 unit condominium on this
property. The current proposal Features three units located
toward the rear of the parcel on Block 2. The plan meets ali off
street parking requirements·
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Harrison
Shores Addition dated March 21, I989, approval of the conditional
use permit and approval of the lot area variance For Block l, the
lot width variance For Block 2 and the driveway width variance
subject to the following conditions:
The a. pproval is granted consistent with the plan labeled
"Site Plan With Grading & Utilities" dated March 21, 1989.
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan For
the site identifying the proposed locations of all plant
materials. Additionally, the plan shall identify the genus
and species o~ all plant materials, size at' installation and
root Form. T~e landscaping plan shall be submitted and ap-
proved by the City Planner.
Grading, drainage and utility plans'are approved consistent
with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the watershed district.
Planning Commission Minutes
April lO, 19B9
Page Eight
All by-laws, home owners articles of incorporation and
protective covenants shall be reviewed anO approved~by the
City Attorney and filed with the final plat.
Park dedication Fees shall be paid in conformance with Sec-
tion 330:]20 of the Mound Subdivision Code.
Proposed docks shall be revieweO and approved ~y the LMCD.
Easement documents granting the City of Mound permanent
easement rights to the pump house property shall be prepared
at the expense of and by the applicant. Such documents
shall be reviewed and approved Dy the City Attorney.
Sohns clarified the City Planners recommendation as recommenda-
tion for approval of the proposal only excluding the side yard
setback variance and the curbing materials variance. The curbing
materials variance recommendation came From the City Engineer.
Discussion was raised regarding Block 1. Should it be allowed to
be separated from the development? It could be re-zoned in the
Future.to a]low residential construction; it is a buildable lot
if the plat is approved.
Jim Carver, Developer, introduced himself as representing don
Nelson. Dave Morse spoke on behalf of the development. Morse Is
not in favor of moving the driveway entrance as the City Engineer
has proposed. He stated that Lafayette Lane is encroaching on
the proposed Block 1. In response to the City Engineer's request
to keep the drive at or below a grade of 8% as determined by or-
dinance, Mr. Morse compared City Hall's driveway entrance to his
proposed drive which presently has about 'an 8-I/2% grade. He
would like the driveway to stay where it is because moving the
Orive wOuld make Block 1' smaller. Morse explained their inten-
tions.are to curb only the north side of the property. He stated
,it would be more difficult to plow snow with curbs on both siOes.
He also compared curbing to the townhouses next door which do not
have curds. Drainage was discussed·
Morse explained the reason for two 4.5' side yard setback
variances. This was proposed so three quality units could De
constructed in the space provided.
Morse referred to the Public Works Director's recommendation to
loop the 6" water main. Morse argued his reasons for not wanting
to loop the main: it is costly, other dead end'watermains are not
Flushed regularly and the water is good, he lives on a looped
main and says his water is not good.
Planning Commission Minutes
A~rJl 10, 1989
Page Nine
Dave Feerhusen, who was hired to market the proposed property,
spoke on the quality of the townhomes which they want con-
structed.
Dell Rudolph, a resident of Port Harrison Townhomes spoke on be-
half of their Association. He explained their concerns pertain
to the docks. He added they met with Dave Morse and he told them
they would make sure their view would not be obstructed by boats
or canopies. He also agreed to rtprap the shore.
Sylvia Ogren, dE 1756 Lafayette Lane, explained that her back
yard abutts what will be the driveway, on the north side. She is
concerned with snow dumping, does not want it on her yard. She
also requested that her shrubs, on the property line, be moved.
The Commission reviewed each of the variances separately and took
a show-of-hands on each.
Lot Area Variance, Block I - There was discussion regarding
disconnecting Block I From _the subdivision· The Commission
was in favor 7-2.
"Neck Lot, Block 2" - The Commission was in favor 7-2.
Side Yard Setback - The Commission was not in Favor of the
side yard variance 4-5. The Commission discussed denying
the variance For Financial purposes.
4. Driveway Width Variance - Unanimously in Favor.
Curbing Materials Variance - The Commission agreed that one
curb on the north side would De suFFicient, but the materfal
should be concrete. The Commission agreed that engineering
should determine the placement dE the curbing. The Commis-
Sion was unanimously in Favor.
Looping 'the Main - The Commission agreed that they should
not be making this decision, this should be done by the En-
gineer.
7. Driveway Entrance - Should be addressed by Engineer.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 10, 1989
Page ten
The Commission made several motions which
to make a series oF mottons For the case.
They concluded
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve' the
preliminary plat. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the
conditional use permit. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION made by' Smith seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the
lot area variance for Block [. Motion carried with seven tn
favor (Andersen, Thai, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Smith,
Michael), two opposed (Sohns and Weiland).
MOTION made by Smith seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the
"Neck Lot, Block Z" lot wto~ch variance. Motion carried'with
seven in favor (Andersen, Thal, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle,
Smith, Mtchael, Wetland), one opposed (Sohns).
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by 'Clapsaddle to approve the
side yard variances For ~4.5 Feet oR each sided Motlon
fa~led, with four in favor (Meyer, Clapsaddle, Smith,
Andersen) five'opposed (Sohns, Weiland, Thai, Jensen,
Michael).
MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to approve the
driveway width variance. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
Concrete curbing on. the east side. Motion carried unanim-
ously.
MOTION made by Clapsadd]e, seconded by Andersen, to approve
the staff recon~endations Items I through 8 and Engineer's
recommendation Items Z, 4, 5, & 6. Motion carried unani.m-
ously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
He...Ta.n ~er'cra. r~
Housing Iuspector
lound City ~11
53~1 ~m,o~ Roa~
RECEIVED MAY- 2 lS$ ;
Dear A~S. BERtrand I
I am concerned with the rca4 placement on the Jon Nelson Property
5~5 Three Points Boulevard. I doubt if there is much concern for
the ue.i.ghbors. I am not against the three to~nhouses, but it is
the road placement.
1. My southwest corner of the house is 10 feet from the lot line
and then it immediately is a greater distance because it is set
on an angle. We were not given a variance to place it closer.
2. ! have talked to the surveyors or' engineers (K and K_. . ) you.
gave me the number for and asked they come out and show me where
they are putting the line. As of yet they have not been out.
3. If there is a 25 foot allowance to~ the .property or for access, why
isn't the road place 5 feet to the west or from my line and then
flush or next to the city property. That makes more sense. It
will protect the trees more and also I will have less refuse from
the snow on my property. I know now there is always refuse of
dirt 'and small stones that are pushed over. And the village has
removed the snow to another area.
h. Why isn't the road moved further to the west after they get past
the city property instead of continuing to run it 2 1/2 feet from
my property. They are just destroying the trees on my tree line
and the naturalness of the property.
I have-:-tvo other meetings the evening of ~ay 9 so don't know what my
schedule will be. If this is not in your area, please give it to the
proper person.
Thank You,
Sincerely,/~ /
Syria Ogren~
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~
DATE: April 3, 1989
SUBJECT:
Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit, Side Yard
Setback Variance, Driveway Width Variance, Lot Size
Variance, Lot Width Variance and Curbing Materials
Variance
APPLICANT: Jon Nelson, Catalyst Properties, Inc.
· LOCATION: 5545 Three Points Boulevard, PID# 13-117-24-22-0023.
CASE NUMBERS: 89-311 and 89-312
VHS FILE NUMBER: 89-310-A9~Z0
EXISTING ZONING: B-2, General Business
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit
townhome project on 1.33 acres of land. The property which lies
south of Three Point.s Boulevard contains an exception area which
is the site of a pump house owned and operated by the City of
Mound. The southern end of the property abuts Lake Minnetonka.
This property was the site of a 9 unit condominium proposal in
1983.' That proposal called for the construction of a nine unit
'building on the southern portion of the site and a two unit
caretakers residence on the northern portion of the site. The plan
was approved by the City of Mound but was never constructed.
The townhouse proposal now being offered .features three units
located toward the rear of the parcel on Block 2. Access to the
site is via a 20 foot bituminous driveway which extends to the
south from Three Points Boulevard. Along 'the north side of the
units, the driveway forms a loop with a landscaped median area.
Within the median area are three visJtor parking stalls. Each of
the townhouse units has a two car garage and additional parking
area on each of the driveways. As proposed, the plan meets all off
street parking requirements.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis° MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
The current townhouse proposal involves city action on three items:
the preliminary plat, a conditional use permit and a variety of
variances. Each of these'components of the review process are
examined separately as follows:
Preliminary Plat
The applicant has submitted a preliminary plat in conformance with
the Mound Subdivision Code. The plat involves the separation of
two blocks. Four lots are created within one of the blocks. Block
one which contains 12,250 square feet is not proposed for
development as part of this proposal. Block two will contain a
total of four lots, one for each of the units and Outlot A which
will be held by a homeowners association. Block two is connected
to Three Points Boulevard via a 26' wide strip of land.
Conditional Use Permit
The subject property is zoned B-2, General Business. Under Section
23.630.3 of the zoning code, multiple dwelling structures are
conditional uses in the B-2 zone. Such uses are subject to the
requirements for multi-family dwellings identified in Section
23.620.7 (1-5).
Variances
As proposed, the plan results in a total of five variances.
include the following:
They
Lot Area Variance, Block I - Approval of the plat will result
in a total land area for Block i of 12,250 square feet. The
zoning code requires that all lots in the B-2 zone contain a
minimum of 20,000 square feet. Multi-family dwellings require
a minimum of 22,000 square feet. The application includes a
requested 7,750 square foot variance to allow Block I to be
used as a commercial site in the future.
Block 2 is being created as a large "neck" lot with
approximately 26 feet of frontage on Three Points Boulevard.
For multi-family dwellings, the Zoning Code requires a total
frontage of 120 feet resulting in a 94 foot variance. At a
distance approximately 220 feet into the site, Block 2
contains a total width of 126.72 feet.
Side Yard Setback - The multi-family provisions require 20
foot side yard setbacks. The plan proposes 15.5 foot setbacks
resulting in a 4.5 foot variance request on both the east and
west sides of the property.
Driveway Width Variance - City code requires that all
driveways and parking aisles serving multi-family structures
contain a minimum width of 25 feet. The proposal includes a
driveway width of 20 feet resulting in.a 5 foot driveway width
variance.
Curbing Materials Variance - The multi-family dwelling
provisions, Section 23.620.7 (4d) require that all interior
curbs be constructed of concrete and have a total height of
6 inches. The site plan identifies bituminous curbing around
most of the driveway and parking areas with a total height of
6 inches.
REVIEW COHMENTS: Consistent with the background information
presented earlier in this report, each of the required approvals
is reviewed as follows:
Preliminary Plat
The preliminary plat submittal meets the submittal requirements of
the Mound Subdivision Code. With the exception of the noted
variances, the plat is consistent with city code requirements.
Assuming that the lot size variance for Block I and the lot width
variance for Block 2 are acceptable, approval of the preliminary
plat is recommended.
Conditional Use Permit
In recent years, Mound has granted conditional use permit approval
for the construction of townhouses immediately southwest of .this
parcel. Given the fact that the land use to the east is single
family homes, the proposed development is appropriate and in
actuality, much less intensive that some of the commercial uses
that the zoning .ordinance allows in the B-2 zone. Approval of the
conditional use permit is recommended.
Variances
Lot Area Variance, Block I - The property identified on the
plans as Block I was effectively severed from the rear portion
of the property by the acquisition and development of the
City's pump house. Regardless of the size of the connected
parcels, the Block I area will always remain an isolated piece
of B-2 zoned land.
The future use of Block i does not specifically relate to the
proposed use of Block 2. Approval of the variance simply
~ecognizes that an undersized parcel was created by past
actions. At a future time, this parcel should be examined for
possible rezoning as a residential use. As a part of this
proposal, approval of the lot area variance is recommended.·
"Neck Lot, Block 2" - Acquisition and construction of the pump
house created the neck connection between Blocks I and 2.
When the applicant first met with staff to review plans for
the parcel, staff suggested that the preliminary plat
establish frontage on Three Points for each of the Blocks.
This suggestion was made to ensure the City that permanent
access was available to each of the parcels. Since the
placement of the actual units is on the southern end of the
property, the lot width is to some degree a technicality.
Approval of the 94 foot lot width variance is recommended.
Side Yard Setback - The proposed plan involves 4.5 foot side
yard variances. Under the Hound Zoning Code, variances are
granted in cases of undue hardship where factors outside of
the owners control require a slight bending of the rules. In
this case where new construction is occurring on vacant
property, staff does not feel that the proposal meets the
tests that are outlined in Section 23.506.1 of the Zoning
Code. Therefore, denial of the side y~ard variances is
recommended. If the Planning Commission and City Council
concur with this finding, building plans would need to be
modified to reflect the required 20 foot setback.
Driveway Width Variance - The connecting strip between the
front and rear portions of the subject site is 25 feet in
width. When this site was proposed for development in 1983,
it became very clear that the State Health Department would
not allow the City of Mound to either sell or allow portions
of the pump house site to be used for driveways or parking.
In order to allow some room on each side for winter snow
storage, a 20 foot driveway width is appropriate.
Additionally, the 20 foot width is adequate.in this case to
permit resident access, emergency vehicle access and municipal
'access to the pump house site. Approval of the driveway width
variance is recommended.
Curbing Materials Variance - The City Engineer is submitting
a report under separate cover reviewing a number of site
engineering issues including this item. Consistent with his
recommendation, denial of the curbing materials variance is
recommended.
R£COHMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
for Harrison Shores Addition dated March 21, 1989, approval of the
conditional use permit and approval of the lot area variance for
Block 1, the lot width variance for Block 2 and the driveway width
variance subject to the following conditions:
The approval is granted consistent with the plan labeled "Site
Plan With Grading & Utilities" dated March 21, 1989.
The applicant shall submit a detailed landscaping plan for the
site identifying the proposed locations of all plant
materials. Additionally, the plan shall identify the genus
and species of all plant materials, size at installation and
root form. The landscaping plan shall be submitted and
approved by the City Planner.
Grading, drainage and utility plans are approved consistent
with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
¸5.
Grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the watershed district.
All by-laws, home owners articles of incorporation and
protective covenants shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney and filed with the final plat.
Park dedication fees shall be paid in conformance with Section
330:120 of the Mound Subdivision Code.
Proposed docks shall be reviewed and approved by the LMCD.
Easement documents granting the City of Mound permanent
easement rights to the pump house property shall be prepared
at the expense of and by the applicant. Such documents shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
April 4, 1989
Telephone
612~76-6010
Facsimile
612~76-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
Harrison Shores Addition
Catalyst Properties, Inc.
Case #89-811 & 812
MFRA #6755
Dear Jan:
As requested, we have reviewed the plans submitted for' the above mentioned
subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations:
Grading and Drainage
The proposed contours shown on the north portion of the entrance from Three
Points Boulevard and one area of the circular drive indicate a grade over the
8~ allowed by ordinance. No Erosion Control Plan measures are shown on the
plan.
Access (Driveways and Parking):
The proposed entrance to the development has been left in its present
location with the additional width added to the west side. As you will note
from the plan, traffic exiting the development onto Three Points Boulevard will
actually cross the radius of an intersecting City street, Lafayette Lane. This
is not a good situation, since studies show that these three units will add, on
the average, 30 additional trips to this driveway, five in and 5 out per living
unit.
The plan indicates bituminous curb on the entrance and the outside edge of
the circular drive; whereas the zoning ordinance requires concrete curb and
gutter (Page 38, 4h). The inside edge of the circular drive should also have
concrete curb and gutter.
The zoning ordinance also requires that all driveways and parking aisles be
at least 25 feet in width (Page 38, 4d). We have reviewed the plan with Public
Works and the Fire Department and have determined that the 20 foot driveway and
18' circular turnaround would be adequate, but will require a variance.
The one-way traffic pattern, as shown for the circular turnaround, is not
consistent with most design practices. It appears the the one-way design used
An Equa~ Opportunity Employer
Ms. Jan Bertrand
April 4, 1989
Page Two
is because of the angle of the attached garages and the location of the
proposed parking area. We suggest a stop sign be placed where the one-way
intersects the entrance in addition to the appropriate one-way direction signs.
Utilities
The final plat will need to include 10 feet drainage and utility easements
on both the east and west lot lines and a 5' drainage and utility easement
along the northerly line adjacent to the City well site. In addition, a
utility easement 7-1/2 feet on each side of the watermain will be required. We
also looked at requiring that the watermain extension be continued to the
City's main at the pumphouse to complete a loop from Commerce Boulevard. Even
though a looped watermain would be very desirable, we do not consider it
absolutely necessary since there will be only seven living units on this line.
Since all three units will be served by one sanitary sewer service,
appropriate dialog needs to be included in the homeowners by-laws to cover
maintenance of subject service. Individual curb stops, located within the
utility easement, will be required for each water service.
General
The applicant will need to furnish evidence of compliance with all
governing agencies, such as D.N.R., M.C.W.D., L.M.C.D., Health Department,
etc., before City approval would be valid. The applicant will also need to
enter into a Development Contract with the City that contains a financial
guarantee such as bond or escrow fund.
Conclusions and Recommendations
We are recommending approval, subject to the following conditions:
Driveway entrance to Three Points Boulevard be shifted westerly, a
minimum of 15 feet and grades revised to meet the 8% maximum.
Five foot and seven foot variance be granted to allow for narrower
driveway.
Eliminate bituminous curbs and use concrete curb and gutter (Mn/DOT
B612).
Easements are added to the final plat, sufficient to cover the City's
needs for utilities and drainage.
5. Final approval by all other governing agencies.
Ms. Jan Bertrand
April 4, 1989
Pa§e Three
All improvements required under Section 330.00 of the City Code shall
be constructed by the developer at his/her sole cost. Development
contract executed, which includes financial guarantee in an amount
designated by the City Engineer.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jmj
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROA2
MOUND. MINNESOTA 5~=354
(612) 472-1155
April 6, 1989
TO:
Jan Bertrand
Building Inspector
FROM: Greg Skinner
Water & Sewer Sopt.
SUBJECT: Morse Triplex Addition
After reviewing Mr. Morse's plan, I have to recommend that the 6" water main
be looped instead of the pro. Psed deadline date.
Here are a few reasons for this recommendation;
1. There are only 3 units in this addition. This would cause us
to have to flush the proposed deadend monthly due to the
small amount of water that would be used by the residents,
thus causing stagnate water in the main. I have been in
contact with Mr. Micheal Piechowski from the State of Minne-
sota Health Department regarding their feelings on this
subject. It is their recommendation that any water main
installed be looped whenever possible. They strongly
object to deadend water mains.
o
The city already has 49 deadend water mains. Of these 49 dead-
ends, we have to flush these anywhere from monthly to every
2 months. This gets to be a timely and expensive procedure
for the Water Department. A high precentage of our rusty and
smelly water complaints come from residents who live on deadend
water mains. This also creates a pyoblem in the wintertime due to
freezing. Also Mr. Morse's plan does not indicate what type
of drainage would be in place. With the deadend main and constant
flushing, would the city be reponsible for any damage that this
will create.
In closing, the Water Department has a responsibility to insure that the future
owner's of these units receive only the highest quality of water, without
increasing operating cost (monthly flushing). The only way that this can be
assured is to have this 6" water main looped.
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, nationa or~G"~ :.' ~,ar:.~,car.'ped status
in the admission or access to. or treatment or employment in, ~ts proe~rams a~:; a':t,,,;t es
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION.OF LAND
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE 0F MOUND
FEE
FEE OWNER
Catalyst Properties, Inc.
?IDt: 13-117~24.22_0023
Localion ~ complete legal description of prc~erty lo be divided:
Locat£on: 5545 rLY~ee Points Bou].evaz~
Z~=.gal: (See a~:tar, hecl)
ZONING
To be. divided asfollows:
Block 1 = approximately 12,250 sc;.
Block 2= approximately 45,539 sq. ft., consisting of:
Lot 1, a 3,066 sq. ft. parcel
Lot 2, a 4,548 sq. ft. parcel
Lot 3, a 3,082 sq. ft. parcel and Outlot A, a 34,843 sq. ft. parcel
~_. such as sketch plans, surve s attachments etc. must
be submltte~
building sites, squsrefootaresofeachnew psrceldesi~stedbyn~nber)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. Fr~m
Sc~ar. feet TO
Square feet
ADDRESS ~talyst (signature)
Properties, Inc.
11700 Wayzata Blvd., Mtka 55343
Applicant's Interest in the proper~¥:
TEL. NO. 544-9084
DATE 03-20-89
This sppllcation must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explen.
etlon given why this ;s nol the case,
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND,~TION:
DATE
COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
DATE
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OFANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN I YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE R'~SOLUTIONOR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID..
Call 3h8-3271 to order a certified lest from Hennep[n County Property ~)[vlsion.
Address:
County:
(~ner:
5545 Three Points Boulevard
Mom~d, MN
Hem~epin
Catalyst Properties, Inc.
The East 125.00 feet of the West ,iO0.O0 feet, measured at right angles from
the West line of C~overnment Lot 4, Secticn 13, To~ship 117 North, Range 24
West, of the following described property:
That part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park Lake Mimaeto]Mm, according to the
recorded plat thereof lying Southerly of the Southerly right-of-way line of
Three Points Boulevard and Northerly of a line, hereinafter referred to as
Line A, and ~4hich begins at a point on the West line of said Government Lot 4
distant 1446.71 feet South from the kg4 corner of said Lot 4, said West line
having a bearing of North for the purposes of this description; thence North
89 degrees g5 minutes East a distance of 395.34 feet; thence South 53 degrees
4~ minutes East a distmnee of 30.00 feet and there terminating,
ExcErpt that part of said Lot 27 described as follows: Commencing
at the said ~ corner of Government Lot 4; thence South (assumed
bearing), along said West line of Lot 4, a distance of 1345.38
feet; thence South 84 degrees 40 minutes East a distance of
138.94 feet; thence South 65 degrees 04 minutes East a distm~ce
of 100.00 feet; thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes East a
distance of 51'.9 feet; thence South 85 degrees 16 minutes 40
seconds East a dista=nce of 101.41 feet to the point of begim~ing;
thence North 1 degree 21 minutes East a distance of 25.00 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 39 minutes West a distm%ce of 101.72 feet
to the East line of the West 275.00 feet of said Lot 4, thence
South, along said East line to said point on a line which bears
South 53 degrees 46 minutes East from said point of begip~ing;
thence North 53 degrees 46 minutes West to said point of beginning.
Also, EXCEPT that part of said Lot 27 described as follows: The East 100.00
feet of the West 375.00 feet, measured at right angles from the West line of
said Government Lot 4, of the North 100.00 feet of the South 530.00 feet
measured at right angles to mad lying North of a line which is perpendicular
to said'West line of Government Lot 4 and intersects said West line at a point
.lg25.00 feet South of said NW corner of Lot 4.
Z
a
a
U)
lU
0
Z
0
U)
I11-
U
~'~ ~(~ O&te Fi led ~-~-~<{
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following infor~tlon)
1. Street Address of Property $545 Three Points Boulevard
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot See Attached
Block --
Addition Harrison Shores Addition
3. Owner's Name
Catalyst Properties, Inc.
PID No. 13-117-24-22-0023
Day Phone No. 544-9084
Address
11700 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55343
Applicant '(if other than owner):
Name Same
Address
Day Phone 'No.
5. Type of Request:
(3) Variance (1) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
6, Present Zoning'District
7. Existing Use(s) of Property. Vacant land
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? Yes if so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
83-108 PDA apprpoval (attached)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be require$1~by law.~
' . / Catalyst Properties, Inc.
Planning Commission R~commendation:
Date
'Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Re;i'uest for Zon.l.ng Variance Procedure ·
(2) (BLOCK 1)
· ,, Case
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utllltles, et~:.
Indicate North compass direction
Any additional lnformatlon as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and apPlicable.Sections .of the Zoning Ordlnanceo
Ill'..Request for a Zonln~ Variance
.A. Ali. Information below, a site plan, as described In Part II, and general
application must'be provided before a hearing wll! be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In which It Is located? Yes (X). No ( )
If "no", specify'each n~n-conforml, ng use:
Ce
'Do the existing structures compIy, wlth'all area height and bulk regulatlons
for the zone district In which it Is.located? Yes ( × ) No'( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use--
Which unique physical characteristlcs of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses .permitted In that zoning district/
( ) .Too narrow (×) Topography ( ) Soil
· (×) Too. small ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( )-Too shal!ow (X) Shape ( ) Other.' Speclt;y:
Was the hardship d~scribed above 'created by the action o~ anyone having
property Ipterests In the land afte~ the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (×) If yes, explain-- "
~as the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tlon of a road? yes (x) No ( ) 'If yes, explain: The city
and prOCured the property in the middle of the overall parcel, for the pumphouse.
Ge
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pecullar
.only to the property described In this petition7 Yes (x) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are slmllarly affected?
H. Wha~ Is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations'
that w111 permlt you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dlmenslOns and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets If necessary.) .
For th~ new BlOCk 1 created, we are requesting a
..7,750 sq. ft. variance on minimum lot area requir~aent for B-2 zoning.
I. WI11 granting of the varlance'be materially detrlmantal to property In the
same zone, or to the enforcement of thls ordinance?
No, this is a unique property configuration.
Re~[uest for ZonJ.ng Variance Procedure (2)
(BLOCK 2)
D, Location of: Signs, easen nts, underground utilities, etb.
E, Indicate Hor~h compass direction
F, Any additional Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections .of the Zoning Ordinance.
I1'1. Request for a Zonln~ Variance
.A, All. Information below, a site plan, as described In Part !1, and general
application must'be provided before a hearing wlll be scheduled,
B. Does the I~~se Of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In which It Is located? Yes ( ). No (XX)
If "no", speclfy each 6on-conforml. ng use:
..~n~ proposed townhouse buildin~ shall extend beyond the .minimum sideyard
semoacK requirements for B-2 zoning and the driveway surface shall b~
less than the required zoning for multirfamily (3 units or more).
C. 'Do the existing structures comply with'all area height and bu]k regulations
for the zone district in which It Is.located? Yes (xx) No'( )
if "no", specify each non-conforming use:
De
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its
reasonable use for any of the uses .permitted In that zoning district?
(x) .Too narrow (×) Topography ( ) Sol1
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( )-Too shallow (x) Shape ( ) Other: Speclt;y:
E®
Was the hardshlp d~scrlbed above 'created by the action o~ anyone having
property lpterests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: '
F, Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes (x) No ( ) 'If yes, explain: The condemnati~
location of ~he p.u~_phouse p~opert¥ created a lot to the ~uth w/a shape
cogf~q.uration ~roblem as well as leavin~ too narrow a strip of ]and tO
aln aln a oot d~'~ewa ce . -
~. ~e l~e conditions o~ ~ar~s~?p ~or which you request a variance peculiar
.only to the property described In this petition? Yes (x) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are slmllarly affected?
He
Wha~ Is the "minimum" modlflcatlon (variance) from the area-bulk regulations'
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Speclfy~ using
maps, site plans wlth dlmenslons and written explanation. Attach additional
s h ets. If n c s ry.) ·
variance o~ ~ ~et on each side yard setback requirement and a 5 foot
_driveway width variance.
Will granting of the variance'be materially detrimental to property In the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
No
'Procedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Case ~,, ?,5~, 3 t 2.
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E' Indicate North compass direction.
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill Request for a Conditional Use
A. All information.requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion
of the construction must be prqvided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B.Type of development for which a COnditional Use Permit is requested:
1. Conditional Use (Specify): Th_~ee (3)
Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land USe Plan-for Mound
C~rent Zon±nq: B-2
Designation in future Land Use Plan: B-2
Development Schedule:
1. A.development schedule shall be attached to this application.provid~ing
~seaSonable quarantees for the completion of the proposed development.
ee Attachec~)
2. Estimate of cost of. the project: $ 420,000
DenSity (for residential developments only):
1. Number of.structures: 1'
2. Dwelling Units P~r Structure:
a. Number of type:
Efficiency. ~0~ '
~ Bedroom -3-
3. Lot area per,dwelling unit:
] Bedroom _fl_
3 Bedroom -0-
15~179
4. Total lot area:
45,539
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use
List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in-
cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, 1.ight, smoke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
( See Attached)
· I H 1'7
CO.~ITIONAL USE PEBY~IIT ;~DPLICATION
Ad~ess: 5545 Three Points Boulevard
Mound, ~-
Count,v: Hennepin
~'ner: Catalyst Properties, Inc.
ATTACT~.XT
Item: III. C. 1. (Development Schedulet
Development Schedule:
~xpected construction start date
Projected major construction completion date
Projected final completion of project
06-01-89
12-01-89
06-01-90
Reasonable (Amarantees:
The same time frame was allotted and met for the construction of the
Harrison Harbors project which consisted of 4 towsim, house units. Since
the proposed to~T~house project consists of 3units, we anticipate
completion within the year's timeframe described above.
CONqDIT!ONAL USE PE~IIT APPLICATION
Address: 5545 Three Points Boulevard
Mound,
County: Hennepin
O~mer: Catalyst Properties, Inc.
ATTA~
Item: IV. A. (Effects of Proposed Use)
Traffic: Minimal increase in traffic with 3 dwellings with
access to Three Points Boulevard.
Noise: Normal construction levels. T)Tical residential levels
upon completion.
Light: T)Tical residential levels.
Smoke/Odor: T)~ical residential levels.
Parking: Sufficient off-street pa~ing to meet all requirements
for multi-family housing.
Dockage: Three (3) permanent boat docks with no on-site launching
provisions.
As man)~ of the natural features (trees, brush, etc.) of the property as can
be will be maintained to minimize any detrimental impact.
June 21, 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 83-108
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND A VARIANCE FROM
THE MINIMUM SIZE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.412.2 (1)
OF THE CITY CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE (9) UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM & TWIN HOME BY CATALYST PRO-
PERTIES, INC.
.WHEREAS, the applicant, Catalyst Properties, Inc., has applied for a
Conditional Use Permit and plan approval of a planned development area located
on a 1.39 acre parcel at 5545 Three Points Boulevard,'PID #13-117-24 22 O02~;
and
WHEREAS, they have requested that the above-described parcel contains
a nine (9) unit residential condomini'um and a twin home {two units); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to .Chapter 23 of the City Code, a :,lanned'development
area is subject to a Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice, according to law and.''
Chapter 23 of the City Code, a public hearing was held on the 21st day of Jun~,
1~83; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request a~d
recommends approval of the variance cequested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT'RESOLVED by the C'ity Councl) of the City of
MOund, Minnesota:
That the variance to Section 23.412.2(1) of the City Code is granted
due to unusual configuration of the subject property, that the application for
a Conditional Use Permit to construct a nine (9) unit residential condominium
and twin home as a'planned.development area at 5545 Three Points Blvd. and grant
20 foot variances from the required 30 foot side yard setback to the west in the
B-2 district and 50 foo~ side yard setback abutting the residentially zoned
property to the east is approved subject to the following:
No conveyance shall occur until the property is platted in
conformance with the subdivision ordihance of the City of Mound
and MSA 462.358 and that all bylaws, homeowner's association
articles of incorporation, and protective covenants must be
approved by the City Attorney and filed with the recorded plat.
Cash in the amount of $5,500 in lieu of land shall be accepted
in fulfillment of the open space and park land dedication
requirements as outlined in Section 22.37 of the City Code.
All improvements required under Section 22'of the City Code shall
be constructed by the developer at his/her sole cost. A surety
bond shall be required in an amount designated by the City Engineer.
June 21, 1983
4.
An escrow account in the amount of $3,00~ shall be established to
cover all.engineering, administrative, and legal expenses
pertaining to the processins of the PDA. Any balance remaining
upon completion of the project shall be returned to the
depositor.
Approval is contingent upon the review and approval by. City Staff
of the final landscaping, utilities, grading, and drainage plans
and City Council's approval of the preliminary plat and
developer's contract.
The applicant shall secure the necessary access easements from
the City after review and approval of plsns by the State Health
Board. Any other access except the easement depicted on the
west side of the City pumphouse (Exhibit "A") shall require
further review and approval by the City Council.
7. The applicant shall be required to secure all approvals from
other agencies as the Watershed District, LMCD, etc.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and
seconded' by Councilmember Paterson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
.Charon, Pete~son 'and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Councilmembers Paulsen and Swenson were absent ~nd excused;
Mayor
At,est.: City Clerk
I N N ETRIST&
C~TY OF
=I
fl
'-~0 [of
OUTL
)\
(~0
.I
'\
' "- NOTE: Detail of BI
REPLK~ OF HARRISON
lee record
dro
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER RE-ZONING FROM A B-3,
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, TO B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS TO ALLOW THE
OPERATION OF A CLASS III RESTAURANT AT 4451WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT5
! THROUGH lB, BLOCK 8, AVALON, PID #I9-!!7-23-31-00Z1.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City
Mound, Minnesota, will meet tn the Council Chambers, 5341Maywood
Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, )989 to consider re-zoning
Lots I through 18, Block 8, Avalon, From B-3, Neighborhood Bust-
ness, to 8-2, General Business. The re-zoning is being con-
sidered to allow the omeration of a restaurant with liquor serv-
Ice and to establish zoning consistent with the existing service
station on the Site at 4451 'Wlls~ire Blvd., legally descrtbe~ as:
Lots I through 18, Block 8,-Avalon, PlO #19-117-23-31-0021
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" 4-24-89 & 5-1-89
(pre-pub] I shed)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REZONI.NG CERTAIN LANDS FROM NEIG.HBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL (B-3) TO GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2)
The City of Mound does ordain:
The City of Mound Zoning Map is hereby amended as follows:
Property described as Lots i through and including 18, Block.8,
Avalon is hereby deleted from the Neighborhood Business (B-3)
district; and
Property described as Lots I through and including 18, Block 8,
Avalon is hereby added to the General Business (B-2) district.
The Zoning Map of the City of Mound on file with the City Clerk is
hereby amended in accordance with these rezoning provisions.
Mayor
Attest:
~ity -Clerk
HEHORANDUH
TO: City Council and Staff
FROH: Mark Koegler, City Planner~jv
DATE: May 3, 1989
SUBJECT: Additional Comments on B-3 to B-2 Rezoning
CASE NUHBER: 89-813
VHS FILE NUHBER: 89-310-A13-ZO
At.the Planning. Commission hearing pertaining to the rezoning of
the~old Donny's restaurant- site, the owner of the gas station
property adjacent to the restaurant objected to the staff
recommendation to include the gas station site in the rezoning
action. Staff recommended that the entire existing B-3 zone be
rezoned to B-2 for two primary reasons: 1) continuity and 2) the
action would make the gas station a conforming use.
The text describing the B-2 zone clearly identifies "motor fuel
stations" as conditional uses. Under conditional uses in the B-3
zone, the category "minor fuel station and motor fuel station
convenience store" is listed. "Motor Fuel Station, Convenience
Store" is defined in the ordinance, however, "Minor fuel station"
is not defined in the ordinance. The lack of definition of "Minor
fuel s'tation" leads to ambiguity.
Staff interpretation of the B-3 use listed as "Minor fuel station
and motor fuel station convenience store" has included only the
typical 7 Eleven type of convenience store. It has not
historically included motor fuel stations which allow mechanical
repair operations and the sale of fuel products.
This information is being presented to the C-ity Council to further
explain the rationale behind the staff recommendation. Since the
current ordinance was adopted, gas stations such as Island Park
Skelly have not been considered as either permitted or conditional
uses in the B-3 zone. They clearly are conditional uses in the B-
2 zone.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24. 1989
Page Four
Case No. 89-813: Desperado's Inc., 4451 Wilshire Blvd.,
L~t~ ~ - [@, Block a, Avalon, pID ~1§-I17-23-31-O021.
REZONING (PUBLIC HEARING).
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's remuest to
rezone the subject property From B-3 Neighborhood Business, to
B-2 Generai Business. The rezoning was requested so the ap-
plicant can seek a conditional use permit to estaDlish a res-
taurant with Full liquor service. Koegler explained that staff
has included the property occupied by the adjacent Skelly gas
station in the rezontng. This gas station is currently a noncon-
Forming use within the B-3 zoning district. He Further explained
that the Hennepin County Assessors office stated that rezonfng
the gas station to a B-2 will not impact the assessed valuation
oF the property.
Staff recommends rezoning the entire B-3 parcel located in the
vicinity of 445! Wilshire Blvd. to B-2, General Commercial. 'This
zoning change will accurately reflect the past, current, and
proposed use of the property and will alleviate existing noncon-
Forming uses.
The commission discussed the Skelly statiOn, it was noted that
the station may not meet the lot area requirements within the B-2
zoning district. Koegler also noted that Desperado's may require
a setback variance.
Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Ralph Turnquist, owner of
the property across the street known as Pelican Point expressed
his concern that a quality establishment be built.
Fred Guttormson of 3138 Highland Blvd is a partner in the
proposed establishment. He explained that he and the other
partners plan on creating an up-scale restaurant providing decent
meals with a good price. He read portions oF the proposed menu.
Craig Henderson, owner oF the Skelly station stated that he is
against the rezoning, and he would rather see a B-3 use
(neighborhood business) placed at the site. Mr. Henderson
Finished by stating, "you can rezone theirs, but leave mine
alone."
Pat Meisel stated that she feels it would be advantageous For the
City to have the restaurant open, it would provide employment For
residents.
Paul Winters, who lives within 350 Feet of the proposed res-
taurant, is also in Favor of having a restaurant in that loca-
tion.
Planning Commission Htnutes
April 24, 1989
Page F~ve
Chair Meyer closed the ~ublfc hearing. Lake access was dis-
cussed, the City Planner noted that docks must De within 300 Feet
of a commercial promerty to allow residentially zoned property be
used For commercial dockage. The proposed Desperado's is Further
than 300 feet From the lakeshore. .
MOTION made by Smtth, seconded by Wetland, to recommend.ap-
proval of the staff 'recon~nenclatton. Motion carried with slx
in favor, two opposed (those in favor: Andersen, Wefland,
Jansen, Smith, Michael; those opposed: Thai and Meyer>.
Thai and Meyer stated their reason for opposing; they do not
agree with rezoning'the Skelly station.
This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9, 1989.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROH: Mark Koegler,. City Planner
DATE: April 18, 1989
SUBJ: Rezoning: B-3 to B-2
APPLICANT: William Dunkley and Fred Guttormson
LocATION: Vicinity of 4451 Wilshire Boulevard
CASE NUHBER: 89-813
VHS FILE NUHBER: 89-310-A13-Z0
EXISTING ZONING: B-3, Neighborhood Business
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The City has received an application to rezone the
old Donny's Restaurant site from B-3, Neighborhood Business to B-
2, General Business. The public hearing for this item has been
advertised as including the property occupied by the adjacent gas
station. This addition was made by staff in order to address the
issue of the entire B-3 zone in this part of Mound. A change in
zoning has not been requested by the owner of the gas station
property. Under Section 23.504 of the Mound Zoning Code, the City
Council and Planning Commission are operating within the limits of
their authority to comprehensively review zoning modifications.
The rezoning from B-3 to B-2 is being requested so that the
applicant can seek a conditional use permit to establish (or re-
establish) a restaurant on the site with full liquor service. For
informational purposes, a site plan for the restaurant is attached.
The proposed restaurant is not the key issue in this case. The
application before the Planning Commission involves a rezoning
which is not limited to either existing or proposed uses. Once a
property is rezoned, any permitted use can be constructed on the
parcel.
5C30 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 6121553-1950
Neighborhood business zones (B-3) have been discussed previously
by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The most recent
round of discussions resulted from the Tonka Alano proposal in the
B-3 zone located on Three Points Boulevard. As a spin-off from
that case, an overall review of all B-3 zones was conducted.
During previous discussions of the B-3 zone, the subject site has
been referred to as the best business location of all the B-3
areas. The site, which has historically been used for business
purposes, has good road access and does not sit in the middle of
a single family residential area as does each of the other three
B-3 zones.
At the present time, the existing and currently proposed land uses
are or would be nonconforming in the B-3 zone. Both the proposed
restaurant (Class III) and the motor fuel station are listed as
conditional uses in the B-2 zone. Rezoning from B-3 to B-2 would
remove the nonconforming use aspect of the existing gas station.
Removing the nonconforming status of the gas station is in the best
interests of both the City of Mound and the property owner.
In reviewing the issue of rezoning the gas station, I spoke with
Mike McDonald with the Hennepin County Assessors Office. Mr.
McDonald is the.individual who serves as the assessor for the City
of Mound. According to the assessors office, rezoning the gas
station parcel from B-3 to B-2 will not impact the assessed
valuation of the property. Assessed valuation is based on the
usage of the site, not on the zoning classification.
R£COMM£NDATION: Due to historic use patterns and adequate road
access, staff recommends rezoning the entire B-3 parcel located in
the vicinity of 4451Wilshire Boulevard to B-2, General Commercial.
This zoning change will accurately reflect the past, current and
proposed use of the property and will alleviate existing
nonconforming uses.
PART III
Case No.
Fee $200.00
ZONING APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property 4451 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364
Lot (SEE ASTACHED EXHIBIT "A" FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION) Block
Addition
PID No. 1911723310021
Owner's Name William M. Dunkle¥
Day Phone 339-1290
Owner's A~dress 701 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 700, Minneapolisr MN 55415
Appl icant's Name (if other 'than owner) Des?erado's Incor~.~'orated
Address 701- 4th Ave. So., Ste, 700, Day Phone 339-1290
Minneapolis, MN 55415 SEE
sting Use' of .Property: vacant building (formerly ~ restaurant and bar)EXHIBIT
Zoning District B-3
Has an application ever been made for zonipg, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes / no . If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s)
t~neby~isApplicant; upon informationandbelief, none weremadebyprevious owners.
'(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of ~Q~_~tog~,3~i~nt~ntnq anc~emoving such notices as may
be required by )~W.
App I 'i cant' s Si gnat~, ~ . .- .... . - ' - ~2 ~_~/ __. . a e b~ch 28, 1989
FOR OFF]CE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission RecommendaCJon
Date
1 Action:
Resolution No.
Date
ZONING APPLiCATiON
An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (answer either A or B below):
A. It is requested that Section of the Zoning Ordinance be
amended as follows:
Reason for Amendment:
Be
Amendment to Map:
]t is requested that the proper~y described below 'and shown on the
attached site plan be rezoned frOm B-3 to
Address of Property: 445i Wiisl~re ~oule~a~d, Mou~d, MN 55364
B-2
Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes and
bounds; attach additional sheets, if necessary):
(SEE AT~ACHED EXHIBIT "A")
Present use of property:
Reason for Amendment:
(SEE ASTAC/-IED EXHIBIT "B")
(SEE A~CHED EXHIBIT "B")
NOTE: No application of a property owne~ for an amendment tto the text of
the ordinance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commis-
sion within one year period following a denial of such request.
I 11,1
EXHIBIT "A"
TO ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION
OF
DESPERADO'S INCORPORATED
Ail of Lots 3 through 18 except therefrom the following:
The Southeasterly 30 feet of Lot 3; the Southeasterly 30
feet of Lot 4; the Southeasterly 30 feet and the
Northwesterly 35 feet of the Southwesterly 5 feet of
Lot 5; the Southeasterly 30 feet and the Northwesterly
35 feet of Lot 6;'the Southeasterly 30 feet and the
· Northwesterly 35. feet of..Lot 7.; the Southeasterly 30
feet and the Northeasterly 15 feet of the Northwesterly.
22 feet of Lot 8; the Southeasterly 30 feet of Lot 9;
the Northeasterly 15 feet of Lots 10 and 11; the
Southeasterly 67 feet of Lot 14; the Southeasterly 67
feet and that part of the Northeasterly 20 feet lying
Northwesterly of the Southeasterly 67 feet of Lot 15 and
the Southeasterly 5 feet of Lot 16, all in Block 8,
'Avalon.
USE OF THE PROPERTY:
REASON FOR AMENDMENT:
3-28-89
EXHIBIT "B"
TO ZONING APPLICATION
This property has always been either a
liquor store or a restaurant and bar. It
is our understanding that in the early
1960's, a municipal liquor store was
opened on the subject site by what was
then the City of Island Park. In 1963,
Island park was annexed into the City of
Mound and the liquor store remained as
the municipal liquor store owned by the
City of Mound. The liquor store was
subsequently sold and became an on-sale
bar and restaurant known as Briarwood
Restaurant. Finally, the bar/restaurant
changed ownership and became known as
Donny's on the Lake.
This property is on a busy county road,
not in the middle of a block or a purely
residential neighborhood. The "highest
and best use" of this property has'been
deemed to be commercial by two recent
appraisals of the property.
Applicant proposes that since this
property has been either a municipal
liquor store or a bar restaurant since
its development, that a mistake was made
when the city of Mound passed that
certain ordinance in 1981 rezoning this
property to B-3, rather than B-2, when
the City's major rezoning project was
underway. Upon information and belief,
this property was an operating
bar/restaurant with an on-sale liquor
license during and after 1981 when it was
rezoned to B-3 which does not allow a bar
as a permitted use according to the mound
Zoning Code. Therefore, the property
should have been rezoned to B-2 at that
time (in 1981). Desperado's Incorporated
has a purchase agreement for this
property and desires to remodel it and
open a new bar/restaurant which would
generate substantial revenue for the City
of Mound.
Respectfully submitted by:
DESPERADO'S INCORPORATED
3O
r
35
$6 '~
/
/
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF HOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL USE IN THE B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2313 COMMERCE BLVD., LYNWOLD PARK, PART
OF LOTS 54 & 55, PID #14-117-24-44-004Z.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council oF the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood
Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 1989 to consider the is-
suance oF a conditional use permit For a commercial recreational
use (a bingo hall) in the B-I central business district located
at 2313 Commerce Blvd., legally described as:
"Lynwold Park" Lake Minnetonka, E 150 FT OF LOT 55 AND COM
ON S LINE OF LOT 54 AT A PT 30 FT W FROM 5E COR THEREOF THE
N PAR WITH E LINE THEREOF lO FT THE W AT RT ANGLES ]ZO FT TH
S..AT RT ANGLE5 TO S LINE OF LOT THE ELY TO BEG LOTS 54 AND
55.
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," 4-24-89 and 5-1-89.
(pre-publ i shed)
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 1989
e. Case No. 89-814: James Rattcan (Bingo Hall). 2313 Co~erce
Blvd.? Part of Lots 54 & 55? LynwolO Park, rID #14-].]7-24-
44-0042. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PUBLIC HEARING).
City Planner, Mark Ko.gl.r, reviewed the applicant's request to
operate a Bingo Hall to be used by charitab]e groups. He Further
eXplained the layout of the proposed Facility and explained the
improvements to be done to the building. The maximum occupancy
of the building ts.242 persons. There Is a concern with parking
and the image this operation would create For the City. This
operation would require 81 parking spaces; within the Central
Business District ("CBD") parking lot there is a capacity
spaces. Koegler reported the Figures From a parking survey
the CBD which determined that the lot is busier in the daytime
working hours with approximately 25% of the capacity used.
Staff recommends approval of the requested condfttonal use permit
to. establish a bingo hall tf the supply of parking is deemed
adequate, subject to the following condlttons~
The occupant 1bad of the building shall be established at
242 or at another' number subsequently established by the
Mound Fire Marshall· The actual occupancy of the building
shall not- exceed'.the established occupant load.' When
capacity is reached, additional patrons shall not be per-
mitted to enter the premises.
Food service shall be limited to prepackaged items.
Preparation areas shall comply with all county and State
health regulations.
3. All stgnage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code.
The butldlng and the business operation shall comply with
.'all building and ffre..codes.
The owners and operators of the bingo hall shall com~ly with
all CBD parking policies,, procedures and assessments.
Bus transportation shall not be supplied to the site without
the written authorization of the City of Mound. The
authorization'shall clearly identify allowable drop off and
pickup areas·
Hours of operation shall not exceed the following:
Monday through Thursday - 5:30 PM to
Friday and Saturday -: 5:30 PM to
Weekdays - 12:00 PM to
11:00 PM
12:00 AM
4:00 PM
Pl~nnin~ Commission Minu~es
April 24, 1989
The Commission discussed the recommendation. Andersen had some
comments from the business community, he expressed their concerns
1) a bingo hall wtli not have a positive impact for the business
community, people come to play bingo then they go home, 2) the
CBD parking lot is not a solid foundation, and 3) it would
decrease the income from other groups in the 'community who have
bingo and pull .tabs for.fund raising.
Jim Rattcan, Applicant, explained how a bingo and pull tab opera-
tton is governed by the state.' The charities who use the bingo
hall will all be locally sponsored charities. Every year a list
of these charities has to be approved by the City. He added it
would cost $80,000 Just to bring building up to code. They will
not have flashing lights or create an eye-sore.
Gary Flager, part owner of the law Firm next door commented on
the nice appearance of their building and he feels a bingo hall
would not be a positive addition to the appearaoce of the block.
He also expressed a concern with regards to the police Force and
how 'much time they would have to invest in directing traffic,
etc. He finished with stating he is opposed to having bingo In
that particula~ location.
Paul Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd., owns the structure two build-
ings down from the proposed bingo hall. He commented on the CBD
parking area and stated there has been discussion about dfsban-
ning the Iot due to unfairness to the separate butldtng owners.
Father Mike Tegeder, From Our Lady of the Lake commented on the
CBD parking lot and added that people have a tendency to drive
through their parking lot to exit which he feels could be dan-
gerous and annoying. He also commented on the general operation
of bingo and pull tabs and expressed a concern of promoting com-
pulsive gambling.
The Following persons also spoke in opposition to the bingo hall:
, Stan Drahos and John Wilsey with the Tonka Lions, and Chris Sharp
who would like to open a recreation center for teen-agars at the
proposed bingo hail site.
Paul Melby who is involved tn the development of the bingo hall
stated their intentions are to bring a service to the community
and their charities. Jim Ratican added that the charities using
the bingo hall collect all proceeds, the only money they (the
owners) would collect is the rental fee for that day.
Duane Leistnger of 5917 Ridgewood Road expressed a concern with
vacant buildings in the City, however understands that there is a
task Force working on this problem. He also has a concern with
this new organization taking business away from the existing
Lions Club puli tab income.
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 1989
dim Ratfcan clarified what ts involved tn order For a charity to
be considered an oFFtcial charitable organization; they must have
Fifteen members or ~>re, and be registered with the State of Mfn-
Hours of operation were
nesota as a charity For three years.
also c'larlFted, they should be:
Sunday through Thursday - 5:30 PM
Friday and Saturday - 5:30 PM
Friday, Saturday, Sunday - ]2:00 PM
to 11:00
to 12:00 AM
to 4:00 P
Chair Meyer closed the public hearing· Smith commented that the
City Council, Planning Commission, and citizens have a vision For
Mound, and he ts not sure a bingo hall tn the center of the City
is a good idea. He Feels a nice business area, where citizens
could come out with their Families would be much more welcome·
Michael referred to City Code Section 23.505.1 where It states"
· . . the Mound City Council shall consider . . . the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general wel-
Fare of occupants of surrounding lands." He does not believe
the morals and general welfare will be up-held.
Thai stated that he wou!d be opposed to the matinees, especially
on Fridays. and'Saturdays When the other businesses are open which
use the same parking Faclllties.
Wetland stated that he strongly agrees with Smith and Michael's
comments.
Clapsaddle referred to Sect'ion 23.505.1 and Feels the proposed
use vfolates some of the criteria listed: it would be Injurious
to adjacent properties and businesses due to traffic, tt would
over impact the downtown community, the environment would not be
conducive.to what the City wants downtown Mound to be, and there
would be general unslght!lness. He added concerns regarding the
impact this use would have on the Police Department to handle
tra~F, fc, and Feels it would impede on the gro~dch and improvements
,of the community.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Welland to recommend
denial of the Conditional Use Permit For the operation of a
bingo hall at 2313 Commerce Blvd. due to the conflict with
the plans of the City, and the tmedtment OF traffic Flow.
Hotton carried unanlmously.
This case will be heard by the City C~unctl on May 9, 1989.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRON:
Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: April 19, 1989
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Recreation (Bingo)
APPLICANT: James Ratican
LOCATION: 2313 Commerce Boulevard (Netka Building)
CASE NUHBER: 89-814
VHS.FILE NUNBER: 89-310-A15-ZO
EXISTING ZONING: B-l, Central Business
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking conditional use permit
approval to operate a bingo hall in the Netka building at the
intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. Bingo
halls are categorized as "commercial recreation" which is a
conditional use under Section 23.630.3 of the Mound Zoning Code.
Bingo halls are uses that are licensed by the State of Minnesota.
All bingo halls have to be actually run by charitable groups such
as volunteer fire departments, sports federations, etc. In this
case, the applicant will provide various charitable groups with a
place to conduct bingo games and operations advise in exchange for
a rent payment. State law requires that a minimum of 45% of
profits, less prize payouts, be paid to the charitable groups.
Profits not to exceed 55% are used to cover the cost of rent and
other overhead items.
The proposed facility in Mound will be run by a number of
charitable, groups. At this time, the exact list of charitable
groups is not known, however, State law requires that the City
approve all charitable groups on an individual basis prior to
licensing. The Hound facility will also be selling pull tabs at
one or two locations inside the building..
-CO30 Harbor Lane North BIdg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Final scheduling of games will be determined based on demand. At
the present time, the applicant is intending to operate 7 days each
week from 5:30 PM to 11:00 PM, Sunday through Thursday and from
5:30 PM to 12:00 AM, Fridays and Saturdays. Additionally, they
anticipate weekday games from 12:00 PM to 4:00 PM. Weekday games
are likely to occur initially 2 or 3 days per week.
In order to retrofit the Netka building, the applicant will be
making a number of interior modifications including a sprinkler
system. No changes to the exterior of the building are proposed.
The main floor of the structure will contain the reception counter,
a food sales area, pull tab counter, seating and a platform for the
caller. Food sales will consist of pre-packaged items and hot dogs
as well as a selection of non-alcoholic beverages. The second
floor will contain additional seating and possibly a second pull
tab counter. Total seating capacity will be 242. The applicant
has indicated that when they reach capacity, they will turn away
additional patrons at the door.
COMMENTS: Bingo games are presently offered at a number of sites
in the City of Mound. Our Lady of the Lake Church which lies 500
feet south of the subject site operates bingo games on Thursday
evenings. None of the existing facilities operate as many games
as the proposed use.
The proposed bingo hall will_ be located in one of the most visible
commercial buildings in Mound. Located at the head of the "T"
intersection of Shoreline Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard, it is
easily seen by all traffic passing through the community. The
visibility of the site while highly desirable from a commercial
point of view causes some concern to staff from a public perception
point of view.
Downtown Mound has been consistently improving its image over the
past 5 or 6 years. The construction of Commerce Square added
vitality to the downtown area. Is placing a bingo hall in one of
the most prominent locations in the downtown area consistent with
continued improvement of the CBD? In raising this question, staff
is not trying to interject moral values into this decision process.
The u~e is legal under State law and games are conducted by a
'number of organizations including churches. Clearly, majority
public opinion has found bingo to be an acceptable recreation
activity and an acceptable land use. From a public perception
standPoint, the concern still exists that downtown Mound will
become known more as the location of the bingo hall rather than the
location of a collection of commercial goods and services. This
concern is primarily caused not by the use itself but by the
location of the use.
Whenever a new use is proposed in ~he downtown area, parking is
always raised as a key issue. In the case of the proposed bingo
hall, adequate parking is essential in order to alleviate
J 71
congestion in the downtown area. The bingo hall site does not have
the ability to provide any on-site parking. All parking will
either have to be on-street or in the CBD lot at the rear of the
building.
The Mound Zoning Code does not list a parking requirement for
commercial recreation facilities. The code does identify the
standard of one space per three seats for churches, theaters,
auditoriums, and other places of assembly. In preparing this
report, I spoke with staff at Brooklyn Park, Little Canada, North
St. Paul and Arden Hills, all of whom have similar bingo operations
in their communities. In all cases, they used the one per three
standard for parking. All reported that the supply of parking is
adequate although most have bus transportation available to
patrons. The operators of the proposed Mound facility are not
proposing bus transportation at this time.
Application of the one space per three seats parking standard to
the proposed bingo hall results in a parking requirement of 81
spaces. The CBD lot immediately behind the Netka building contains
125 spaces according to the striping plan prepared by the City
Engineer. Spaces in this lot, however, also serve the other
buildings in the immediate vicinity including the law firm, the old
Snyder Drug building, the old bank, retail shops and the old Contel
building. According to City Code, these uses require 108 parking
spaces exclusive of the demand created by the proposed bingo hall.
Collectively, all of the uses and the proposed bingo hall have a
parking demand of 189 spaces which is 64 spaces short of the
existing supply.
In addressing parking, other factors also need to be considered.
The heaviest use hours of the bingo hall should coincide with the
off-peak usage times of the office and retail uses in the area.
The offices and shops see the heaviest activity during the day
where bingo will be heaviest at night. If the afternoon games
become successful, however, the relationship of peak to off-peak
times will no longer be valid and parking shortages could occur.
In addition to the CBD tot, on-street parking also exists along
portions of Commerce Boulevard. Whether supplied by on-street
spaces or off-street CBD lots, an adequate supply of customer
parking needs to be maintained for both existing and future retail
and office uses. In order to preserve this supply, it may become
necessary to establish maximum time limits in specific areas.
In order to gain a better understanding of-the parking supply in
the area, staff including the Hound Police Department is
periodically monitoring the use of the CBD lot to determine actual
current usage. The results of the survey' will be available at
Monday's Planning Commission meeting. If the survey finds heavy
current usage or if the Planning Commission has serious concerns
about the future supply of parking in the area, the Commission may
want to delay a decision on this item pending a detailed review of
parking supply by the City Planner and City Engineer.
Outside of the parking issue, the subject request does not raise
any serious land use issues. The applicant has indicated that all
signage will conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance. If the applicant
ever intends to initiate bus transportation to the site,
appropriate loading areas will need to be worked out with the City
since they will have to occur on public propertx or within the CBD
parking lot area.
R£COMMENDATION: This report raised the concern about the
appropriateness of the proposed bingo hall at the proposed
location. Specifically, the concern is whether or not this use on
the proposed site is in the best interests of improving the image
of the Mound CBD. While staff continues to believe that this
concern is valid, it is not significant enough to warrant a denial
of the proposed use.
Approval of this or any other conditional use permit requires
compliance with the items identified in Section 23.505.1 of the
Mound Zoning Code (attached). Item number 4 states "That adequate
measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-
street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use." If
the Planning Commission feels that the parking supply is inadequate
based on the survey findings that will be presented at the meeting,
one of-two options should be employed. First, the Commission could
table action on this matter pending a more detailed revi'ew of
parking in the CBD area. Secondly, the Commission has the option
of recommending denial of the proposal to the City Council.
If the supply of parking is deemed adequate, staff recommends
approval of the requested conditional use permit to establish a
bingo hall subject to the following conditions:
The occupant load of the building shall be established at 242
or at another number subsequently established by the Mound
Fire Marshall. The actual occupancy of the building shall not
exceed the established occupant load. When capacity is
reached, additional patrons shall not be permitted to enter
the premises.
Food service shall be limited to pre-packaged items.
Preparation areas shall comply with all County and State
health regulations.
3. All signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code.
The building and the business operation shall comply with all
building and fire codes.
The owners and operators of the bingo hall shall comply with
all CBD parking policies, procedures and assessments.
Bus transportation shall not be supplied to the site without
the written authorization of the City of Mound. The
authorization shall clearly identify allowable drop off and
pick up areas.
Hours of operation shall not exceed the following:
J~~hrough Thursday - 5:30 PM to 11:00 PM
Friday and Saturday - 5:30 PM to 12:00 AM
~t~d-a-y-s,- ~2:00 PM to 4:00 PM
'DNIXYWd
23.505
23. 505.1
CONDITIOtlAL USE PERt~ITS
Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits
In granting a conditional use permit, the Mound City Council shall consider
the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of
the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the City Council may
make thefollowing findings where applicable.
(1)
That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment
of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within
the immediate vicinity.
(2)
That the establishment of the condltional use will not impede the normal
and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property
for uses predominant in'the area.
(3) That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary
facilities have been or are being provided.
(4) That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient
off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use.
(5) That adequate measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control
offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these
will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other
lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties
will result.
(~ of the Council, is reasonably related to
The
use,
in
the
opinion
City
the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use.
(7)
The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the
purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate
the proposed use.
(8) The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City.
(9) The use will not cause traffic hazard or congestion.
(10)
Existing uses adjacent will not be adversely affected because of cur-
tailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare
or general unsightliness.
(11) The developer shall submit a time schedule for completion of the project.
-25-
CITY OF HOUND
· .......... "-: ....... -A~PLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property ~..~ ~.?J~'.,~,"~- ~.~L~--/~. ~ ~~'~ ~ ~/
Legal DesCription of Proper~y: Lot ~ C.~' ~ ~ ~' ~ Block --
J
Owner's Name
Fee Pa
Date Filed ~.-0'~ ~ c
Day Phone No.~
Applicant (if other than owner):
Type of Request:
( ) Variance (,,',~'C6nditional Use Permit ( .) Amendment
( ) Zoning Interpretat'ion & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District ~-~
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
· other zoning Procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or'plans to be submitted herewith are true and accu'rate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this applicatlon by any authorized officlal of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, DC of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Plannlng Commfsslon Recommendation:
. Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Procedure for Conditional Use Permit (2)
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction.
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the C~t¥ Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Iii Request for a Conditional Use
A. All Information requested below, a site plan as described in Part Ii, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion
of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be schedulecl.
B. Type of development for which a Condltlonal Use Permit is requested:
.i'. Conditional Use (Specify):
2. 'Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound
Ce
De
Development Schedule:
1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing
reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development.
2. Estimate of cost of the project: $. -~i~_.,( ~'
DenSity (for reside~tial-developments only):
1. Number of structures:
~ .Dwe11ing Units Per Structure: '
a. Number of type: '. .
Efficiency ' 1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
3. Lot area per.dwe.lllng unlt:
b,. Total lot area:
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use
· List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vlcinity, in-
cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smOke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
Registered Protenlonal Engineer and Land SuxveTor
· .r~ ale' 1 lncJ,
~0
fe~t.
~ heroby oertiy tha~. this survey: :is m~de usin~'~.entreps
?
* ? -
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION or BUILDINt~L'.
I msds s surve~ o! tha proiNl~loc~tlon o! th~ building
'' ',~':~on the above described propert7 and that the ]oe~Uon~of"
".~nid building Is correctly shown on the abOve .plat.'
(1)
(i)
(~)
Gaming News--5
April 198~
Nebraska organizations lose money
to phony gambling consultants
Reports have been received from Nebraska that organizations have lost
sizable amounts of money to persons passing themselves off as gambling
consultants in order to take control of the organizations, according to Don
Trlmble, director, Special Taxes Division.
The operators ordered gambling supplies, paid the bills, ran the games,
made the deposits, and completed the gambllng reports. The organizations
didn't realize what happened until it was too late.
Reports indicate that these operators are moving into Minnesota at this
time. If you have questions, call the Special Taxes Division, 612/297-1772.
OGaming News--3
May
from the desk of Roger Franke
Gambling manager needs organization's
support; not a consultant
A gambling manager recently shared his comments with me about hiring
a consultant to manage the gambling operation. Members of his organization
told him about consultants that operated gambling pr~n~es for other org~-
zations. The consultants found gambiLng locations for the organizations,
developed site managers, hired employees, 'ordered gambling equipment,
completed applications and report~; all this for a percentage of the gr~ss or
profit. The gambling manager said that he was tired of doing ail the work, that
he wasn't gett_hng help from other organization members, and that it seemed
like hiring a consultant was the only .way to go.
My two comments to him were the following. First, any organtza~on that
allows its gambling manager to do all the work is foolhardy. A good g~mbling
manager can save the organization a lot of work but needs support from the
organization's members. If the members do not have enough interest in
gambling to help with the work, then the gambling manager should resign and
organization should get out of gambling.
It is too easy for some members to spend the money raised by the gambling
operation and not share the load in operating the gambling for the organization.
A gambling manager who does a good Job but doesn't get any .help will
eventually become burned out. No organization that conducts gambling can
afford to lose a good gambling manager.
Second, consultants are not allowed to operate an organization's gam-
bling activity. Compensation from gambling funds for management duties
performed by nonmembers is not permitted. The G~ Division perceives
a consultant who develops or furnishes site managers, hires employees,
orders gambling equipment, and completes applications to be a manager.
Further, fi.an organization allows a consultant to take control of the gambling
operation' a~nd something goes wrong, the organization is liable, not the
consultant.
Judge Parker, speaking for the State of Minnesota Court of AppeaIs In
a statement filed December 13, 1988, wrote, "Any licensee which is a buyer
of services is responsible for following the procedures established by the
charitable gambling rules and proPerly supervising all operations://may not
abdicate its responsibiIiiy."
Ifyour organization does not have the time, energy, or resources to do
an adequate job managing a gambling operation, your organization should
consider getting out of the gambling business. To assume that an organiza-
tion can get a license, turn over the work and responsibility to a third party,
then do nothing but get a check is operating in a fool's paradise.
If an organization
allows a consultant
to take control of the
gambling operation
and something goes
wrong, the organiza.
tion is liable, not the
consultant.
m, hliu lob ' ' s. ~
~-- with a felon- in ..... s charged
~ ~" dlstnbulor or ..... g a hccnscd
~ . a nonPro~l
loundal/otl was ~Y ~onated lo tho
land's I);~_ spent mostJ
~t. ~lOUd .
~ St. Paul LinLm- ~ ' .services ~or
to;' s
~ k ~ '" ' and Wals eek t~lat identi~cs Adams o~. Uoud last year when il Paid thc
clam cash loss ..... .,,o.,..
Staff Water ~ ,me s~x SI. Paul area non r '-~.~. ilo was not/nvol,.~'~ aaa
Th~ operators o .... g ups that alle ed p Grit
wrole a $3,6~ CBeck
I nearly $60 ~ ~;~y-~co o~$tealing ouct.gamblin al ..... aca to con- cash from the SL Peler Claver gain.
~' - .... ,--~ ,,om six aP g Pot~-Oold
orgamzaHons i-~,,~:- ~O~profi/ ~ [hc.Chu~h Gl S · They
and a v .,. _2_ ..... umg a C~urch ~ngmal B ~: P~ler, Claver,
.o ....s~uup. , Paul . oostcr o~gamzalion, St.
~nnesola C~..: ..... oy the ~]~n ~u~tio- e..:_. _ LuPe
Co-,~-, - .--,.name Uamblin. cordiaSj ' :' ~c~yana Con.
- ,,,.,u~ ~oara, which J .... ~. -~ nsm~Soclety
...... ~ me Poi-O-Gold
~ms'said he held
Binto Hall in Arden H/lis A churCh,s .a~,:- ~ m~nat~ the
on the · . ·
/ n .... ac?s~t?ns ]s scheduled fo~ B: .... ~ ,,?.ag. o~ations at
/ ~ monu~ ~lore a state adminis, uotal lhe bingo hall. Is.
/ ~radve law judge. .,~ ~u ~u~r Club m Arden Hil .
/ The accusations, which arc nol d~mi- ' Charses: . .
/ hal clarses, involve James H:
/ ams, who has been linked w/th , ~Ashland ~ana~ement caused ~hc
/ al oilier gan]b"-- · . sCver-
~uis Walsh, a'~ ~eSuJaHlie~ a~d or~anizaHons 1o a.
· owner and ~O~er Ard.. ~u d
/. pres~denloftheSL Paul Li uor . ,. ams' .. ~___ p ~ $~6.415 to A -
ers Association q D~! ny ostenssbJy established to pr~
According to the b '"
oard s slatemenl of
. . . : :.- accounting and inventory control
~Walsh couldn't bt reache.~ ~.. ' ~} ". services" to charities licensed to con-
' ~ ~uesoay.: duct gambling at Pot-O-Gold..How.
~or comment, but Adams den] .
.aliegatJons and called -'- ,,ed.t~e: ever, the money was spent b
aunt" by RoGer Fra~,nero a witch' fo.r.his personal u.~. ,~,; '-YAdams
~, ~anKe, cxccuti?e . oa,u the ~roups. a
secretary ofthe board Adams ' said Adams .-:., .;-'-' '"'~' statement
~'as paid for some ma'~ ..... ?.aid he detailed and co ........ p id for
· · ,-putcrtze(1 payroH,-
· .-e~lzicut lunc- Invoice, inventory and ,corn ·
uons as a COnsultant for char/riel, but · "mformation[ phancc
Walsh and the bingo hall co ' ' "~"~
thc. y operated to~,ethe ...... mpariy. "~"",'.::.'Y .: '~ ,-.---: :"i::;. '. ~' :i'?."
volved, o - ~,crc.not in. ~^smand divene4'e< ~,~,
· . , : ;'" uri~Jnal ~ ....... ~ .,,.f,uyu zrom the
- ' .... . ". ~ ' ~uvatCt-$ and
[n recent weeks ~,~,."._.,'.' '. :-.: .St. Peter Claver to the.~4'o6~.,
thontles hay- Z.?i'"~.~n° mcal au-' aporls and Yo-,~ t:~..'-Y~.'"~m ^rea
.... · ._." ~tcppea un ear^.-,. ~ . uunuaHon.
'_',,~-.~ m Minnesota's 'c..t~, __'"".~:' ·
· - "x~t 'gl'OWing
charitable gambling industry, whidh
is expected to gross il bi/JiGn i
fiscal year that starts July I n. t!e
5u..l r i -c e D
bling account and Used thc Cash to
g
buy a money order payable to him.
serf..The money order was deposited
in 'thc Half Time Rec account at
t Summit Nalional Bank of St. Paul.
' Adams said he does not recall the
transact/on: - ·
I~Ashland illegally provided staff,
gambling equipment and other ser-
vices to one or'more of the organiza.I
tions and to American Legion P. ostI
409 Auxiliary of Eden Prairie.
Adams said he, as a co .........
Ashland, provided some"s;"~i~';
he ',','as often paid from nongamblingI
"T'ou X R L) ox),S
.No t[twe t
LIONS CLUB
To: Mound City Council
From: Northwest Tonka Lions C].ub Gambling Committ~.e
,,
Subject: Proposed Bingo Par]oF for Mound
Although the NW Tonka Lions Club does not have any active Bingo activities
we feel with our experience in the gaming industry this proposal could
lead to nothing but trouble. Because of our concern about the image and
welfare of our commun.it.y Duane l.,eisil',Rer and myself visited wi. th Roger
Franke, State Director of Gam|)li.~g, to get ]~is idea on this type of
operation.
Mr. Franke told us mlthough he is not familiar with the gentlemen involved
in this proposal, he is very suspect of this type of operation. The way
most of these work is to J. nvo].ve sma].]~ local charities in the operation
since these gentlemen can not hold a license or }]ire people. Once they
have their foot in the door J.t seems that the local charities have less
and ].ess to do with the operation and the monthly checks written to the
charity become sma].ler, but it seems to be 81right with the charity since
fit .is 100% more then they would receive without any Bingo.
Ti]ere are many ways that people can skim on this type of opecation,
because they are not watched very carefully.
blt. Franke has offered to speak to the council if they would like more
information directly from the state.
Some questions you might wish to a. sk of the applicants:
1. If you rn.n P]'~x.irie Island Reservation BJi}go why hax'~? you been
replaced?
2. At the P].anning Commission ,neeting you made some statements such as
,%) "We would run J.t similar to the operation in Arden Hills" (see
attached newspaper).
B) Your statistics said the average player spends $22.00 on Bingo
and $7.00 on Pull Tabs. Where do you get your information?
In you letter you refer to the very suooessful Fond-Du-Luth Bingo
Hall in Duluth. Ighy when you cai] the direotor at the Bingo Hall
(218-722~..0280) she will tell you 'that
1. The Hall is not doing very well
2. Pull tabs and tip board revenues far exoeed Bingo.
Z have inoluded a brief seotion of the State GambZ'ing Rules for your
inspection. '
rm~n
Wodnosdn¥
B ngo ha//
operatOrs
aCcuse, d:
steahng
Nonprofit groups
claim cash loss
By Rolmrl i"rnnklh,
Slaf{' ~Vrilcr
The opernh,.~ OFnn ·
I~o hall hn~e ~ ...... Aulcn Hill~ bin-
' ,,eon nccuscd of stealing
nearly $60,000 from '
°rgamzalions ;...,,....s~x nOnprolil
and ayoufh , '-~UUlng a church
~roup.
Thc accusalions Were n
~nnesola Cha~;,-,-, ]~e by the
lsn]go ilall nl Arden Ih/Is. A lieafing
on lhe accusations is sc mduled for
nexl monlh before a slalle adminis.
Iralive law judge.
dish'ibulor ~)f _~,-t. ~cfng a licensed
, ganll)lHlg cquipme,il
HII([ selling il[llaxed Ii ) ·
lorn meal rathe. I board
In a(ldilion, gamblin '
Ilonl Ihe h'hnn('sol~ malerJal lake~]
Irish Festival
.... '' ~.,,~u sit)rage
apace, atx'(,'dhlg Io bl~' ' ·
- · ,,e(, H. ~Va{s{i
and ran ils gan]l)ling
c(,'dh]~ lo olhcr board Operalion,
ri)embers.
In Ihe {alesl case, Franke filed a sln~le.
{nc/Il {aSl week [hal idea '
~m(I. Walsh as shal~L, ~fies. Adams
mhd Managcme~ .
A(lams bas said he severed his con-
ncclion wilh Ashland lasl Augnsl.
Ashland h~la _. ;_ { Oil mono, io
' ' ,,~,u a[alc flee
ducl gamblino a' ',--~n~cs to con-
n'acxwan Educa,:X.;'~"'. '~Uadaluuc
co, dm Staging Society ely and Con
Ada,ns said hc helped n
Church's ..... ,.,. mnagcd the
l{i l0 P al~ons at thc
~ Super Club in Ar .
nol at the bingo hall. dca Hills, bu~
charges, invo{ .... u; Ct'ltllj. ~narges: . -o,utemcnl of
~ns, who has I,een~:~a?e~ H: Ad-
' ' ,,,,~ea with sever ~Ash{
.;" o/her gan]blin, ; .... , , . . - and Mn
P"csidcm ~'il;'c ~r 2w,[~r and r~rn~; an~s' ~;';Z'ZJ° pay $46,415s[;
{ ers Association o. tan' ~,quor Deal-' ny"oslens~?2Jp~l~r, lnc., a
I ' ' ac ....... '~ cslaollshed ,~ _ ~7'
· / ' .' ~uUntlng and j- . tu provloe
~ mmenL bul ~ . ucsosy.j uuci ~amblin~ ~ p nsep. io con-
{ "{{e~a{ions ,n~ .~ams OcnicH {he .~ ever, {he ~--~ -' ol-O-Oold.
,, u caned them a "witCh: for his ~yney was spent by A~w'
hunl by Roger Fr P son ms
~ecrelaryofthe h~.~an~' execuu~e ~atd. Adam ~1 use, the stateme
yas paid rot son;;ZE2?dams said he 9etailed an s he guP 'paia
uons as a cot.--,. "Enagement func IlIVoic~ ·; .... _~otll~lerlzed
,~u.ant ti . · · ' ...... *cmo payroll,
Walsh and ,~ .... oqchanhes, bu~.. reform fi ~ and corn ·
si._. ,,,u Olnoo -~- - ;.. · a..on.. . . .. phance
'"? Operaled I .... ~ """.COmpafiy. ..: . ... .', . ',..
volved, ~scmer were not Jrt- . ~ 5~hl~nd divefled $5,00d fr° :
' ~ ' ~ ,'. ~r~gtnal Boosters ~. _ m lhe
In reccnl wccV .... ' .' . , : St. Pcicr ~t ...... a~a $4,6~
thor{lies ~ ..... -% ~,a[e arid local ./, '~ Snn~,.._~'cr to the St ~.., -~'"
men[ ;..,~u stepped u~ cn~;J~" ...... -u ~outh FOund~;;~~' Area
unarHab/c ga~ibu.:_'~*_ ~asl-growinl
' . "'g ]naust~, whidl~
~s Cxpcclcd lo gross ${ ·
Usca{ ycar Ih-, ...... b~hon in
· " ~riS JUly {. * · j
.k I IOWevcr, Ihq board Said Ibc/'olin
titm is not rcgislcreH ' ' da
a nonl~,.ofi, . - w, th thc--. '
~,? ;mci ~{s ad(kcs; ":~".? as ;, char.
j3.,lso. Was I1 c sob, nyd by Walsh
· ~g Paul Lice--X?, services fo--;'"
~ ,,ts Cllcck ) '
,' A(lams said II,e fou · .
~ ' nVOlVcd, he Said.
/~Adams wrole a ~$3.6~ clleck
cash fronl Ibc SL I ele~ C/aver gam-
bhng acCOunz and USed Ibc ~sli
. ne money order was
in 'lhe Half Time Rec acc
~ Sumnnl National Bn,,~ ~r ~u~z
Adams said be does nol recall
~Ashland illegally provided sla~
gambling equipmcnl nnd olher ser-
vices Io one or more of Ibc organi~.[
lions and Io American Lei
409 Auxilia~ of:a .... ~ on Poslj
Adams said he, as a consulla.,
Ashland, provide-' nl. no~J
he ~as o u some so-ices and
tim(II flen paid from nongamblingf
· -from the desk of Roger Franl~e
Gambling manager needs organization's
support; not a consultant
A ga~nbllng ~nanagcr recently shared his conm~ents with n~e about hiring
a consultant to manage the gambling operation. Membcrs of his organiz, ation
told him about consultants that operated gambling premises for other organi-
zations. The consultants found gambling locations for the organiz, ations,
developed site managers, hircd employces, ordered gambling equipment.
completed applications and reports; all this for a percentage of the gross or
profit. The gambling manager said that he was tired of doing all the work. that
hc wasn't getting help from other orgm~lzation members, and that it seemed
like hiring a consultant was the only way to go.
My two comments to him were the following. First, any organization that
allows lis gambling manager to do all the work is foolhardy. A good gambling
manager can save the organization a lot of work but needs support from the
organization's members. If the members do not have enough interest in
gambling to help with the work, then the gambling manager should resign and
the organiz, ation should get out of gambling.
It is too easy for some members to spend the money raised by the gambling
operation and not share the load in operating the gambling for the organization.
A gambling manager who does a good Job but doesn't get any help will
eventually become burned out. No organization that conducts gambling can
afford to lose a good gambling manager.
Don't let others take control
of'your gambling operation
In the past, I've heard comments about distributors offering Induce-
ments to organizations in order to generate business for themselves. One of
those alleged inducements is the offer to do the monthly reports for the organi-
zations.
A licensed distributor cannot do an organization's monthly reports and
be in compliance with the statute. Minnesota Statute 349.161, Subd. 5(bi
states, 'No distributor, or employee authorized to make sales on behalf of a
distributor, may be involved directly in the operation of lawful gambling
conducted by an organization.' The only person who may participate in the
preparation of reports is a member of the organization or an accounting firm
hired by the organization for that purpbse and approved by the organization
at its regular meeting.
The organizations that have the greatest problems complying with the
law are usually those that have the least to do with their gambling activities.
I£an organization turns over the sale of its gambling equipment to a bar owner,
for example, and turns over the completion of the reports to a distributor and
doesn't make decisions abont how it spends its money, it is bound to get In
trouble. If you want your organization's gambling operation to be a success,
you must be involved in all aspects of the gambling activity. Learn the statute
and rules, follow them to the letter, and call the Gaming Division office If you
have questions.
facility to more than one licensed organization to conduct'~bingo ~
without having obtained a bingo hall license under this section,
unless the person is a licensed organization.
Subd. 2. [LICENSE APPLICATION.] The board may issue a
bingo hall license to persons who meet'the qualifications of
~his section if the board determines that a' license is
consistent with the purpose of sections 349.11 to 349.22.
Applications must be on a form the board prescribes.
Subd. 3. [QUALIFICATIONS.] A license may not be issued
under this section to.a .person, or to a corporation, firm, or
partnership which has as an officer, director, or other person
in a supervisory or management position, who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony in a state or.federal
court within the past five years or who has a felony charge
pending; or
(2) has been convicted in a state or federal court of a
gambling-related offense within ten years of the date of license
application.
Subd. 4. [FEES.] The annual fee for a bingo hall license
is $250.
Subd. 5. [CRIMINAL HISTORY.] The board may request.the
assistance of the bureau of criminal apprehension in
investigating the background of an applicant for a bingo hall
license and may reimburse the bureau for the costs. The board.
has access to all criminal history data compiled by the bureau
on licensees and applicants.
14
[REVISOR ] 349'#164S
Subd. 6. [PROHIBITION.] No bingo hall licensee may also be
a licensed distributor or registered manufacturer or-affiliate
of the distributor or manufacturer under section 349.161 or
349.163.
Subd. 7. [RESTRICTIONS.] A bingo hall licensee or
affiliate of the licensee ~ay not:
(1) provide any staff to conduct bingo~or any other form of
lawful gambling during the bingo occasion;
(2) acquire, provide storage or inventory control, or
report the use of any~gambli~~q,,~pmen~ used!"~i an organization
that conducts bingo on the premises;
(3) provide accounting servic~es to an organization
conducting bingo on the premises;
(4) make any expenditures of gross receipts of an
OrGanization from lawful gambling; or
(5) charge any fee to a person at a bingo occasion, without
which the person could not play a bingo game.
Subd. 8. [LEASES.] Ail of the remuneration to be received
from the organization for the conduct of lawful gambling must be
stated, in the lease. No amount may be paid by the organization
or received by the operator of the bingo hall based on the
humber of participants attending the bingo occasion or on the
gross receipts or profit received by the organization.
Subd. 9. [REVOCATION AND SUSPENSION.] A license under this
section may be suspended by the board for a violation of law or
board rule or for failure to meet the qualifications in
subdivision'3 at any time or revoked for what th~ board
15
sections 14.57 to 14.69 of the administrative procedure act.
349.17 [CONDUCT OF BINGO.]
Subdivision 1. [BINGO OCCASIONS.] Not more than six bingo
occasions each week may be conducted by an organization. At
least 15 bingo games must be held at.each Occasion and a bingo
occasion must continue for at least 1-1/2 hours but not more
than four consecutive hours.
Subd. 2. [BINGO ON LEASED PREMIS'ES.] (a) A person or
corporation, other than an organization, which leases any
premises that it owns to two or more organizations for purposes
including the conduct of bingo occasions, may not allow more
than 18 bingo occasions to be conducted on the premises in any
week .
(b)
If an organization conducts bingo on oremises it does
not own, the organization must provide the board with the name
of the owner and lessor of the premises, copies of all
agreements between the organization and the.owner...or lessor, and
the names of employees of' the ....~wner or lessor who will be
responsible for the premises during the bingo occasion held by
the organization. ~
(c) During any bingo occasion held by an organization on
premises it does not own, the organization shall be directly
responsible for the2
(1) staffing of the bingo occasion;
(2) conducting of lawful gambling during the bingo
16
receipts from lawful gambling.
Subd. 2a. [DISTRIBUTOR LICENSE EXEMPTION FOR LESSOR.] As
part of a lease agreement on a leased bingo premises, the l'essor
may furnish bingo equipment without being a licensed distributor.
'Subd. 3. Each bingo Winner must be determined and every
prize shall be awarded and delivered the same day on which the
bingo occasion is conducted.
Subd. 4. [CHECKERS.] One or more checkers must be engaged
for each bingo occasion. The checker or checkers must record,
on a form the board provides, the number of cards played in each
~game and the prizes awarded to recorded cards. The form mUst
provide for the inclusion of the registration number of each
card and must include a checker's certification that the figures
recorded are correct to the best of the checker's knowledge.
349.171 [CERTAIN SIGNS PROHIBITED.]
No organization may post on the premises where it conducts
lawful gambling any sign Which states directly or indirectly
%hat all of the receipts from the lawful gambling it conducts
are used for charitable purposes.
349.18 [PREMISES USED FOR GAMBLING.]
Subdivision 1. [LEASE OR OWNERSHIP REQUIRED.] An
organization may conduct lawful gambling only on premi'ses it
owns or leases. Leases must be for 'a period of at least one
17
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case Number 89-816
RESOLUTION 89-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A 3 METER RECEIVING DISH ANTENNA
FOR TRIAX C~BLEVISION .LOCATED AT 2381 WILSHIRE BLVD.,
LOTS 24 - 27, BLOCK 3,.SHIRLEY HILLS - UNIT F,
PID NUMBER 13-117-2434 0071.
WHEREAS, Triax MidWest Assoc., L.P., owners of property
described a.s Lo~s 24, 25, 26 and 27, Block 3, Shirley Hills - Unit
F, (PID #13-117-2434 0071), 2381Wilshire Boulevard, located in the
B-l, Central Business district, have requested a 24 foot side yard
variance to install a 3 meter receiving antenna; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 50 foot setback for B-1
properties abutting residential districts and the proposed dish
antenna will be installed within 26 feet of the property 'line
resulting in the requested 24 foot variance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject request
and recommended, approval because the proposal is consistent with
the intent to maintain open space between the residentially zoned
property and the commercial property due to the existence of a
public alley separating the two'uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby concur with the Planning
Commission recommendation to approve the requested side yard
setback variance as requested for Lots 24, 25, 26 and 27, Block 3,
Shirley Hills - Uni.t F (PID # 13-117-2434 0071 subject to the
following conditions:
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 how thi's
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for
filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying
all costs for such recording. The antenna shall not be
permanently installed until proof of recording has been
filed with the City Clerk .of the City of Mound.
CITY OF HOUND
I]
VARIANCE APPLICa~TION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISsIoN
(Please type or print the ~oliowing Information.)
Address of Subject ProPerty
2381 Wilshire Blvd.
Lot 24, 25, 26, 27
Addttton Shirley Hills ''Unit F
Owner's Name Triax Midwest Assoc., L.P.
Block ~
P[D No.
Day Phone 1-507-835-5975
Owner's Address 1504 Second Street SE, Waseca, Minnesota 56093
Applicant's Name (tF other than owner)
Address 238~Wilshire Blvd.
Tom Wimler -
Day Phone 472-6764
Existing Use of Property:
Zoning District B1
Office. and Satellite Receive Site
Has an application ever been made' for zoning, varlanc_~_~condltlonal use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~. If yes,
Iisi date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s)
(Copies of previous r~soluttons mu~t ~¢¢ompany thfs application,) ~
] certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. I consent to the entry tn or upon the premises described tn this
application by any authorized oFflctal of the City of Mound For the purpose
of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
Applicant's Signature Date April 13, 1989
/I//11////////////////////////////////11/////////I////////////i/111/111/I/
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
P1anntng Commtsstoh Recommendation
Resolution No.
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Does the 13resent use O:~..t_thetD'r'513erty con¢orm to all regulations for '
the zoning c~istrtct tn whfc-h~ft'--fS locate~ Yes (>~), No ( ). If= no,
specl~=y each non-con¢ormlng use:
Do the existing structures comply with ail area, height, bulk, and
setl3ack regulations Eot the zoning district in which tt is located?
Yes (X), No ( ). ]E no, spectEy each non-conEorming use=
Which unique physical characteristics o¢ the subject property prevent
Its reasonable use for any of the uses peffmttted In that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow
-(X) too small
( ) too shallow
( ) topography ( ) soil
( ').drainage ' ( ) sub-surface
( ) ~hape (' ) other= specICy
Was the hardship described above created by the action o~ anyone
having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was
adopted? Yes' (), No (Z). ]E yes, explain
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the
relocation o¢ a road? Yes ( ), No (Z). I¢ yes, explain
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to the property described tn 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? (S~eclfy, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation. We would like a variance to install a 10
satellite dish within 20 feet of the west property line. This
allows us to keep all available parking locations in the main
parking-dot which Ks our alternative site.
Will granting of the vartance be materially detrimental to property
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
No
PART
SITE PLAN INFORHATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc., must be submitted tn 8-I/Z"xlt" size. lfi larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8-.l/Z~xll", and 15 larger stze
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure,
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
lng the following information:
Location, area, and dimensions oE existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street'parking, and
utilities.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building and iron.t, slde and rear 1or llnes$
principal building and accessory butldlngs$ principal Dulldtng
and principal buildings on adjacent lots.
Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate "north" compass direction·
Any additional lnfor~tton as ~y reasonably be required by tn·
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Z
47
April 11, 1989
Smith moved and Ahrens seconded a motion directing staff to
prepare an ordinance amendment for Sections 311:00 and
311:05 as recommended above. This will be brought back to
the next meeting for approval. The vote was unanimousl~ in
/favor. Motion carried.
EQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION ~83-153 - SETBACK FOR
RIAX KIDw~ST ASSOCI~TES~ L.p. TO PLACE ~ SATELLITE DIS~
The Building Official explained that this request was to allow a
20 foot setback to place a 10 foot satellite dish to receive the
Midwest Sports Channel. This would replace the two 15 foot
satellite dishes now in place.
The City Attorney stated that because this is a completely dif-
ferent request than the 1983 resolution allowed and is really not
an extension of that resolution, it should go to the Planning
Commission for their recommendation before being considered by
the City Council. The City Council agreed. The item will go to
the Planning Commission on April 24 and be brought back to the
Council on April 25 for consideration.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of-$150.,342.22, when funds are available. .A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to ~et a pub}ic
hearing for May 9, 1989~ at 7.30 P.M. to conszder a ma]or
subdivision and conditional use permit for three (3) town
house units to be constructed in a B-2 General Business Dis-
trict located at 5545 Three Points Blvd., Lafayette Park
· Lake Minnetonka, Part of Lot 27 and Part of Govt. Lot 4, PID
%13-117-24 22 0023. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mo-
tion carried.
MOTION made by Jess.n, seconded by Ahrens to set a Publlc
hearing for May 9, 1989,' at 7:30 P.M. to consider rezoning
from a B-3, Neighborhood Business District to a B-2, General
Business District to allow the operation of a Class III res-
taurant at 4451 Wilshire Blvd., Lots 1 through 18, Block 8,
Avalon, PID %19-117-23 31 0021. The vote was unanimousl~ in
favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to set a public
hearing for May 9, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. to .consider a condi-
tional use permit for a commercial recreational use (bingo
hall) in the B-1 Central Business District located at 2313
Commerce Blvd., Lynwold Park, Part of Lots 54 & 55, PID ~14-
April 5, 1989
C A =_ LF..'VI$10N
City of Mound
C/O Honorable Mayor Smith and
Council Members
53~1 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members:
Triax Midwest Associates, L.?. requests an extension to
resolution 8~-163 which allowed a 20 foot setback for the'
cable company to place a satellite dish. We are in the
need oT thi§ variance so we can put up a l0 foot satellite
dish to be ~ble to Teceive Midwest Sports Channel. The
l0 foot dish is more the size of a home satellite dish,
not nearly as.big as the two 15 foot satellite dishes in
place.now. .. .. ..
Midwest Sports Channel has been requested by our subscribers
so that they can receive 24 Minnesota Twins baseball gsmes,
NHL hockey and.other regional sports programming. This
service will be added to our basic cable service line-up
and not as a pay-per-view channel.
We appreciate your consideration of the extension of this
variance and the many Twins fans in the ..area appreciate
your. consideration al~o.
Sincerely,
~ic [--[ans o~
RH:cJ
Attachments
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITiON~'.L USE PERMIT
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EXiSTiNG 40 FOOT ARTENNA
SUPPORT STRUCTURE TO $0 FEET_ ON ..OPERTT OWN-_-D BY
.h }~ESOTA,
DOW-SAT OF Hr' iNC.
WHEREAS, Dow-Sat of Minnesota, inc. owners cf property
described as "Lots 24, 25, 26, & 27, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit
"F", (PiD ~1B-17-24 34 0071) 2381 Wi!shire Blvd., located in a
B-1 commercial district, have requested a Condi:!ona;'Use Perm':;
suppor~ s~ruc~ure ~o m ~otz! heiEh~ of 80 fee:; ~nd
-WHEREAS, Section 2B.625.5 requires Condition~! Use
Permits for structures over ~5 fa'et in heiEht.
the
Use
an'te~na
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the Conditional
Permit for the expansion of the Dow-Sat of Minnesota, inc.
tower from 40 feet to 80 f.eetoupon the condition that:
. 1. '0nly l{'neal type:antenna's, e×cludin§ dish antennas,
and similar devices shall be attached to the top of
the structure and any other portion thereof.
Dow;Sat· is pre's~'nt'l:y utilizing their building under
a temporary occupancy permit With 'an expiration
date in June of .198~.. In order to. obtain a
permanent occupancy permit, minor building
improvements need to be completed and a land. scaping
plan must be submitt.e.d and approved by the City.
B. The applicant shall subm{t revised tower analysis
data to the building inspector for-review and
approval.
-'.. Th'e for.'egoing re'soluti.on was moved by Councilmember
pau!_~n ~nd seconded by Councilmember Jessen. .
" The following Counci!members voted in the =f:*rmstivee:
Jessen, Pau!sen, Paterson and Po!ston.
Th'~ following Councilmembers
none.
voted, in the negative:
Councilmember Charon
Clerk
was absent snd excused.
July
P, ESO'_UTION 'FO CONCU% WITH T.!F. ~ Ng g'.'~' _.
RECO,",.-,ENDkTION 70 APPP. OVE THE~ .-'DOT SETBACK
3, SHIRLEY HILL... UNIT "F" -. PID -l -liT-2& 3& 0046/
OO47/OO~$/OO~.~ - 4xxx wiLSHiP~E ~.VD.
WHEREAS, the applicant )rich R. Johnson and the 'owner Dow-Sat
of Minnesota, )nc. of the property described as Lots 2~, 25, 26, and
~lock 3, Shirley Hills Unit "F", PIP f's 13-117-2~ 3~
OO~, have a~plied for a variance to construct an ap~roxlmately 2~0C
square foot cable systems office an¢ s~or~e ~ar~ge within 30 feet oF
the ~est property llne; and
WHEREAS, the City Code for the B-I Central Business District
requires a 50 foot setback, if abutting residential distrlct; and
WHEREAS, the.Planning Co~mission recommended approval of this
varlance because the intent is to main~a~n open space between the
residentially zoned property and the cornmerclal and recognizing the
existence of a 20 foot public alley wa), plus the building setback of 30
feet to the property line will provide $0 feet of open space.
· ' NOW, 'FHEREFORE, B'~. )'F 'RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of ~.ound, Minn6~ota does' hereby concur with the Plannl.ng Con~'n.lsslon
Fecorr,~,endation to approve the variance as requested for Lots 214, 25, 26,
and 27o.lnclusive,"Block 3, Shirley..Hills unlt "F~' {P)D.~'s 13-117-2~ 3~
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and
seconded by Councilmember Paulsen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Charon, Paulsen and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
None. ~
· ' Councilmembers Petprson and Swanson were absent and excused.
A%tes:: City Clerk
Mayor
oo .
t
:1
%~E'2A~, the applicant Brian R. Johnson m~ the =~ners D~-$~t of
Minnesota, inc. of-property ~es=ribed ss Lots 2A, 25, 2~ an~ ~, E~o=k 3,
Shirley H~I~ ~nit ~?, P~ ~'s 13-117=2~ ~ 00~6/00~7/0~/00~, '~ere
gr~uted ~ variance bo construct an spprox~mte~y 2~0 m~uare for cab!e
s.o, a~e garage w!~hL~ ~O fee~ cf ~he wes~ pro~r~y !~e,
and "
%%----'Rr-~, because of an update to D~a-Sa%'s site plan they are now
asking to be all~aed to install their mechanical devices (a 40 foot ~m
and a receiving dish) within 20 feet of %he west property line, and
· ' . W~ERr~-S, the Planning Commission has reviewed tt~is revision of
the variance an rec~ended approve.
NC;~, THER~_~--'ORE, BE IT.RESOL¥~ that the City Council of the' City'
of Moun~, .Minnesota does ~ereby ~-mend.Resolution ~8~-118' to .r~ad as ·
fol !~.'s: ' .
'5~£REAS, the app!!c~nt Brian R. J. ohnzon and the o~ner Do~-
Sstof Ninneso{a, Inc. of pro, thy ~ezcri~d-as ~ts 2~,
· ~, B!~k E~ E~rl'~y H~ls Unit ~"F"~ P~'~'s 1B. 11~-2~
0~00~, have ~mpplied for a variance to construct mn approx~tely
2800 square foot cable syst~s office and ~torage garage within
feet of ~e we~t pro~rty line;
~r~R~, ~e City C~e for the ~! Centr~ ~usiness District
r~uires a 50 foot setback, if abutting a residenti~ district; and'
%~ER~, the ~l~nninE C~ission ~ec~ended ~pprov~ of
this variance ~cause 'the intent is to maintain o~n s~ce ~t~een the
resjdentis!!'y zoned pro~rty and the com~rci~ ~nd recognizing the
ex.ist-~nce of s 20 foot public s!!ey way plus the building setback of
'~ feet to the pro~rty line wi!! provide 50 fe~t of o~n s~ce.
NOJ, T~ER~-O~E, BE IT RESOLV~ %hat the City Council' of the
City cf Hound, Minnesota, does hereby concur, with the P!~nning
. sion reco~endation to approve the variance as re~ste~ for the a~ve
described pro~r%y and ~!!~'iog the mechanics! devices (~ ~0 foot
to;'er and ~.receiving dish) ~o be p!sced within bo 20 foot setback
variance.
?ne foregoing resolution was moved by Cc,uncilm~_mber Cha/cn and
~=ccnded by Council-:- ~- Paul
?,n~ £oiio~'ir.g Cour, c!:---~ '
..... ,=;,:~ers vc. ted in the affi.-r,..~tive:
A~;e$%: 'Ci%y Clerk
I
t~#sh/re
£/~d.
, !
I
' NOT~II rood dora o~,ng ¢o.Rd. No35
shown os ~ i$ token trom Co.H~
pron. pro)ect No.4g04 ~
· SEC. E
CITY of MOUND
53.41 MJ-YWOOD RCA'-.
MOUND. MINNESOTA 552,64
f~';2) 472-1155
April 11, 1989
TO:
F ROM:
RE:
MARK KOEGLER, CiTY PLANNER
JAN BERTRAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL
JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
~..
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~,~'
LMCD LICENSES FOR LAKEWINDS ASSOCIATION, M!NNETONKA
BOAT RENTALS, EDGEWATER MARINA, SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS
ASSOCIATION AND CHAPMAN PLACE MARINA
Attached are applications for dock licenses before the LMCD. The
LMCD ordinances require that the City of Mound sign off on the
municipal zoning requirements for each of the applications.
Please review these and let me know if you have any problem with
them.
Chapman Place Marina license application is moot since the City
Council already approved the license. However, I am giving it to
you for your information.
I will take the applications to the City Council as soon as they
have gone through the Park Commission and Planning Commission per
our policy to make these commissions, as well as the Council,
aware of what is being applied for with regard to multiple docks.
Please let me know as soon as possible your opinion on these
appli6ations. If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:is
CITY of XlOUND
53.:' M~¥V. OCC
~6~2~-'72-~!5E
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
tO'
FROM:
RE'
April 13, 1989
Park and Planning Commissions
City Staff'
Jan Bertrand, Building Official~
Minnetonka Boat Rentals and Edg~water
Mar ina
As 'Zoning Administrator for the City oF Mound, it has been
brought to my attention that the con~nerciai Multiple Dock and
Mooring Area License has been applied Cot renewal at the LMCD.
It is my understanding that in ]9B4 Minnetonka Boat Rentals and
Edgewater Marina received a variance to place commercial docks at
the lakeshore of the adjoining duplex. The duplex is in a R-2
zoning district which requires a conditional use permit under the
provisions of City Code Section 23.413 to allow residentially
zoned property for docks servicing commercial property. The
former owner, Mr. Martin, failed to obtain the required condi-
tional use permit for this use. I would recommend that the
bui'lding owner apply with the City to obtain the proper condi-
tional use permit approval to correct this situation.
JB:pj
Attachments:
LMCD Variance Report and Application
City Code Section 23.413
Plat Map
23.414
Docks Serving Commercla] Promerty
Docks tO serve property located in Districts B-l, B-2 or B-3 shall be permitted
only after the issuance of a conditional use permit according to Section 1505.
Any cond~tlonal use permit granted by the Council shall be conditioned as
follows:
(1)
The residential property on which dockage is to be located and the
commercial property served shall be in common ownership and shall be
located within 300 feet of the property line of the commercial property.
(2) The mooring of boats at such dock shall be limited to a maximum of four
hours.
(3) No gas, oil or other product may be sold from the dock and no servicing
of boats will be permitted.
(4) One sign for identification will be allowed but it shall not exceed a
total of six (6) square feet in size.
(5)
Ingress and egress from the residential lot shall be restricted to the
property held under common ownership and adequate safeguards sh~ll be
provided so that persons docking w~ll not trespass on private property
or on any public property except for properly designated streets or.
sidewalks.
(6) The owner shall be required to meet and comply with all the standards
and requirements of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Regulation
It is the intent of this zoning ordinance to comply with all state regulations
relating to environmental concerns, specifically to Chapters 105 and 116D,
Minnesota Laws of 1976, as amended, In all administrative review procedures,
at the time of application, the administrator shall determine the need for
the preparation of 'an environmental assessment according to MEQB regulations.
If the environmental assessment is prepared, all other action on applications
shall cease pending ruling from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board.
'NORTHERN
P~E:
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Application of Martin and Son Boat Rental
FINDINGS
Martin and Son Boat Rental is the applicant for a dock
use area variance and new dock license for its dockage on
north Seton.. The public hearing on this matter was held on
April 11, 1984, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the LMCD offices in
Wayzata, Minnesota. Mr. Dick Martin appeared on behalf of
the applicant.
The dockage located at the subject property was the
subject of a previous variance order of the Board dated May
27, 1981, which granted certain variances only until such
time as the applicant's docks were reconstructed. At this
time, the applicant seeks to reconstruct its docks in closer
conformance with the requirements of the LMCD Code of
Ordinances.
A dock plan was presented at the hearings; however,
following discussion, the applicant agreed to submit a new
dock plan to the Board. It is the amended plan, a copy of
which is attached as Exhibit A, which is being considered by
the Board.
Under the proposal of the applicant there would be no
increase in the total number of boats at the applicant's
dockage. In fact, the number of boats stored in the water
would be decreased. At the present time, 28 watercraft are
stored at dockage and 14 fishing boats are kept at slides.
Under the proposal, the number of watercraft in the water
would be decreased to 24 and the number of boats maintained
at slides would be increased to 18.
The proposal does not involve an increase in either the
number of boats or the total length of dockage in the area
beyond 100 feet from the shore line.
The Board has determined that the hardship justifying
the variances granted below is the fact'that the lot lines'
of the subject property, extended into the lake, converge,
thereby reducing the usable dock use area adjacent to the
subject property. This hardship is not particularly signifi-
cant in this case. However, given the fact that the variances
requested are relatively minor, the Board finds that the
hardship is sufficient to justify the variances granted
below.
'The variance sought on the south side of the applicant's
dock use area is solely for the purpose of allowing temporary
storage, for purposed of loading and unloading, of two fishing
boats within the set back area. The dock itself will comply
with the requirements of the LMCD Code.
On the north side of the applicant's authorized dock
use area, a variance of five feet is requested. The original
plan of applicant's has been amended so that the slips on
the north side of the dock use area do not extend toward or
encourage encroachment into the adjacent dock use area.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED:
That a variance on the south side of the subject
dock use area is granted for the temporary storage
of boats subject to the following conditions:
The variance shall be used for no more than
two fishing boats.
0
The variance is granted only for purposes of
allowing loading and unloading of such
fishing boats~ No permanent or overnight
storage shall be allowed.
The dock is to be constructed so as to comply
with the set back requirements of the LMCD
Code of Ordinances.
That a variance of .five feet is granted on the
north side of the subject dock use area for
construction of a dock in compliance with the
attached plan.
That a new dock license is granted for the construc-
tion of a multiple commercial dock in accordance
with the attached plan.
That the dock license and variances hereby granted
are subject to the following conditions:
That the applicant submit to the District an
as-built survey within 60 days of the completion
of construction o~ the docks.
That there be no increase in the total length
of dockage or Slip length or number of boats
stored beyond 100 feet from the shore line
measured from elevation 929.4 National
Geodetic Vertical Datum.
That four watercraft availability units be
reserved for the storage of rental pontoon
boats, these four slips being the two outermost
slips of the north section of docks, the north
side of the northernmost dock slip extending
from the shore line, and the north side of the
northernmost, west-facing slip on the main
dock structure.
The license issued hereby shall grant no vested rights to
the' use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain
subject to regulation by the District to assure the public of
reasonable and equitable access to the lake.
By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District this ~7~£ day of ~c~- , 1984.
~~ ~)irector
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Action Report of:
Public Hearing:
Attendance:
MARTIN & SON BOAT RENTAL DUA Variance & New Dock License
April'll, 1984, Wednesday, 7:30 p.m., LMCD Office,
'Wayzata
Rascop, Boynton, Elam, Hurt, Kraemer, Mixa, LeFevere
and those on list attached
Public Hearing
The public hearing was opened at 8 p.m. Dick Martin appeared to request
a dock use area variance and a new dock license to reconstruct his
dockage on North Seton.
Martin advised the panel that he wishes to reconstruct his docks in closer'
agreement with LMCD requirements while still maintaining the same total
number of boats.
He agreed to submit a modified plan for the proposal.
Ail having been heard and submittals received, the public hearing was
closed at 8:15 p.m.
Findings
1. Martin & Son is applying for a DUA variance and a new dock license to
me
Be
reconstruct its dockage, providing
Present Storage
28 boats at dockage
14 fishing boats at slides
Slip length beyond 100':
Present~
-0-
Boats stored beyond 100':
Present
No boats
Proposed Storage
24 boats at dockage
18 fishing boats at slides
Proposed
60'
Proposed
2+ boats
4. A 5' to 10' setback variance would be needed on the north side for the
plan submitted 4-12-84 (attached), and a variance would be needed on
the south side to provide temporary storage for fishing boats, hardship based
converging lot lines.
5. Mound approval is attached.
Recommendations (see next page) lsd&
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Martin & Son Public Hearing
Apr'il 11, 1984
Page 2
Recommendations
On 4-14-84 the committee, reviewed the public hearing report for variance
and dock license amendment by Martin & Son now applying to reconstruct
its docks pe.rmanently, bringing setbacks into closer conformity with the
LMCD Code.
Elam Moved, Boynton Seconded that the Martin & Son Boat Rental DUA
variance and license amendment applications be recommended to the Board
for approval with the following stipulations:
1. that storage of 4 pontoon boats in the northern DUA be non-transferrable;
2. that there be no increase in slip length or in number of boats stored
beyond 100' of the 929.4 NGVD shoreline;
that a setback variance be granted on the south side of the south
shoreline-slip, for the transient use of fishing boats stored on slides;
and
4. that a setback variance to the lot line on the north be allowed, subject
to agreement with the neighbor.
Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (1), Brown voting Nay.
At the 4-25-84 Board meeting, Rascop Moved, Bauman Seconded that the Martin
& Son Boat Rental applications for dock-use-area variance and license amend-
ment be approved to reconstruct its docks permanently, bringing setbacks
into closer conformity with the LMCD Code, based on converging lot lines,
and with the following stipulations:
1.. that there be no increase in slip length or in number of boats stored
beyond 100' of the 929.4 NGVD shoreline (116' and 3 boats)i;
2. that a setback variance be granted on the south side of the south
shoreline-slip, for loading and unloading of fishing boats stored on
slides;
3. that a 5'-10' setback variance to the lot line on the north be allowed,
subject to agreement with the neighbor; and
4. that storage of 4 pontoon boats in the northern dock use area be non-
transferrable.
Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (0).
2~I~;ICIPAL CERTIFICATION FOR DOCK
LICENSE ZON1~qG APPROVAL FOR 1984 - AMENDED
(year)
Under the terms of Lake Minnetonk~ Conservation District Ordinance ~1,
the following provisions apply:
Section 1.0~ The provisions of this ordinance shall not supersede any
municipal ordinance
(e) which esta. blishes zoning provisions regulating land use
.adjacent to the Lake which are not in conflict with this
ordinance.
Section 1.06 Nothing in this ordinance is intended to authorize the
use, rent, sale, lease or conveyance of dock space or mooring facilities
in the Lake contrary to municipal zoning laws.
Martin & Son
c/o Richard Martin, 4850 Edgewater Drive, Mound
Same
(Name and addmess of dock applicant)
(Title, description, and location of docks)
I certify that the above dock licensee applicant has met the zoning
ordinance requ_trements of mouna for the
(Municipality)
property described for 1984 and is entitled to a Lake Minnetonka
( ear)
Conservation District dock and/or mooring area license there~der for
na/o moorings.
~ (Authorized Si~at~e)
(Date)
11/79
8 1984
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
In Re:
Application of Martin & Son Boat Rental
The matter of the variance application for Martin & Son Boat
Rental came on for hearing on May 20, 1981, at 8:00 o'clock p.m.
at the Deephaven City Hall in the City of DeephaVen, Minnesota.
The applicant, Richard E. Martin, sought a.side setback
variance on the south side of his dock use area to allow him to
continue to store five pontoon boats along the south side of the
dock. The dock has a 20 foot setback from the lot line. The
pontoon boats are 8 feet wide and 20 feet long. Therefore, the
storage of the pontoon boats at the dock would require a variance
of 3 feet between 50 feet and 100 fee% where a 15 foot setback is
required and an 8 foot variance beyond 100 feet where a 20 foot
setback is required.
Martin & Son Boat Rental is located west of the railroad
bridge in the North Seton area.
The applicant has stored the pontoon boats in this location
for a number of years in the past. The adjacent landowner, indicated
bY letter that he'has no objection to the continuing use of the
dock in this manner.
The Board finds that there may be some problem of water depth
constituting a hardship within the meaning of LMCD Code §3.04,
Subd. 1. -The shallow water problem makes it difficult to store
boats near shore in this location. 'The nature of the hardship is.
not particularly significant~ However, the Board finds that it
is sufficient to justify the limited variance granted in the follow-
ing order.
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing, it is ordered that the variance
applied for be granted. This variance is to be subject to annual
review at the time of application for multiple dock licensing.
Furthermore, the variance is to continue in effect no longer than
the date at which applicant's docks are reconstructed.
The variance issued hereby shall grant no vested right to the
use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject
to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and
equitable access to the lake.
By order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District this ' 2?th day of ' May , 1981.
%AKE
~;i~ M INNETON
(HARRISONS'"i BAY)
R EC.J~I',: ..
April 20, 1989
Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Ed:
I have reviewed the dock applications for the Lakewinds
Association, Minnetonka Boat Rentals and Edgewater Marina, Seahorse
Condominiums and Chapman Place. All four of the applications
appear to be either consistent with existing zoning or consistent
with requirements for grandfathered uses. On the basis of the
information that I have available, I would recommend that the City
of. Mound issue the required zoning certificate in compliance with
the request by the LMCD.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely,
VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC.
by:
R. Mark Koegler
City Planner
~RMK:dbm
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Park Commission Minutes
April 13, lgBg
Page Four
The City Planner reviewed the preliminary plat proposal at 5545
Three Points Blvd, LaFayette Park Lake Minnetonka, Part oF Lot 27
& Part oF Govt. Lot 4. He explained that they are proposing to
collect a park Fee For this Oevelopment since according to the
plan there is no pressing demand For land in that location. The
Commission had no objections.
6. DNR Application #89-6330 For riprap at Lakewinds
MOTION made by Wel~er, seconded by Jessen, to approve DNR AI~-
plication #89-'6330 for riprap Installation at Lakewinds.
Motion carried unanimously.
7. 1989 Commercial Dock Licenses
The 1989 Commercial Dock Licenses For Lakewinds, Mtnnetonka Boat
Rentals/Edgewater Marina, Seahorse Condominiums, and Chapman
Place were reviewed.
MOTION made by Weber, seconded bY Asleson, to recommend ap-
proval the I989 Commercial Dock Licenses. Motion carried
unanimously.
Council Representative Report
Council Representative Phyllis Jessen reported that she received
a request From a citizen to have puppet shows in the parks with a
religious theme. She also reported that the City Council agreed
with the proposal to have the police meet with the Commission or
a subcommittee regarding.snowmobile/vehicle accesses through the
parks. The City Council also agreed that the wetlands recrea-
ttona'i use Fall under the direction oF the Park Commission,
'however there was no motion or resolution aOopted.
Park Director's Report
Park Director, Jim Fackler, reported that-they are in the plan-
ning stage For their Float in the City Days parade. He reviewed
the meeting regarding the County Road 15 BeautiFication Com-
mittee. The new park equipment is on its' way. The summer crew
will now be starting work again. They received the materials For
signs, there should be enough mater.ials to have signs in a11 the
parks.
LAKE
402 EAST LAKE STREET
MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 6121473-7033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
JoEIlen L. Hurt, Chair
Orono
Thomas Reese, Vice Chair
Mound
Jan Boswinkel, Secretary
Uinnetonka Beach
Mark Westlund, Treasurer
Wayzata
Marvin Bjorlin
Tonka Bay
David Cochran
Greenwood
Albert O. Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathwol
Excelsior
non Kraerner
Spring Park
John Lewman
Minnetrista
John G, Malinka
Victoria
Robert K. Pillsbury
Minnetonka
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland
April 7, 1989
City of Mound
c/o Edward Shukle, Mgr.
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed,
· The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has received
an application for a Multiple Dock and Mooring Area
License as described on the attached certificated.
LMCD ordinances require that before a license can be
issued, the affected property meet municipal zoning
requirements. Therefore, it is the policy of the LMCD
that all dock license applications be referred to the
village for review, amd that a zoning certificate be
required from the village before final action of the
District on the application.
If a zoning certificate or a request for delay for
reason is not received from the village within 45 days
of the above date, the District will continue its
consideration for approval of the application.
Please execute the enclosed certificate and return it
to this office so that prompt action can be taken on
the application. Thank you!
Sincerely,
LAKE b~INNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eugene R. Strommen
Executive Director
mnc.
Lakewinds Assoc,
Minnetonka Boat Rentals and Edgewater I~arina
Seahorse Condominium Assoc.
Chapman Place Marina
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION FOR DOCK
LICENSE ZONING APPROVAL FOR 1989
(year)
Under the terms of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (kMCD)Code:
Section 1.06,Subd.ll
Compliance With Other Laws. The issuance of a license
or permit by the district does not relieve any person
from the responsibility of obtaining required licenses,
permits, or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/
firm/organization has applied for a new/renewal license for multiple dockage:
Lakewinds Association :
c/o Michael A. Koch, Garsten Management Corp, 1485 Energy Park Dr. St. Paul, 551~
55108
(Name and address of dock applicant)
4379 Wilshire Blvd, Mound, MN 55364
(Title, description and location of docks)
I dertify that the above dock. license applicant has met the zoning
ordinance requirements of Mound for the
-' (Municipality)
property described for lq~q and is entitled to a Lake Minnetonka
(Year)
Conservation District dock and/or mooring area license thereunder for
slips and/or moorings.
'(Authorized Signature)
(Date)
"x
LAKEWINDS: Subject to signed
written agreement with Donnie's "'" . ,<~.
on the Lake, Inc. for use of ......
separate dockage with 16
transient slips, and no
overnight boat parking be ~ . ~.."
allowed.
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION FOR DOCK
LICENSE ZONING APPROVAL FOR 1989
(year)
Under the terms .of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)Code:
Section 1.06,Subd.ll
Compliance With Other Laws. The issuance of a license
or permit by the district does not relieve any person
from the responsibility of obtaining required licenses,
permits, or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/
firm/organization has applied for a new/renewal license for multiple dockage:
Minnetonka Boat Rentals and Edgewater Marina
c/o Charles R. Jones, P. O. Box 461, Spring Park, MN 55384
(Name and address of dock applicant)
4850 Edgewater Drive
(Title, description and location of docks)
I cer.tify that the above dock license applicant has met the zoning
ordinance requirements of Mound for the
(Municipality)
property, described for 1989 and is entitled to a Lake Minnetonka
(Year)
Conservation District dock and/or mooring area license thereunder for
slips and/or
moorings.
(Authorized Signature)
(Date)
Subject to Order of 6-27-84, and . MI~NETO~:KA BOAT RENTALS AND EDGEWATER MARINA
~hat the section of dockage that ~ ~ ' : . ~/ · · ~, m I
will not be used under t_h~h;ari-
ance Order for tie-on o~
pontoon which ~as moved, be fence~.
....... . ~',~
~,AR 1 3 1987
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION FOR DOCK
LICENSE ZONING APPROVAL FOR 1989
(year)
Under the terms of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)Code:
Sectionl.06,Subd.ll
Compliance With Other Laws. The issuance of a license
or permit by the district does not relieve any person
from the responsibility of obtaining required licenses,
permits, or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/
firm/organization has applied for a new/renewal license for multiple dockage:
Seahorse Condominium Association
c/o Administrator, 5440 Three Point Blvd., Mound. MN
(Name and address of dock applicant)
SS~ql
Same
(Title, description and location of docks)
I certify that the above dock license applicant has met the zoning
ordinance requirements of Mound for the
(Municipality)
property described for 1989 and is entitled to a Lake Minnetonka
(Year)
Conservation District dock and/or mooring area license thereunder for
slips and/or
moorings.
(Authorized Signature)
(Date)
_-
SEAHORSE stipulations: that the
ten visitor slips may not be
converted to any other use, and
that the slips be marked with
"Visitor Parking Only" signs.
10 transient slips~: no
overnight boat parking.
:2..
MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION FOR DoCK
LICENSE ZONING APPROVAL FOR 1989
(year)
Under the terms of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)Code:
Section 1.06,Subd.ll
Compliance With Other Laws. The issuance of a license
or permit by the district does not relieve any person
from the responsibility of obtaining required licenses,
permits, or other permission from any federal, state,
municipal, county or other governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Lake.
LMCD hereby advises its member municipality that the following person/
firm/organization has applied for a new/renewal license for multiple dockage:
Chapman Place Marina
2670 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN 55364
(Name and address of dock applicant)
Same
(Title, description and location of docks)
I certify that the above dock license applicant has met the zoning
ordinance requirements of Mound for the
(Municipality)
property described for 1989 and is entitled to a Lake Minnetonka
(Year)
Conservation District dock and/or mooring area license thereunder for
slips and/or
moorings.
(Authorized Signature)
(Date)
¢
Revised Dock Plan meeting
~...~: 20' ~et back requirement~ beyond
100' point per Dock Committee
FEB 1,! 1989
CITY of MOUND
M, OUND. M, INNESGTA -'5354
(612, z72-; 155
lpril 26, 1989
Mr.' Denis Bailey
Lake Improvement Operations Division
De'partment of Public Works -'
Hennepin County Operations Division
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopki.ns, MN 55343-8468
Dear Mr. Bailey:
I am in receipt of an application that Hennepin County has made
to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for maintenance
dredging of twenty channels over the next four years.
The purpose of my letter is to inquire as to why Lost Lake
Channel in Mound is not on the list of channels to be dredged.
This channel is a very' important channel within the City of
Mound. The City of Mound currently owns 43 acres adjacent to the
channel. 3.15 acres of the 43 acres is developable and the
remainder is wetlands. The City of Mound is looking to develop
the property and utilize the channel for the development on the
Lost Lake site.
Mr. Denis Bailey
April 26, 1 989
Page 2
The City of Mound desires to have this channel dredged through
your maintenance program, is this possible? How do we go about
Eetting it addin/ itl-to your list of channels to be dredged? I
would ask that you contact me with regard to this issue as soon
as possible.
Sincerely,
Edwa'rd J. Shukle, Jr. .
City Manager
cc:
Jim Fackler, Parks Director
Mark Koegler, City Planner
Judy Boudreau, Area Hydrologist, Metro Region Division of Waters
Minnesota DNR --.'
Vern Genzlinger, Associate County Administrator
Pat Murphy, Director of Public Works
Tom Reese, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
..Representative
Gene Strommen, LMCD
Jim Mahady, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
ES:is
$'T~T E OF
DEPARTMENT
1200 W~rner Roa~.,
612/296-7523
pi-ION[ NC).
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DNE PROTECTED WATEP, S ~=~'~ ;3PLICATION
EEQUEST FOE E~-VIEW
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
wATEEs' A:-~ECTED:
PROJECT SPONS0E:
NATURE OF WORE:
CO.~h'TS DUE BY:
AN
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Rev 4/81
~lrl~ D[~.. A R TME NT OF
'~"~ NATURAL RESOURCES
· LOOAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT OO ENTS
PART B
Section I (To De com;/eteg Dy applicant)
n Coun~ [320 ~ash~ng~on Avenue Sou~h, Hopkins, HN 55343
Touarter Section(s) lSection(s) [Townsmp(s)
PROJECT LOCATION
Project will attect: (name and numDer of lake, wetianc~, o, watercourse)
Lake Mi nnetonka
IRange(s) iC°untyues) Hennepin
' hereby submit this applicatlon for permit tO:(mark proper box)
[] appropriate water [] work in protected waters
Section 11 (To De completed Dy local unit of government)
The following local unit of government comments and/or recommendations are s d for consideration by the
Depa~ment of Natural Resources, in the disposition of the referenced permit application. (YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE
SUBMI~ED TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAYS.) Water Appropriation Permit Applications are to be sent to the Central Of-
rice, St. Paul, snO Protected Waters Permit Applications to the DNR Regional Office. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT
MAILING ADDRESSES).
t '4TE,
Was the proposed project field inspected by this local unit of government? [] NO
rized Signature
I--'lYES (if Yes, give viewer's n,~me)
{Date I~,~o~e No.(A2ea Coae)t
Name of responding Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed District, City or County
Address (of the above named local unit of government)
(DNR -- Division of Waters addresses on back)
NA-02(~22-03
. Rev. 12 85
,.~DE PA R T M E N T OF
~[~,~' ~N ATUR At RESOURCES
PERMrr APPLICATION
TO WORK IN PROTECTED WATERS OR WETLANDS
IINC:t. UDING DAM SAFE1'YI
· · Please read instructions before attempting to comolete this application.
OFFICE USE ONLY.
PA. NO.
[]SWCD IZZic/c
[-lw.0.
Apphcant's Name (Last, First, M.I.) Aumor~zecl Agent (ii appi,cal:)te) tTelephone Number&areacoc
Hennepin County Denis Bailey li512 ) 935-3381
Address (Street. RFD, Box Number, City, State. Zip Code)
320 Washington Avenue South, Hopkins, MN 55343
LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BESURE TO INCLUDE SKETCH SHOWING HOVV TO GET TO THE SITE)
G°vernment L°t(s)IQuarter Secti°n(s)ISecti°n(s)N°' IT°wnsh[p(s)N°' IRange(s)N°'_ . . . IL°t' Bl°ck' Subdivisi°n _
Fire No., Box No. or Project Address tCounty Pro. ct w,II affect r'l Lake. t-IWetlanci or i'-IWatefcourse
' I Hennepi n Imame & numbe~.
' 1 'f k.OWn~ 27-133
TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT (CHECK ONE)
excavate i~ D repair
fill r-1 remove -
drain D abandon "':
construct ID other (specify)
ID shoreline E] shore-protection
~ channel D harbor
E3 sand blanket D permanent dock
~ riprap D whad
D obstruction..: Ddam ..
El bridge E) other
[] culvert (speCify)-/;
O install
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ Vl. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET): ' ':
VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS): '
/
'BRIEF EXPLANATI?~ OF PROJECT: (EXPLAIN WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK WILL BE DON
· ' Maintained by Hennepin Coun~: Listed on Attached Sheet
EXCavate Channels and accesses ·listed on attached Sheet t-o 921',6; the maximum allowed by
the DNR (effective 3/89}. The channels listed are historically maintained by Hennepin :-' '
CoUnty.
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explain why this project is needed)
Re-establish 8' deep channel depth for safe boating.
ENVIROI(I~IENTAL IMPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources,
Minor turbulance during excavation. No permanent impact.
~APR7 1989 ~
GION Vi
~A'rl:P¢
including unavlSlb"~bTe"~dl'detrimental effects)
ALTERNATIVES (Other alternatives to the action proposed)
None
I hereby make aDphcatmn pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 105.42 and alt support,ng rules for a permit to work in or affect the above named pfotect~
water(s) in accordance with all supporting maps. plans, and other information submitted w~th this application. The intormation submitted and statements made
concerning this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
STATE OF
SubsCribe~;I a~d ]sworn 1"o befor/[~e this
MY comWon ex~ir~
Date
S~gnat_ur~ Owner or Authoriz~ed Agent .
Signature of Leased '
..-Jstribution:
,';-'l~'.~!;~ LARRY D. MARTIN I White: DER
%?~?~ cA~v~ COUNTY ~ Green: Watershed Oistri~
~;~'~ My commi~ion rx;ke~ 12-14-89 ~ Goldenr~: CJ~ or Coun~
......... ' Pink: Army Corps of Engineers
Canal: Appli~nt
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Operations Division
320 Washington Ave, South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8458
Phone: [612] 935-338'1
March 30, 1989
Ms. 3udy Boudreau
Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55106
Re' Channel Dredging
Dear Ms. Boudreau:
Enclosed is a permit application for dredging in channels routinely maintained
by Hennepin County on Lake Minnetonka. Since Hennepin County historically has
and will be asking to do future maintenance on these channels, I am asking that
the permit not be limited by a chronological deadline nor a specific channel
location.
The low'water of Lake Minnetonka in 198811989 will require dredging in many
channels to assure safe boating, but due to budget constraints only limited
dredging will be done in igBP with more complete dredging in the future. A list
of channels maintained by Hennepin County, and other pertinent information
including the year each channel could receive dredging, is enclosed with the
permit application and $75.00 filing fee. Please notify me of any additional
fees.
Minnesota Portable Dredging Company is contracted to do dredging and dispose of
material for Hennepin County in 198~.
Shouid you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincei'ely, '
Lake Improvement
Operations Division
OB'pl
Encls
REGION
HENNEPIN COUNTY
o~ ~uo, op~,~ ,,~p.o~.,, 1,5"30
CHANNEL NAME
MASDR CHANNELS MAINTAINED BY HENNEP!N COUNTY
CONNECTS
PROJECTED YR OF DREDGING
Areola
Black Lake
Noerenberg
Nendrickson
Coffee
Emerald Lake
Seton
Narrows
Libbs Lake
Tanager Lake
Boy Scout
Stubbs Bay
Grays Bay
Forest Lake
Zimmerman Pass
St. Albans Bay
Halsted
Big Island
Black Lake
Peavey Lake
Crystal Bay - Lower Lake
Black Lake - Spring Park Bay
Maxwell Bay - Crystal ~ay
North Arm - Crystal Bay
Crystal Bay - West Arm
Emerald Lake - Cooks Bay
Seton Lake - Harrtsons Bay
Upper Lake - Lafayette Bay
Libbs Lake - Grays Bay
Tanager Lake - Browns Bay
North Arm - Maxwell Bay
Stubbs Bay - Maxwell Bay
Grays Bay - Wayzata Bay
Forest Lake - West Arm
West Upper Lake - Phelps Bay
St. Albans Bay - Excelsior Bay
Halsteds Bay - Priests Bay
Lower Lake North-Lower Lake So
Black Lake - Seton Lake
Peavey Lake - Browns Bay
198~
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991 '-
1991
1992
1992
1992
North Arm Access
Spring Park Access ....
DB:pl
3130189
Y/ATEIL5
CHANNEL NAHE
MA3DR CHANNELS MAINTAINED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY
CONNECTS
PRO3ECTED YR OF DREDGING
Arcola
Black Lake
Noerenberg
Hendrickson
Coffee
Emerald Lake
Seton
Narrows
Libbs Lake
Tanager Lake
Boy Scout
Stubbs Bay
Grays Bay
Forest Lake
Zimmerman Pass
St. Albans Bay
Halsted
Big Island
Black Lake
Peavey Lake
Crystal Bay - Lower Lake
Black Lake - Spring Park Bay
Maxwell Bay - Crystal 6ay
North Arm - Crystal Bay
Crystal Bay - West Arm
Emerald Lake - Cooks Bay
Seton Lake - Harrisons Bay
Upper Lake - Lafayette Bay
Libbs Lake - Grays Bay
Tanager Lake - Browns Bay
North Arm - Maxwell Bay
Stubbs Bay - Maxwell Bay
Grays Bay - Wayzata Bay
Forest Lake - West Arm
West Upper Lake - Phelps Bay
St. Albans Bay - Excelsior Bay
Halsteds Bay - Priests Bay
Lower Lake North-Lower Lake So
Black Lake - Seton Lake
Peavey Lake - Browns Bay
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1991
1992
!992
i992
North Arm Access
Spring Park Access
DB'pl
3/30/89
!
EPARTMt~NT OF
pHONE NO,
612/296-7523
NATURAL
1200 Wa~--aer Road., St. Paul, M~. 55106
Dh'R PROT~rED WATERS PEtLMIT APPLICATION
tLEQUEST FOR R~VIEW Ah'D C0.~E~S
RESOURCES
NO.
TO:
FROM:
WATEP, S A:-FE C.'~'D:
PROJECT SPOI~SO?~:
t~bt-4lah~ 4 rlpr~
NA-02622-03
Rev '12/85 PERMIT APPLICATION
.-u,,oDEPART~...,.ENT OF TO WORK IN PROTECTED WATE~ OR WETL.A#D,I
NATURA. L RESOURCES IINC[UDIN$ DAM ~FLrI"YI
~. > Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application.
OFFICE USE ONLY.
IP.A. NO
I []swcD ~c
-.[ [:::]w.o. I::DL Z
Applicant's Name (Last, First, M.I.) , IAuthor~zecl Agent (if applIcable) Telephone Number&a,ea cco~
A~dress(Street RFD Box Number, C~, State, Zip Code),/
.LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BESURE TO iNCLUDE SKETCH SHOWING HOW TOGET TO THE SITE)
Government Lot(s) Quarter Section(s) ]Section(s) No. ToWnship(s) No. jRange(s)No. ILot. Block, Su~Jvision
IEir~o., Box No. or Project A~Ores[~. ~ ICoun~ IProlect w,llaffec~Lake. DWettanO¢ ~Watercourse~
HLITYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT (CHECK ONE)
~ excavate ~ repmr ~ shoreline ~ shore-protection '~ obstruction ~ dam
~ fill D remove ~ channel Q harbor D bridge ~other
D drain ~ abandon '~ ·
~ construct Q other (s ecl' ) ~sand blanket D permanent dock Q culved (spec~)
~ install P ~' ~riprap Q whad ~?~ ~j~
V.
ESTIMATED I~3JE~ GOST
VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS):
VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET):
ATION OF,-PROJECT:(EXPLAIN WHAT PRO~E_CT CON.$,IS. TS~O[:: AND HOW WOR, K, WILL BE DONE
,~? · '¢,r.r~.,t. al. /-'ae ~;~--~ :.?...~' '~z'/~ ~.c~.~, ---'~'/-.,~.~..,~ ~
O,F, P_,..RO~ECT,: (Explain_ why this project is needed,) _/
ENYIR01J~ENI'AL I~P,I~'[. (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources, including unavoidable but detrimental effects)
,,c~ "~t.~.,< ~-~./( -~.~.,~, ~/~ ~ ~ ~.~-,~ z---t"~/'T-
ALTEI~ATi~$ (Other alternatives to the action proposed)
I hereby make apPhcahon pursuanl to Minnesota S1atules Chapter 105.42 and all suppodmg rules for a permit tO work m or affect the abovt named prOteCled
water(s) in accordance w~lh all supporting maps, plans, and other information submttled wIth this application The ~nformation submitled and statements made
concerning this apphcatton are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
S~gnature of Leasee Date
STATE OF
/'7 '
· , .'-.m>,-; .,,_.~';4.~, ---"
COUNTY ~ t
Subscrib~ and sworn to before me this
~ day of t 19. ~
';' .. ..
IS~gnature of Notary -,~
Distribution:
White: DNR
Blue: SWCO
Green: Watershed District
Goldenrod: City or County
Pink: Army. Corps of Engineers
LEGEND
U. $. Highway ..................................
State or Trunk Highway ................
County Road ......................................... ,i,,-, (~)
Municipal Road ................... ~ ................
Municipal Boundary ............................. '.:.;-~; ':.~?.'..~'.'-'.'~'..':'~'~
City Hall ....................................................
County Park ..............................................
Reef ......................................................................
Lake dep~ ¢ontou~ ere shown in number of feet below the
crest =4 Greys B~y D.m, Elevation 929.4 Above S~a Levd,.
Prepared by tl~e Ha';t'nepln County D~'l~a~tment of Trlnsportatlon
Planning and Programming Division 320 Wiihingto.n AY S
Hopkins, Mlnn 65343
c~lling the Planning
MINNETRISTA
;t
E&STV1EW
MOUND
ARM ~R.
_ _ BAY.-.
~R&NCH RD.
RA~_D
PHELPS
ISLAND
(Mound1
ENCHANTED
, c4!t ~ ,~ n
612/296_75231200 Warner R~., St. Paul, MK. 55[06
December 17, 1987
Hr. Joel K. Essig
Surfstde, Inc.
2670 Co=merce Boulevar8
Hound, Minnesota 5536&
Dear Mr. Essig:
RE: NEED FOR AN AMENDM~-NT~...TO '..INCLTDE ])OC~ING? FACILITIES,
DN?, PER}~T ~77-6540 '
The 1983 Edition of Department of Natural Resources (DNq~) Rules which
define the "requirements for issuance of pe~its (Mi~esota Code 0f
~enc~ ~ules, 6MC~ ~1.5020) was ~ended =o include ~rinas
seasonal doting under D~ pe~i= authorit~.'
~r review indite:es that' your ~rina' fits' =he' definition, and a D~ ....
pe~i: is required. ~ reques:ed in our ~rch 10, 1986 le=ter, please
sub~: the current (or proposed), doc~nE arranEemeut... If =he dock
layou: is approved, 'Pe~t-~77-6540 %'i!l'"be ~ended =o-include the .'
If you have any questions, please contact me at 296-7523.
Sincerely,
METRO REGION DIVISION OF ~ATERS
J52:lkr
REGION Vi
(ATE P,S ..
1557
~ @
:]
.,/
6/
APR 1
I~EGIOt~
CITY of MOUND
May 4, 1989
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
RECP?.#
30604
30553
30462
30263
30460
30135
30476
30490
30136
30162
30176
30771
50445
30632
30631
30550
30237
30943
30474
30474
30190
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DOCK INSPECTOR
1989 REFUNDS
NAME
ADDRESS
REASON
Mark A. Pearson
Dan Anderson
Tim King
Perry B. Hanson
Mark Anderson
Randal York
Kenneth Hoffman
Rick McCausland
William Bauer
Walter Sharratt
John Lavender
Jim McCrehin
Caroline Quist
Daniel Knudsen
Vernon Tapelt
Sterling Peterson
Pattie Jean Turtle
Brian Johnson
Brad Sohns
Palmer Koosmann
Robert Johnson
1725 WIldhurst
4969 3 Pts. Blvd.
2447 Lost Lake Rd.
4773 Richmond Rd.
5580 Tonkawood
4861 Edgewater
4649 Hanover
4759 Galway
1909 Shorewood
6012 Evergreen
5516 Tonkawood
3137 Donald
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Moved
Cancel
No Spot
No Spot
No Spot
No Spot
3025 Brighton Blvd. Share
2161 Overland
4870 Island View
5080 Shoreline
2192 Centerview
4945 Glen Elyn
2236 Southview
6045 Chestnut
5488 Tonkawood
Share
Cancel
Share
Share
Share
No Spot
No Spot
Senior
AMOUNT
$ 60.00
$ 30.00
$ 60. oo
$ 30. oo
$110.25
$ 24.25
$12o.o0
$135.o0
$140.00
$140.00
$130.00
$160.00
$ 30.00
$ 39.50
$120.00
$ 60.o0
$ 30.0o
$ 60.o0
$ 85.00
$ 85.00
$ 60.0o
TOTAL $1,709.00
1
An equal opportumty Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
May
4, 1989
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
RECPT.~
30604
30553
30462
30263
30460
30135
30476
30490
30136
30162
30176
30496
30771
50445
30632
30631
30550
30237
30474
30474
30190
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DOCK INSPECTOR
1989 REFUNDS
NAME ADDRESS REASON
Mark A. Pearson 1725
Dan Anderson 4969
Tim King 2447
Perry B. Hanson 4773
Mark Anderson 5580
Randal York 4861
Kenneth Hoffman 4649
Rick McCausland 4759
William Bauer 1909
Walter Sharratt 6012
John Lavender 5516
Mary Wiebusch 1748
Jim McCrehin 3137
Caroline Quist 3025
Daniel Knudsen 2161
Vernon Tapelt 4870
Sterling Peterson 5080
Pattie Jean Turtle 2192
Brad Sohns 2236
Palmer Koosmann 6045
Robert Johnson 5488
WIldhurst
3 Pts. Blvd.
Lost Lake Rd.
Richmond Rd.
Tonkawood
Edgewater
Hanover
Galway
Shorewood
Evergreen
Tonkawood
Heron
Donald
Brighton Blvd.
Overland
Island View
Shoreline
Centerview
Southview
Chestnut
Tonkawood
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Share
Moved
Cancel
No Spot
No Spot
No Spot
Share
No Spot
Share
Share
Cancel
Share
Share
No Spot
No Spot
Senior
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$ 60.00
$ 30. oo
$ 60. oo
$ 3o.o0
$110.25
$ 24.25'
$120.00
$135.00
$14o.oo
$140.00
$13o.oo
$ 85.00
$160.00
$ 30.00
$ 39.50
$120.00
$ 60. oo
$ 30. oo
$ 85. oo
$ 85. oo
$ 60. oo
$1,734.00
1
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Ctoud
15050 23rd Ave. N1
Plymouth, MN
55447
May ~, 1989
Telephone
612.~476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Pianners
Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, ~ 55364
SUBJECT: County Raod 15 Sidewalk
MFRA #8O87
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As requested, we have investigated different alternates and concrete
treatment available for the open area between the back of curb and inside edge
of the sidewalk along County Road 15. First of all, we have looked closer at
the area in questions and determined that there is approximately 11,500 S.F. to
fill in. This number is still an estimate since the space has not actually
been measured.
The first option available would be to allow Hennepin County, through their
contractor Hardrives, to fill this in with concrete the same as the adjacent
sidewalk. This would cost the city $1~.86 per square foot for an estimated
total of $21,390.00
A second option would be to'add coloring to the ready mix resulting in a
colored strip. A number of earth tones are available at approximately 1.40
extra per square foot installed. This would cost the city approximately $3.25
per square foot for an estimated total of $37,3?5.00.
Another Option that we looked at was to use an exposed aggregate finish.
This would cost the city approximately $3.00 per square foot for an estimated
total of $34,500.00. We can foresee a problem with the exposed aggregate being
chipped out in the process of snowremoval and therefore would not recommend
this option.
The last treatment we investigated was the use of paver brick. This will'
be the most expensive, with the cost ranging from $3.75 per square foot to as
high as $7.00/S.F., depending on the type of brick used. The most feasible
product is a concrete brick which is available in different colors. This would
be the least expensive at approximately $3.75 per square foot for an estimated
total of $43,125.00. The City of Shakopee used these bricks, with very good
results, in a similar situation during a street improvement project. The
following is a summary listing the differen% options and their respective cost.
)5 ~t~,~ Ar~ Equal Opponun,t.;, Er'~slo'/er
City of Mound
May 4. 1989
Page Two
Item
Plain Concrete
Colored Concrete
Exposed Aggregate
Concrete Paver Brick
Special Paver Brick
Quantity
11,500 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
11,500 S.F.
Unit Price
$ 1.86/S.F.
$ 3.25/S.F.
$ 3.00/S.?.
$ 3.75/S.F.
$ 5.50/s.F.
Total
21,390.OO/
37,375.OO
34,500.00
43,125.00
63,250.00+
We would not recommend either the exposed aggregate or any of the fancy
paver brick. The other two options would both work very well while adding some
color and image to the roadway.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS .~SSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:aju
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
April 25, 1989
Telephone
612/476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT: County Road 15
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
A maintenance problem has come to light after going through our first
winter with new County Road 15. There is an area approximately 40" wide
between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the sidewalk that is
proposed to be sodded. 0rono and Spring Park has already requested the County
to fill this in with 4" thick concrete at an additional cost to the two
cities. Mound also has this area on both sides of the road, extending from
just east of Wilshire Boulevard to approximately Northern Road.
We have discussed with Hennepin County about filling this with concrete the
same as Orono and Spring Park, but the per square foot cost to Mound will be
higher for two reasons: First of all, they already have the black dirt in this
area, ready for the sod, which will have to be removed and then the area would
need to be leveled prior to pouring the concrete. Secondly, the addition of
this work would put them over the 25% allowRble as additional work to the
original contract; therefore, they had to renegotiate the price.
The County has quoted us a price of $2.20/S.F. less $0.34, their share of
the cost for a net cost to the City of $1.86/square foot. We have estimated
that there is approximately $!2,700 S.F. to pour for a total cost of $23,622.
We have obtained a second quote of $25,000.00 from an independent contractor.
Public Works and myself are in agreement on recommending that this area be
paved to eliminate future maintenance problems, not only from snow removal, but
also dead-sod. According to your Financial Director, John Norman, the County
Road 15 fund has enough money in it to cover this additional cost.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
An Equal ODOOrtunib/Employer
For May 9, 1989 Council Meeting
May 2, 1989
NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS
Cigarette--License Period 5-1-$9 to 2-28-90 (10 Months)
Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance
etc. being turned in.
Mound City Code Section 440:10 states: "Licenses shall
not be transferable from one person to another or from
one location to another."
Joe's Vending
2009 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, Minn. 55364
will be servicing Cigarette Sales at two
locations in Mound. These locations were
previously serviced by Convenience Whlse
Grocers at the Mound Municipal Liquor Store
and B & L Vending at the VFW #5113.
The two locations needing licenses under Joe's Vending are:
Mound Municipal Liquor Store
VFW #5113
Su ycle
Complete Recycling Services
775 Rice Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55117
(612t 224-5081
FAX (612) 224-0315
May 2, 1989
MAY 2 1989
Edward Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
We have tried to keep you informed regarding the effects of the
recent crisis in the waste newspaper market and our efforts in
dealing with it. As you know, newspaper represents over 70
percent, by weight, of the materials collected. In 1988., waste
newspaper was selling for as much as $32 per ton and Waldorf,
Pioneer, FSC and several insulation makers were demanding paper.
Since then, the economic factors have changed dramatically in
that the collection system has become choked by its own success.
From April 10 to May 1, the waste newspaper market changed
dramatically; prices went from $12 per ton to $0 per ton to, in
some cases, having to pay $20 per ton to sell paper. Even at
these prices, markets are limited and remaining newspaper must be
disposed at a cost of up to $45 per ton.
This has resulted in an untenable financial situation for Super
Cycle. We no longer can suffer substantial financial losses
without any relief in sight. We feel, as you do, that
continuation of curbside recycling programs is of critical
imporLance, however, the economics, infrastructure, and sharing
of risks must change. Accordingly, through this letter we are
notifying Tou that, effective May 31, 1989, Super Cycle no longer
will be able to perform collection services in Mound unless we.
can find more equitable arrangements.
We will work responsibly with your city and potential vendors
during this difficult period. We will be calling you to arrange
a meeting to discuss possible options.
Sincerely,
Pre s i den t
cc: Joyce ~<elson
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE
NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS CLUB
WHEREAS, the Northwest Tonka Lions Club has
become particularly identified for their efforts in
behalf of the youth activities and a wide range of
special projects for the benefit of the entire area in
which the club is located; and
WHEREAS, the Northwest Tonka Lions Club has
constructed a new concession facility at Wolner Little
League Field through the generous contributions and
whole-hearted efforts of its members.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City
of Mound on, May 9, 1989, does hereby extend our
sincere appreciation to all those in the Northwest
Tonka Lions Club who worked so diligently to make this
fine facility an asset to our community.
S~e~e Smit yor
ATTEST:
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
NOTICE is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by
the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, in the Council
Chambers, at 5341 Maywood Road, on the 13th day of June, 1989, at
7:30 P.M. to hear all persons present upon the proposed vacation
of a utility easement on private property described as follows:
A perpetual easement and a temporary construction easement
for storm drainage purposes over, under and across the fol-
lowing described property:
Lots 5, 6 .and 7, "Shirley Hills Unit G", and That part
of Lot 28, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 170, Hennepin
County, Minnesota", lying Westerly of a line parallel
with and distant 60 feet measured at right angles from
the Westerly line of said Lot 28.
Said perpetual easement being that part of ~aid Lot 5 lying
7.50 feet on each side of the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the North line of Lot 4,
"Shirley Hills Unit G", distant 2.50 feet West of the
Northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence Southerly to a
point on the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 12.00
feet Easterly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 5 and
there terminating.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
Publish in the Laker May 15, 1989, and May 22, 1989.
Posted May 15, 1989
BILLS- MAY 9, 1989
BATCH 9043
BATCH 9044
43,113.69
104,206.18
Unitog April uniform rent
East Side Bev April beer
Fran Clark Advance--Conf
VanDoren, Hazard March consulting Serv
Streichers Film
Spring Park Wash April Car Washes
420.06
4,994.15
1,O75.OO
3,672.50
238.50
8o.50
Total Bills
157,800.58
B0=.,4,? FEE-.'-'Ai[i 8:>J,31 LID
4./:~:0/89 4130189 .:..~,,"':'? 31 ._.NN~.-~I
7, , ,~.,~....:;{
1010 838.31 :29:3';
C0'.='9i,..,~ m.--rAI, mn... ¥. 15 C~nFET CLEAN-CITY HAM
4/.'_%WE~ 4 l:"-',fl/8'~ o:0.~
!010 310,15
CARPETCLEAN PLUS cc;.u~r;o~.,.,~_¢ VENDOR TOTAL
3!0.!5
C0885 FRE-PAiD ;./.:,...',00 CF.' UN,u~ 4/I5 PR
.... u, o ........... 2.7,.-,'5,00 ,.:RNL-CD
01-2040-0000
I010 ;/c,~,O0
CITY ~JNTY C~R~IT DClON ~'~R TOTAL
,.7..,,~. 00
C0997
r,,=-P~I[ 49,50 MAY LI: INS-4/15 PR 01-2040-00¢~3
1.80 MAY LiFE INS-STUTSIIAN 01-4190-!520
4/30/89 4/30/E8 51.30 dRNL-CD 1010
51.30
COMH~CIAL LIFE I)tS CO VI~NDOR TOTAL 51.30
CIO01 PRE-PAID 2.09!.$4 SIT 4/15 PR
4130189 4/30/89 2,091.94 JRNL-CD
01-2040-(i000
1010
2091.94:.o~.~'
COHM!~IONER OF. REV~b~ VENDOR TOTAL 2091.94
D1219 PRE-PAID ~3.t3 33.5 COff[RACT HOURS 81-4~0-3100
4/..-;0189 4/~189, 293.13 JRNL-CD 1010
DELBERT RUDOLPH ';'ENDOR TOTAL 2~.13
293.13 2'~7
E1429 PRE-PAiD
4.!:~189 4!30/89
615,24 LIQ
~.60- WINE
12,60- DISC
518.04 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-95E~
t010
518.04 2936'
PRE-PAID
4/30/,~,- 4130i~9
208.69 LIQ
217.73 WINE
6.34- DISC
420.08 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
71-7100-95~
71-7100-9560
I010
420.08
ED PdlLLIF'S & ~NS
,~.l~,_,OR ToTAl.
~8.12
F157! PRE-PAID 175.00 MEMORIAL STATUE 22-4170-4100
4mnl.,9
,o~,c,. 4i30/8~ 175.00 JRNL-CD 1010
175.00
FIRE FIGHTER~ ~=~no~
........ u FO~ VENDOR TOTAL
175.00
1.363.00 DEF CE;MB 4115 PR
I .~63.00 JF:NL-CD
01-2040-00¢KJ
1010
1363,00z:o,'
ui~,,, FRE-PAiri
4.,:..ii,:? 'h'.:',..,:,¢
2:::5.~,0 MAY HOSF'
'-""~, A '} !;'l'.J -Pr
P~]E 2
AB-C02-01
VENDOR INVOi~ DUE HOLD
,qO. II-iV3igE ~iMBF: [!ATE DATE STAT,'..'.~
~SUP ~ALTH PLAN
~ENuu~ TOTAL
235.60
G1972 PRE-PAiD
413018¢' 4/30/89
804,22 LIQ
16,08- DISC
4.50 FRT
7?2.64 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
71-7100-7560
71-7100-%C~
1010
7?2.64 2S~67
F~'E-PA!D
4130/87
162.84- LIQ
267.65 WINE
6,00- DISC
5,85 FRT
31.',~ MIX
136,64 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9510
7t-7100-~520
7!-7100-956~
71-7100-76(~
71-7i00-?~40
1010
136.64
C~IG~S COOPER & COMPANY VEN[~ TOTAL ~9,28
H~145 PP£-PAID 171.53 DED 4/15 PR 01-~40-0000
4/30/8~ 4130/89 17!.53 JRNL-CD 1010
171.53 2~81
HE)iN ~ SUF~-q]RT & D]LUECT* ~Q~ TOTAL
171.53
I~01 ~E-PAtD 5~.43 DEF COMP 4/15 ~ 01-2040-0000
4130189 4/30!87 555.43 JR~L-CD 1010
~5,43 2~7¢.
ICMA RETIREliENT ¢J]P~ VE~ TOTAL 5~55.43
I~80 PRE-PAID 275.00 II~ CONF REGI$~
4/~/8~ 4130189 275,{~ ~?L-CD
01-4040-4110
1010
275,00
INTER)LATL INSTITUTE MIJNIC, VENDOR TOTAL 275.00
J571 PRE-PAID 1'80.00 24 CDfFRACT HOU~ 01-4340-3100
4/30/89 4!30/89 180.00 JRNL-CD 1010
1~.00 2~77:
JOHN TAFFE VENDOR TOTAL
180.00
J2579 · PRE-PAID
41~/89
PRE-PAID
4/30./~..
4f30/~ 4/30/~
1,t63.99 LIQ
417.~ WINE
27.45- DISC
I.~4.02 CNI_-CD
1,194,14 LIQ
382.73 WINE
28.04- DISC
1.548.83 JRNL-CD
71-7100-~10
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9560
1010
71-7100-7510
71-71¢~-~
71-7100-9560
1010
1.~4.02 L~.-,6,~
1545.~ "~'
J~NSON BR~ ~¢HOUESALIE LI~ VBND~ TOTAL 3102.~
M3034 F~E-PAiD 20,20 BOOKI,IG CA~IERA RtEPAIR 01-4140-23~
4/30/89 4/30/8Y¢ 20.20 jRNL'-CD 1010
20.2"
MARQI£TTE CA~ERA
VD~IOR TOTAL
20.20
MC~)90 PRE-PAID 1.1~,49 MAY HOSP 4/15 PR 01-'2040-0000
. . .~AI~"~ , '~ ~Q
4!!0 lq~ 4fc,... c,~ i.:~ .......JRNL-CD i010
1551
PCGE S
AP-C02-O1
PURCHASE
VENDOR i?{,'OiCE [~SE HJL,r',
M~ CD'~,'~R ~ALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL
PRE-PAID
AMG~NT DESCRiPT!C~
i175.47
140,05 ~A 4/15
140.05 JRNL-CD
ACCO?!T NUMBER
01-2040-00C~
1010
PRE-PAID
144.05
MN BBEFiT ASSN
VENDOR TOTAL
140.05
M340! PRE-PAiD 2~'..00 D~ CO~P 4/i5 PR 01-2040-0000
4/30/89 4/30/89 288.00 JRNL-CD 1010
2SB.O0
MN RET!REMB~ SYSTEM
VENDOR TOTAL
F~E-PA!D
4/30/8? 4~0~¢~
63.44 POST FOR W~ BILLS
~.~4 POST FOR WTR BILLS
!26.88 ~:NL-CD
78-7800-3210
1010
1% 8°
2938!
PRE-PAID
4/30/89 4/~/89
16.40 REPLER POSTG METER
101.20 RC~F'LB~ POSTG METER
13.~ R~CB4 POSTG METER
.25 REPLEN POSTG METIER
45.15 REPLEN POSTG METER
23.30 REPLEN POSTG METIER
6,70 REPLEN F1]STG METER
34,70 REPLEN POSTG METER
111.25 REPLEN POSTG METER
156,35 REFI_~ POSTG METER
30.6.5 REPLER POSTG METER
~.65 REP, LEN P~TG ~TER
5.'3.60 REPLEN POSTG METER
2.25 REPLEN POSTG METER
19.~ ~PLEN ~STG METER-SECT 8
45.45- REPL~ POSTG METER
600.00 JRNL-CD
0!-4070-3210
01-4020-3210
01-4040-3210
01-40~¢3-3210
01-4070-3210
22-4170-3210
71-7100-$~10
01-4340-~10
81-4.35..0-3210
01-41..o0,-3210
73-7300-3210
78-7800-3210
01-4140-3210
01-42~-3210
01-40~0-~10
01-4320-~10
1010
600.~
MOUN~ POSTMASTER
VENDOR TOTAL
726.88
PRE-PAID
4/30/89 4130189
~2.99 LTD 4/15 PR
56,' .99 JRNL-CD
01-2040-0000
1010
S52.99
MUTUAL BEN~iT LIFE
VENDOR TOTAL
N3700 F~E-PAID 15.00 E~ EXAM-~AND 01-4140-4110
4/30/~ 4/30/89 15.00 JRN~-CD 1010
15.00
NA~ REGISTRY DF E~ VENDOR TOTAL
15.00
P~P50 PRE-PAID 5,756.51 PEP& 4/15 PR 01-2040-0000
4!30/89 4!30/E9 5,756.51 JRNL-CD 1010
5756.51
P E R A V~4O_riR TOTAL .57,,56.51
266.00
4'3012~ 4/30!E~ 6.829.10
~,~Y HOSP 4/15 PR
MAY HOSP-KRAFT
JRNL-CD
01-2040-00¢X~
01-4140-1510
1010
687.10
P"-C-E 4
AF-C02-0!
--~ ..... ~o: HOLD
NO. INVOICE N~BR [~ATE DATE STAllS
PURCHASr
CITY OF MOUSD
ACCO'dNT NURSER
P4115 PRE-PAID 1':'I.00 INS DED 4/t5 PR O1-2040-o0.r.K~
4130/87 4/30/:.::9. 191.00 JRNL-CD 1010
PRUDENTIAL INoUR~C~ ~MPA VEND~ TOTAL
Q4171 PRE-PAID
191.0O
1,161.88. LIQ
~0..~ WINE
24.22- DiSC
45.75 MIX
1,2~8.76 JRNL-CD
i,6~.44 LIQ
78.35 WINE
34.55- DISC
1,737.24 JRNL-CD
2973.00
9,731.~ FIT 4/!5
9,731.23 JRNL-CD
9731.23
418.60 ~ UNION
418.~ JRNL-CD
418.60
43,113.69
4/30/8? 4!30!8B
P~-PA!D
4/15 PR
4!30/~ 4130/89
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VE~4DOR TOTAL
S4500 PF£-PA!D
4/30/89 4/3~/89
STATE BANK OF MO~ VE!~DOR TOTAL
S4511 PRE-PAID
4/30/8B 4/30/~
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION VENDO~ TOTAL
TOTAL ALL V~DORS
71-7100-9510
71-7100-7520
71-7100-'~5~
71-7100-7540
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-~:~0
1010
01-2040-0000
iOlO
01-2040-0000
1010
P~E-P::D
191.00
17~.24
9731.23
418.60
CHECK
2737C
7.',. (
')
IS5.3
7,43 NAMEPLATE-AS-BUiLT RM
· , .4..~
78-7800-2i00
I,: I )
TOTAL
7.43
5/03/89 = ~
.40310,
25.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.88 OFFICE ~PPLIES
18.72 OFFICE SUPR_IES
21.29 OFFICE ~PPLIES
14.65 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.15 OFFICE SdPPLIES
7.33 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7.~ OFl=I~ BJPPLiES
7.32 OFFICE SUPPLIES
34.66 CLIPBOA~, LABEt. S
4.53 BINDER
169.06 JRNL-CD
01-4040-2!00
01-4090-2100
0i-4140-2100
01-4190-2100
01-4340-21¢~
01-4280-2100
71-7100-2100
73-7~0-2f00
78-7800-21(~
81-4350-2100
01-4060-2100
1010
ACRO-HN VDDOR TOTAL
169.06
AO~O
5/03/~ 5~03~89
I10.~ GO '81 WA]-bR BON~ FEES
194.75 TIP BON3S F~S
304.~ CNL-CD
73-7300-6!20
~4-.,~^~-6t~0
1010
AMERICAN f'~TIONAL B~K ~S~OF: TOTAL 304.75
A0431 '/5.00 CLEAN CARP~-LIQ
5/o3/8.~ 5/o~/~~.oo ~_-c~
71-7100-4210
1010
ATHENA .~RPET CLEANING VENDOR TOTAL
75,00
B0600
.~/00/89 5/03189
357.50
~.50
~-,',7,50
3.57.~
1.430.00
CtEANUP STOCK, PILE AR~
CLEANUP STO~ PILE AREA
CLEANUP STOCK PILE AREA
~NUP STO0< PILE AREA
~NL-CD
01-4340-4200
01-4280-42~
73-7300-42.00
78-7800-4200
1010
BLACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL
C~
5103/89 5/03I,~
CBS TIRE & SUPPLY CD VE,Nt)OR TOTAL
1430.00
74,00
74.00
74.00
TUBES, FI_A~
~-4170-3190
1010
CO, lO
5/03/89
46.=,, CLEAN UP TIRES-LOST LAKE
46.~ JRNL-CD
01-4020-~00
1010
CITY OF Mt~RISTA
VE~ TOT~
46.25
C0920
5/03/89
15.24 WATER BILL
!5.24 JR~E-CO
71-7100-~,7~
1010
CITY OF ~OUND
CO?~
t ~- ,~-;Td'll:;'
,:: ......TOTAL
!5.24
21.08 APR RUG RENT
2:5.24 ~F'R RL~ RENT
AP-C02-01
VENDOR !I&~DICE DUE HOLD
NO, I'.~,;DICE N?~R DATE DA~ STATUS
5103/89 .,/0.3!o.
?U~RCHASE
CITY ~ MOUIFJ
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
~6.~ dRNL-CD
J 3 U R N A L
ACCOU~¢T NUMBER
1010
PRE-PAiD
CLEAN S~'EP~ RE~AL VB.E~OR TOTAL
46.32
C0970
5103189 5/03/8~
277.90 APR )IIX
277.90 dRNL-CD
71-7100-75.40
10!0
COC~q COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL
D1200
5103/8<) 5/03187
DAY DISTRIBUTING CD VENDOR TOTAL
277.~
4.377.~ APR BEER
4,377.99 JRNL-CD
4377.99
71-7100-9530
1010
DI~O
5/03/8~ 5/03/8~
417.00 APR CHIEF SALARY
417.00 JRNL-CD
22-4170-1370
1010
DB4ALD BRYCE VENDO~TDTAL 417.00
E1485 ~4.16 REPAIR HTNG.A/C
5/03/8<) 5/03/89 3:34.16 ~NL-CD
01-4~0-3800
.1010
EQUIPMENT SUPPLY INC VENDOR TOTAL
Fl~30
5/03/~ 5/03/~
FEED RITE CONTROLS VENDOR TOTAL
~4.16
~4.~
~4.~
SPRINGS~GASKETS,ETC
JRNL'CD
73-7300-2300
1010
I F16bO
5/0318<) 5/03/8<)
411.00 SECURITY SEFCVICES
411.00 dRNL-CD
71-7100-~80
1010
FL°YD SECURITY
VENDOR TOTAL 411.00
F1690
5103189 5/03/89
FOUR STAR BAR SUPPLY VENI)[B TOTAL
17.26 APR MIX
~9.32 APR MISC
~8.00 PUMPS FO~ ~G BEER
654.58 dPt-CD
654.58
71-7100-9540
71-7100-95~
71-7100-~00
1010
~ F!711
5103/87 5103/89
204.05 APR FRT
204.05 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9600
I010
O FRAN~S TRUCk:lNG VENDOR TOTAL 204.05
G1750 40.00 GAAFR RE¥!EW SUBSCRPTN
~ 5/03/.~, 5/03/,c~ 40.00 JP, NL-C))
01-4090-4170
1010
G F 0 A VE)~ TOTAL 40.00
G1820 142.78 INSTALL RADIO
5/03/~ 5/03/,~, 142.78 JRNL-CD
OE~iERAL COMMUNICATIONS VENDOR TOTAL 142,78
73-73CQ-42~
I010
P~OE 3
~1870
5103189 510318.'.'.9
GLOBAL EC-'UIPHDfF CO,~&r-'ANY '~!OR TOTAL
H2120
51031,99. 5/03/~
HENN CO DEPT OF PROPERTY T VEN"DOR TOTAL
H2!30
510316? 5103/89
H~t;.I CO FIRE &HIEFS
A=,~N V~'~20R TOTAL
H2140
5103189 510316'9.
HENN CO DiE. RIFFS I)EPT VENgoR TOTAL
H2160
HENN 'CO TP£ASU~
5103/89 5103/89
VENDI~ TOTAL
INSTY PRIMS
I2400
ISLAND P~Rk SKD-LY
,J B DISTRIBUTING
J2480
JAMES FACKL~
5103/8~ 5~03~89
VENZX3R TOTAL
5/03/89 ~m~/c>o
?EN~OR TOTAL
5/03/~ 5/03/89
VET'S!OR TOTAL
5/0:3/89
'~-,~ TOTAL
5/03 l::.'h:.-' 5..:(i3187
.... 3::: APR MAR~dALL ~-~¥'~
"=':" ~' ~hL-C~,
57.00 W~:~IGHT
~.00 JRNL-CD
57.00
10.50 POSTAL VERIF
10.50 dRNL-CD
10,50
10,00 DUES-~NN CO Fi~£ CHF ASSN
I0,00 JRNL-CD
I0,00
116.~, DISGUISE ANTE]NlrA
116,56 JRNL-CD
116.56
2.~.75 ~RCH BOARD '
2,3'~.75 JRN~-CD
~99.75
50.00 COPY AUDIT REPORT
19.30 COPY AUDIT R~DRT
16.00 COPY AUDIT REPORT
16,00 COPY NJDIT REPORT
101.30 dR~-CD
101.30
7.0,0.96 TIRES
700,96 JR)E-CD
700.96
102.56 CHEMICALS
102.56 JRNL-CD
102.56
258.00 AIR FARE-DEN'~'R S~OOL-FACh~_~
:.8.00 ~T~'& - CD
~'.,8. O0
-1,7,. MILEA~JE
! Cr
21,7~ JRNL-.,~
~.~;-"t,~/V- J, 0 IL!
1010
F'P,E-PF-i!'~
&0-6000-2200
1010
01-4060-3210
.1010
c.2-4170-4130
1010
01-4140-37~0
1010 ·
01-4110-425~
I010
01-,1070-31~
71-7100-3120
73-7300-3130
78-7800-31C~
I010
~-4170-~00
1010
1010
01-4340-4110
!010
71-71(>~-2200
CHEDi
?JV,]iCE DUE H,3LD
NO. INV,~i~ ~,,~r,~?' t'~ATE DATE e-r.,,Al,.,.=, ....
JOEL KRL",'~, ~EN'~,DR :u.~..
J=.,535
v/O.:,lc~;,
5/03/8?
,~,-.o.. PLMB II'i~'ECTIO[IS
729.30 ~hl.-CD
01-4170-3100
1010
JL'~HN BREITN~ VElqDOR TOTAL
72%30
d25;0
510318? 5103/89
4.10 DEF DR!V ~URSE-EWALD
4.10 ~NL-CD
01-41~-4110
1010
~HN El~ALD III VENDOR TOTAL
4.10
J2560
5103/87 5/03/89
L'F~9.~ ~(tq O]~¢-NOEMAN
3!.20 MI'G EXP
269.20 JRNL-CD
01-4090-4~I0
01-4070-41CQ
~010
JOHN L NOF~gAN VENDOR TOTAL
269.20
d2620
5103189 5/03/8'?
36.89 MTG EXP
.30 MILEA~
~5.00 GLAS~S REIMB-FISt~ER
72,19 ~J~-CD
01-4090-41~
01-40~0-3340
01-40'~-3140
1010
dUDITH A F!~
VENDOR TOTAL
72.19
K2651
5/03/89 5/03189
I43.62 Lg_IP,INS~,WASH"~:~J
143.62 JRNL-CD
01-4290-~!0
I010
KAR FI~ODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL
143.62
K2720
5/03/89 5/03189
113.43 BLADES.~EE.
1'13.43 JRNL-CD
01-4..q,4.0-~i0
1010
KEOMF_R CO. VENDOR TOTAL
113.43
K2721
5/03/8? 5/03/~
VENDOR TOTAL
537.90 PA~TS WA~ER
38.75 SOLVENT
576,6.5 JI:~tI.-CD
576.65
60-6000-~00
1010
L2748
5/.o/89 5/03I~
36.25 ~BB~ STA~
36.~ ~NL-CD
01-4(X~0-22~
1010 '
L-J E~BBER STAMP CO,ANY V~4DOR TOTAL
36.25
~51
50.00 2ND Q~-tNS
5~}.00 ~ QIR-I~
4,025,~ 2ND QTR-IN$
I~5.00 S~ ~-INS
2,315.00 2ND Q?R-!NS
230.00 2ND Q~- INS
612.~ 2ND QTR-INS
2.675.00 2t4D Q~-iN$
350.~) 2ND Q~-INS
6~54.00 59D QTR-INS
01-4.040-3600
01-4090-~00
01-4140-3600
01-4!90-3600
01-4i~,0--:.~00
01-4270-3~S~
01-4340-3600
~-4170-3600
~' 1-7100-.x:)O
73-7300-3~,()J
NO, TMtI?T~r ~'M-.~, l~--
51031:'-:9 .,10.:,~,:,~
LE~OUE OF ~.~ CIT~E$ I~J T~ VENDI~ TGTAL
L2860
5i03/87 5/03/8,~
E~EVERE LEFLER LAW FIRM VENDOR TOTAL
~980
5103/~ 5/031~
MACQUEEN E~JIP~NT I~ YEhlDC~ TOTAL
~030
5/03/89 5/03/8~
MARK VII [I~=TR~,BLITo,~ ~"ENDOR TOTAL
ME~,'ISO
M~IEI'FE BAN~C-MPLS
~150
METRO FOhE ~M.W~L~t!CATI~S
~170
5/03/89 5/03/E,'?
VENDOR TOTAl_
5~03~89 5/03/8':)
VENDOR TOTAL
c 0 ,
.,/03/,_,9 5/03/,C-8
METRO ~STE CONTROL ~gMI~ VEN£~ TOTAL
M3200
MID-C~TR~ INC
M.:.-.'.~O
5103189 510315"?
S~DC8 TOTAL
MINNEGASCO
5/0:3/89
MN. CELL',JL~ ~LEF~S!.:E CO
..... ~,o ~,t0~/~?
~ ..... TOTAL
? U ? C F ~ S E J 0 L'; ~A L
48.00 1 YR $~:SC~!P-~ POLICE BRI~
48,00 ~:~L-CD
¢9.00
.57.n~: ~J~ "';~'"'-
..
.~/..08 ,~NL-OD
57,08
5.242,10 APR
5.242,10 JRNL-CD
5242,10
942.43 TIF FES
942.43 ~NL-CD
942.43
45,80 ~Y PAC~R ~
45.80 ~NL-CD
45,80
31.569.05 MAY S~ SE~ICE
12.294.96- MAY SB~ SERVICE
615,~° MAY SEWER SEE~ICE
18.&58.23 ~-CD
18~8,28
44,5.00 FLEX HARD HOSE
5~.00 AMBER STROBE LIGHTS
9~.00 ~NI_-CD
96~.00
198,56 GAS 1/5-4125--D~OT
129.76 APR GAS
I52.66 APR G~
99.~ APR GAS
580.20 ,~,~,TCNI.-CD
.,o0.~0
41.40 CELLUI_AR T~:,~E
4.80 CELLULAR
46.20
46,~0
7 8 - 78 C; 2 - :3 50 0
1010
01-41~0-415~
I010
01-4~',0-2310
.I010
71-71(~-9530
1010
.~4-..oX)-ol~O
1010 ·
01-41~-395~
1010
78-7800-42~
78-1190-00~
78-3812-0000
1010
22-4170-~00
22-4170-~00
1010
01-4340-3720
01-4~0-37~
73-73C4-37£~
78-78~-3720
1010
~-41/0-.:...'0
1010
PRE-P~ iD
I~, i .tg:, 4 I
)5',5'8
VENDOFi i~:,.~OiCE CLUE HO~;
NO, !:~iVO!CE N~BR _'~TE [~ATE STAndS
CITY GF MJU~D
AMOI~4T DESCR!PT!GN
J 0 U '"r~ fi A L
~COU~T NU~ER
PRE-PAID
AMOUNT
TiXE
C~CK ~
M3~90
5/03/89 5/03/89
M~'~UND FIRE DEPARTMEh~F VE~4[~DR TOTAL
M?~500
510318?..- 5103/$9
MOUND FIRE RELIEF '~N ~NDdDR TOTAL
M.~x30
GLASS CC, MPAN¥
N3770
5/03/8? 5!03/87
VBN~3RTOTAL
5/03/8? 5/03/~
NORTH STAR WATERWORKS PRO* VEI~qJOR TOTAL
03:370
OFFICE PROO~TS-MN
5/03/8~ 5/03/89
',q~,'DOR TOTAL
5/03/,~ 5/03/8~
ORKIN EXTERMINATING CC,~AN ','E~q~OR TOTAL
P¢O00
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY
P4060
5/03/E8 5/03/$9
VEND. OR TOTAL
5/03/89 5/03/89
POGREBA DISTRIBUTING CO
R4209
RA~qJY' S SANITATION
n4~40
R4£4.4
VEI~OR TOTAL
5/03/~ 5103/89
VENDOR TOTAL
5/03i87 5/03/89
YE)~5:DR TOTAL
,.,..~7..',00 APR SALARIES
1,000.00 APR MAINT
570.00 APR DRILLS
4,942.00 JRNL-CD
4942.00
4,871.~ MAY FIFE REI. IEF PEI4SIDN
4,871.~ JRNL-CD
4871.~
3,367.00 REPLACE WINDOWS
3,367.00 ~NL-CD
~,.,67. O0
507.16 WATER MET~
507.16 JR,-CD
507.16
375.00 MAINT CONTRACT-1/30/~-LASER
115.50 LASER CARTRIDGE
- 115.50 LASER BqRTRIDGE
606.00 dRNL-CD
606.00
;3.00 MAY EXT~M
~3.00 dRNL-CD
43. O0
218.~ APR MIX
218.40 dRNL-CD
218.40
2,990.15 APR ~
2,~0.15 JRNL-CD
2990.15
54.00 APR GARB+qGE
5;.00 JRNL-CD
54.00
297.00 kqENNEL FEES
~7.00 JRNL-CD
297.00
E~5.00 INSTALL MDT'S
22-4170-1370
??-4170-3190
"-~-4170-1380
1010
~5-9500-14Y/J
1010
01-4320-3830
1010
73-7300-2',¢X)
1010
01-4140-3800
01-4140-2100
01-4040-2100
1010
01-4320-4200
1010
71-7100-9~0
1010
71-7100-~5~
1010 .
01-4320-3750
1010
01-4140-4270
1010
01-4140-5000
AP-CO£-01
. PU~:C~SE JC'UR!I4L
INVOICE [~UE HOLD
45.50 F~PAIR SWITCH.RELAY
1!~.00 REPLACE BOX,~AO~ET
973.50 JRNL-CD
01-4140-3310
01-4140-3810
1010
RIGS AND SQUADS
TOTAL 973.50
R4.-'oO
5/03!~ 510318?
200.00 APR ~T CHIT SALARY
200.00 JRNL-CD
~-4170-1370
10!0
RONALD MARSC~
VE~CC~R TOTAL 200,00
R4290
5/03189.. 5/03/$9
159.30 APR ICE
159,30 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9140
1010
R~4'S ICE Q1~PANY
~ND~ TOTAL
159,30
S4370
5/03/~ 5/03/8~
77,85 6-7-8 HOSP-KgF'P
77.85 6-7-8 HOSP-STUTSMAN
1~,70 ~I~NL-CD
01-4040-!510
01-4190-1510
1010
SHARE VENSXDR TOTAL
155.70
SOS PRINTING
5/03/89 5/03/89
VENDOR TOTAL
!8.40 FOLD LETTERS
18.40 JRNL-CD
18.40
1010
S*~O
5/03/89 5/03I~
· 30.00 WTR SL~PL SYST OPR-SKIN,NLZI_S
78.00 ~NL-CD
73-7300-4130
1010
STATE TREAg]RER
VENDOR TOTAL
$45?0
5/03/89 5/03/89
8.462.00 REPAIR PUMP
8,462,00 JRNL-CD
73-7300-~00
I010
STEVB~$ WELL COMPANY
VENI;OR TOTAL 8~62.00
S4600
5/03189 5/03189
130.00 BADGES
130.00 JRNL-CD
01-4140-2200
1010
STREICH1ER'S VENDOR, TOTAL
T47!6
5103/89 5/03/89
T~P~RARIES TO GO VE,~!OR TOTAL
130.00
68.00
68.00
68,00
TEMP ~£C~_~TIONIST-PW
JR~-CD
73-7300-1300
I010
T4730
0~,01
04.4.
10,94
!4.58
92,76
VIOL ORaN LEC~L
CCt~ USE LEGAL
POLICE, AUCTI~ LEGAL
ASSESS
a:~,~ LEGAL
JR~-CD
01-4t~0-~10
01-4190-~10
01-4140-3510
01-4070-3510
1010
THE .....
T~741
TOTAL
~.76
124.00
APR Wt)~
71-7100-7520
F'U. RCHA~ E d 0 U F: .,"'4 A L
~'rv OF
A~OUNT DE~R.'~'T~O~
PRE-PAID
w,.~,,'~ CHECK
5103!,..~ 5/03/89
!24.00 ~NL-CD
1010
V~O~ TOTAL
124.00
T4770
5/03/89 5/03/~
7.716.15 APR ~;R
7,716.15 JRNL-CD
71-710(,-y.,~
1010
THORPE DIS~IBLrFING C1] VEt~OR TOTAL 7716.15
T4780
5103189 ~ ~""
~.~ FILM
~.98 JRNL-CD
01-4190-22-00
1010
TI~IFTY SNYDER DRUG NO4 VENDOR TOTAL
35.~
T4790
5/03/89 5/03/89
90.75 ~ITL-'H GLOW PLUG
90.75 JR[~_-CD
01-4290-~i0
1010
THlJRK BROS ~EVRDLET VENDOR TOTAL 90.75
T4.810 3,308.04
2.379.69
5/03/89 5/03/~ 5,687.73
TIMBE~ALL LAN[6C~iNG VENDOR TOTAL 5687.73
T4952 911.00
5/03/89 5/03/89 911.00
PLAY STRUCTURES
SIGNS
JRNL-CD
SIG~ P(~TS
JRNL-CD
01-434.0-5000
01-4.?,4YJ-2300
1010
01-4280-2360
1010
TUCKER COMPANY. INC. VENDO~ TOTAL 911.00
T4~O
5!0~18~ 510318~
41.40 APR MIX
41.40 JRNL-CD
71-7100-9540
1010
TWIN CITY HO~ .Jl]I~ CO VENDOR TOTAL
41.40
LL"'~80
5/03/8~ 5/03/~
40.00 APR GARBAGE
40.00 JRNL-CD
01-4340-3750
1010
WESTONK, A.?~qNITATIDN
VENDOR TOTAL
40.00
WIDME'R INC
5/03/89 5103/89
VENDOR TOTAL
,~,,.00 4948 EDGEWTR-BREAK
787.50 ISI.ND VIEW & MA~OP~STER
227.50 REMOVE DE~--A~SS
1,348.00 JRNI.-CD
1~8.00
73-7300-~00
78-7~0-~00
01-1190-0000
1010
W~O0
ls l
~ 0o!89. 5/03/89
1,~0.00 MAY RETAINER
~25.00 IST Q~ SE_RV
E~2.66 IST QTR S'ERV-F!N~
~Q,00 1ST QTR SERV-COBBLESTONE
475.00 IST QTR SERV-SII~'I.AIR CT
· S50.00 1ST QTR SET,-~V-ARBOR I,N
75.00 IST QTR S~V-OAkl. AWN-A~ESS
.~5.00 1ST QTR SERV-LY~OOD PROP
5,202.66 JRNL-CD
01-4Ii0-3100
01-4110-3100
01-.,,~0v-0969
01-2300-0962
01-I170-00~
01-2300-0970
Ol-ll?O-O000
60-~.~0(:-:31 O0
1010
VEND.R Ih",',"]I~ Db: HOLD
NO. INt,'S!~ h,'MEm,'R [A~ DATE STATUS
PURCHAS~
CiTY OF MOUND
DESCRIPTION
ACCG~T NUMB~
PRE-PAID
AMO~4T
~ECK
WtJRST -PE~4-',_ARSON
X5750
X~OX COR~,~R~qT! ON
Z5~O
ZAC'K'S INC
~E_NDOR TOTAL
5/03!~ 5/03/~
V'a4DOR TOTAL
5/03/89 5/03/89
VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL ALL VEN[ORS
161.64 PRINC-5600
49.~7 PRINC-1012
$.~ INT-5600
6.80 INT-1012
434.10 MAR MAINT-5600
661.34 JRNL-CD
661.34
53.30 BRUSH,H~NDLE,FLDOR DRY
55.00 BUNGES '
6.90 TAPE
115.20 dRNL-CD
115.20
104,206.18
01-4~0-5000
01-4~0-5000
01-4~0-61!0
01-4~0-6110
0!-4~0-3800
1010
01-4290-225._,0
01-4~0-226~)
73-7300-22~
I010
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLiC
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Len Harrell
Monthly Report for April, 1989
II.
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 629 calls for serv-
ice during the month of April. There were 28 part I
offenses reported. Those offenses included 1 criminal
sexual conduct, 5 burglaries, 1 arson, 2 vehicle
thefts, and 19 larcenies.
There were 56 Part II offenses reported. Those of-
fenses included 3 child abuse/neglect, 6 forgery/NSF
checks, 15 criminal damage to property, 1 weapon Viola-
tion, 4 DWI, 5 simple assault, 3 domestics, 2 harass-
ment, 3 runaway/truancy, and 14 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 104 adult citations and 19
juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for
an additional 14 citations. Warnings were issued to 69
individuals for a variety of violations.
Eight adults and ten juveniles were arrested for
felonies in April. Thirteen adults and three juveniles
were arrested for misdemeanor violations. There were
an additional five individuals arrested for warrants.
The department assisted in 7 vehiclular accidents; 1
with personal injuries. There were 18 medical emer-
gencies and 114 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 22 occasions during April and
requested assistance 10 times.
Property valued at $20,096 was stolen during the month.
INVESTIGATION
The investigators worked on 8 child protection matters
in April. The child protection matters accounted for
42 hours of investigative time. In the first four
1
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - APRIL, 1989
months of 1989, there have been 19 child protection
matters reported.
Two criminal sexual conduct cases were also inves-
tigated and took 17.5 hours of investigative time.
Other cases investigated included checks, truancy, as-
sault, damage to property, theft, burglary, arson, and
depriving another of parental rights.
III.
IV.
Ve
Inv. Grand spent 42 hours in the schools and attended
EMT training for 80 hours.
Formal complaints were issued for worthless checks,
deprivation of parental rights, obscene phone calls,
DWI, Gross DWI, and criminal sexual conduct - 2nd
degree.
MANPOWER
The department used approximately 28 hours of over time
in April. Officers earned.approximately 45 hours of
comp-time and used approximately 84 hours of comp-time.
Officers also used 80 hours of vacation time in April.
Sick time accounted for 41 hours, holiday for 8.5
hours, and funeral time for 8 hours.
TRAINING
Officers attended 24 days of training in April. Of-
ficers also continue to view a "roll-call" video
presentation on constitutional law.
The training included intoxilyzer re-certification,
defensive driving, classroom instructor course, field
sobriety, narcotics seminar, and criminal justice hot
files.
RESERVES
The reserves donated 58 hours to the department and the
community in April.
Off. Nelson was promoted to the position of reserve
sergeant.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
April, 1989
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS
MONTH
YEAR TO
DATE
Hazardous Citations 97
Non-Hazardous Citations 17
Hazardous Warnings 11
Non-Hazardous Warnings 36
Verbal Warnings 114
Parking Citations 14
DWI 4
Over .10 2
Property Damage Accidents 6
Personal Injury Accidents 1
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 9
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 16
Adult Misdemeanor Citations 2
Juvenile Felony Arrests 10
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 4
Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 1
Part I Offenses 28
Part II Offenses 56
Medicals 18
Animal Complaints 114
Other Public Contacts 469
274
84
34
121
424
220
22
13
43
10
0
13
82
17
12
9
4
65
190
95
298
1,969
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
377
176
142
344
415
228
31
17
41
9
0
7
82
28
38
26
1.6
93
253
73
347
1,742
TOTAL 1,029
Assists 39
Follow-Ups 30
Henn. County Child Protection 5
Mutual Aid Given 22
Mutual Aid Requested 10
3,999
146
114
17
66
33
4,485
217
156
24
40
1
OF FENSES
REPORTED
CLEARED
UNFOUNDED
]%PRIL, 1989
EXCEPT.
CLEARED
CLEARED BY
ARREST
ARRESTED
ADULT JUVENILE
PART ! CRIMES
Homicide 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 1 0
Robbery 0 0
Aggravated Assau[t 0 0
Burglary 5 0
Larceny 19 0
Vehicle Theft 2 0
Arson 1 0
0
0 :
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
$
1
2 2
0 0
TOTAL 28 0 2 5 8
PART Il CRIMES
ChiLd Abuse/Neglect 3 2 0 0 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 6 0 0 4 4
Criminal Damage to Property 15 0 0 1 O.
~eapons 1 0 1 0 0
Narcotics 0 0 0 0 0
Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0
DWI .. 4 0 0 4 4
Simple Assault 5 1 2 2 3
Domestic Assault 0 0 0 0 0
Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 0
Harassment 2 0 0 0 0
Runaway/Incorrigibility/Truancy 3 0 0 2 0
Public Peace 5 0 0 0 0
ALI Other Offenses 9 0 0 1 1
10
TOTAL 56 3 3 14 13
PART III & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 6
Personal Injury Accidents 0
Fatal Accidents 0
Medica[s 18
Animal Complaints 114
Mutual Aid 22
Other General Investigations 469
TOTAL -' 629
Hennepin County Child Protection 5
CHIPS 0
TOTAL 718
19
21
13
MONTHLY PROPERTY LOSS/RECOVeRY SUMMARY
APRILt 1989
STOLEN
Bikes
Snowmobiles
Boats, Motors, Trailers
Clothing
Currency, Notes, Etc.
Jewelry & Precious Metals
Guns
Home Furnishings
Radio & Electronic Equipment
Vehicles & V~hicle Equipment
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
$ 225
0
0
0
2,622
405
0
772
550
5OO
15,022
$Z0,096
RECOVERED
20
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
381
419
CITATIONS
DWI
More than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired, or No Plates
Illegal Passing
Stop. Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
'Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Derelict.'Autos
Seat Belt
Miscellaneous Tags
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL~ 1989
ADULT
4
2
0
2
1
63
1
1
3
0
6
1
4
0
1
0
0
14
1
2
0
10
2
118
TOTAL
JUV
0
0
1
2
0
13
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
/5'g 8'
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL, 1989
WARNINGS
NO Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
ARRESTS
Warrant Arrests
ADULT
7
10
28
0
4
5
1
7
62
JUV
2
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
MOUND POLICE RESERVES
MONTHLY HOURS
APRIL, 1989
DETA%LS
Emer. C/O
Res. Sq.
Comm. Serv.
Hockey
Training
Instruction
Ride AL.
Admin.
Meeting
TOTALS
OFFICER
R5 R6 Rll RIO R14 R16 R17 R19 R22 R23 TOTAL
5.0
6.0 8.0
10.0
2.0 1.5
18.0 0
1 .5 1 .0
6.0 1 .0
1.5
1.5
5.0
1.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
2.0
0
10.0
0
11 .5
0
14.0
10.0
1.5 10.5
3.5 58.0
ACTIVITIES, THIS MONTH
1 Transport
Res; Ne[son ~as promoted to sergeant
OFFICERS
R5 NeLson
R6 Niccum
RIO Swanson
Rll Romaina
R14 Svoboda
R16 Ha~ks
R17 Kohman
R22 FLeming
R23 Vogel
Prepared by
Gary Lotton
GL/sh
OFFZCER
Butch Hawks
Ruth Voget
Dan Niccum
Steve Kohman
Sherry Svoboda
Dave Ne[son
John Romain
TOTALS
'Jeff Fleming in training.
Makiko Swanson in training
MOUND POLICE RESERVES
SEVERENCE ACCOUNTS
APRIL, 1989
DEPOSIT
0
6.50
0
6.50
0
0
6.50
$ 19.50
BALANCE
$325.50
447.00
:~77.}0
84.50
117.00
122.50
104.00
S1476.00
Prepared by
Gary. Lotton
GL/sh
~UN: 27-APR-89
;FS03
PRIMARY [$N'S ONLY?
[TY CQOES:
I~0
ALL
09000
09001
09002
09003
09004
09010
09012
09014
09015
09018
09021
09030
09040
09100
09140
09150
09200
09201
09210
09220
09240
09300
ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
SPEEDING
J-SPEEDING
NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L
J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L
RESTRICTED D/L
BAC OVER .10
OPEN BOTTLE
STOP SIGN
J'STOP SIGN
ILURE TO YIELD
EQUIPMENT VIOLATION
J-CARELESS/RECKLESS
CROSSWALK VIOLATION
NO SEATBELT
PARKING/ALL OTHER
NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS
NO TRAILER PARKIN8
DAS/DAR/DAC
J-DAS/DAR/DAC
PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED
NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF
CHANGE OF DOMICILE
LOST ARTICLES/OT'HER
INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
EI~FORS
CALLS FOR SERVICE
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA
03/26/89 THRU
........... PATROL AREAS ...........
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
18 12 9 6 18
1 7 2 3
1
3 1
1 3
5 1
1
1 2'
PAGE
TOTAL
63
13
1
1
1
2
1
6
2
1
4
1
1
10
9
4
1
2
3
1
1
RUN: 27-APR-89
¢FS03
PRIMARY %SN~S ONLY?
ACTIVITY
NO
ALL
ACT
CODE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
09301
09312
09313
09314
09430
LOST PERSONS
FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS
FOUND PROPERTY
FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED
PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS
09450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS
09451 H/RPROPERTY DAMAGE ACC.
09560 ANIMAL BITES/OTHER
09561 OOG BITE
09563 DOG AT LARGE
09565 DOG LICENSE
09566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS
09720 SUDDEN DEATNS/BODIES FOUND
097~0 MEDICALS
097'51 DETOX-MEDICALS
09732 CRISIS INT.-MEDICALS
09740 MENTAL CASES
09750 FIRES
09800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED
09801 DOHESTIC/NO ASSAULT
09900 ALL HCCP CASES
09904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS
09910 MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS
INSTALLATION NAME --'MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENFORS
CALLS FOR SERVICE
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA
03/26/89 THRU 04/25/89
........... PATROL AREAS ...........
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
2 1
2 $ 3 1
2 3 2
1
2 6 2 1
1 2 5
1 1
1 2
1 2
1 2
PAGE
TOTAL
3
9
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l&
1
1
1
8
3
5
5
3
7.3
RUN: 27-APR-89
CFS03
PRIMARY %SN~S ONLY?
%TY COC:)ES:
NO
ALL
COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
O9930
09945
09980
O9992
O9993
099~4
A5352
A5353
A5354
HANDGUN APPLICATION
SUSP]C]OUS PERSON
WARRANTS
MUTUAL A%D/8100
MUTUAL AID/6500
MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR
ASLT 5'INFLICYS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS'CHLD'FAM
:LT 5'INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5502 ASLT 5'THRT BOOILY HARM'UNK ~EAP-ADLT-ACQ
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT
B3894 BURG ~-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CC~I THEFT
C31~0 FORGERY-MS-MAKE ALTER DESTROY-OTH TYP-UNK VICT
F3084 ARSON 3-FE-UNK COND-MTR VEH-$300-$2499
I3060
J2700
J3500
K6504
L1021
M3003
M5350
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
TRAF-ACCID-GH-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION
TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
DEPRIVE PAREHTAL RGHTS-RESTR-UNK WEAP-CHLD-FAM
CSC 1-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER I~-F
JUVENiLE-HABITUAL TRUANT
RUNAWAY
INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENFORS
CALLS FOR SERVICE
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA
0~/76/89 THRU 04/~5/89
........... PATROL AREAS ...........
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
1 3
1 1
10
10
PAGE
TOTAL
5
5
6
10
10
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
RUN: 2?-APR-89
CFSO~
PRIMARY ISH~S ONLY?
ACTIVITY COOES:
NO
ALL
INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENFORS
CALLS FOR SERVICE
ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA
03/26/89 THRU 0/,/25/89
ACT
COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
........... PATROL AREAS ...........
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-NARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS
03882 OBSENITY-MS-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT '
P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UN[ INTENT
P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PR]VATE-UN[ INTENT
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UN[ INTENT
P3130 PROP DAI~GE'NS'BUS]NESS'UN[ INTENT
TO060 THEFT'UN[ LVL VAL'FRN I~IL'UN[ PROP
Tl111 THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM BUSINESS FUNDS-MONEY
Tl159. THEFT-MORE S2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VENICLE-OTH PROP
T2159 THEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP
T2999 THEFT-251-2500-FE-FRM OTHER-OTH PROP
TG029 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP
T~069 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MAIL-OTH PROP
T4159 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP
U3012 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-S2501-S19999
U3016 THEFT-MS-BY CHEC[-$250 LESS
U3066
U3286
U3496
V1011
V3021
~3990
THEFT-NS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-S250 LESS
THEFT-MS-SHOPL%~'TING-$250 LESS
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 LESS
UNAUTHORIZED USE-FE-OVER 2500-AUTO
VEH THEFT-FE-$250 LESS-AUTO
WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR
2 I 1
'PAGE
TOTAL
5
2
2
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
6
2
2
1
1
)5'73-
RUH: ~7-APR-89
PRimARY ~$~'$ OHLY?
ITY CODES:
NO
ALL
INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENFOR$
CALLS FOR SERVICE
ACT[V[T¥ ANAL¥$1$ BY PATROL AREA
05/26/89 THRU 04/25/89
PAGE
ACT
COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION
........... PATROL AREAS ...........
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 TOTAL
REPORT TOTALS:
52 42 80 46 75 2 10 10 1 318
/,5?/.
RUN: 28-APR-89
OFF01
PRIMARY ISN'S ONLY? NO
DISPOSITION CODES: ALL
ACTIVITY CODES: ALL
GRID= ALL
INSTALLATION N/L4E -- 'MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
ENFORS
OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION
03/26/89 THRU 04/25/89
ACTIVITY CODE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL
DESCRIPTION REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
:PAGE 1
/ ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. /
.... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL PERCENT
ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED
A5352 2
ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRfl-HANDS-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR
A535~ 2
ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-¢HLD-FAH
A5355 1
ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACO
A5502 1
ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-UN[ WEAP-ADLT-ACQ
B33~4 2
BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT
BURG ]-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~,JEAP-CI~ THEFT
B3894 1
BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-¢OM THEFT
C3190 1
FORGERY-MS-MAKE ALTER DESTROY-OTH TYP-UNK VICT
F3084 1
ARSON 3-FE-UNK COND-MTR VEH-S300-$2499
0 2 0
1 0 0
2 0 0
0 I 0
0 1 0
0 2 2
0" 2 1
0 1 1
O' ' 1 1
0 1 1
13060 1 0 1 1
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
J2700 1 0 1 0
TRAF-ACCID-GN'-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION
J3500 3
TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIOUOR
K6504 1
DEPRIVE PARENTAL RGHTS-RESTR-UNK UEAP-CHLD-FAN
L1021 1
CSC 1-UNK ACT-PARENT-UNDER 13-F
0 3 0
0 I 0
0 1 0
1 0 1 2 100.0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 1 1 100.0
1 0 0 1 100.0
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0
.0
SOo -
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1
3 0 0 3'-
'1 0 0 I
1 0 0 1
.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
)577
RUN: ~8-APR-89
OFF01
PRIMARY ISN'$ ONLY? NO
'ION COOES: ALL
ITY COOES; ALL
GRID: ALL
INSTALLATION NAME -- MOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT
ENFOR$
OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION
03/26/89 THRU 04/25/89
ACTIVITY COOE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL
DESCRIPTION REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
PAGE
/ ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. /
.... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL PERCENT
ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED
M3003 2
JUVENILE-HABITUAL TRUANT
M5350 1
RUNAWAY
N3190 5
DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COHMUNICATIONS
03882 2
OBSENITY-MS-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT
P2110 2
PROP DAMAGE-GM-PR]VATE-UNK %NTENT
P3110 9
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK ]NTENT
1
E-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3130 3
PROP DAHAGE-MS-BUSINEsS-UNK INTENT
TO060 1
THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM MAIL-UNK PROP
Tl1!! 1
THEFT-MORE $2500-FEoFRM BUSINESS FUNDS-MONEY
Tl159 1
THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VEH%CLE-OTH PROP
T2159 1
THEFT'$251'$2500-FE-FRM MOTOR VENICLE'OTN PROP
T2~9~ 1
THEFT-251-2500-FE-FRM OTHER-OTH PROP
T4029 2
THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP
T4069 1
TH£FT-$250 LESS-MS-FRM-MAIL-OTH PROP
0 2 0
0 1 0
0 5 5
0 2 2
0 2 2
0 9 8
0 1 1
0 3 3
0 1 1
0 1 1
0 1 1
0 1 1
0 1 1
0 2 2
0 1 1
0 2 0 2 100.0
0 1 0 1 100.O
0 0 0 0 .O
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 1 0 1 11.1
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .O
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 0 0 .0
/5-7g
RUN: 28-APR-89
OFF01
PRIMARY ISN'S ONLY? NO
DISPOSITION COORS: ALL
ACTIVITY COORS= ALL
GRID: ALL
INSTALLATION NAHE -- .HOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT
ENFORS
OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION
03/26/89 TNRU 04/25/89
ACTIVITY COOE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL
DESCRIPTION REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
PAGE
/ ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. /
.... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL PERCENT
ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED
T4159 6
TNEFT-$250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTN PROP
U$012 2
THEFT-HS-BY CNECK-$2501;$19999
U3016 2
THEFT-HS-BY CHECK-S250 LESS
U3066
THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-S250 LESS
U3286
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-$250 LESS
0 6 6
0 2 0
U3496
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 LESS
0 2 0
· V1011
UNAUTHORIZED USE-FE-OVER 2500-AUTO
.. 1
V3021 1
VEH THEFT-FE-$250 LESS-AUTO
~990 1
WEAPONS-I, iS-OTHER ACT-OTNER TYPE-NO CHAR
1 0 I 1
3 0 3 0
2 0 2 2
0 1 0
0 I , 0
0 1 0
0 0 0 0 .0
2 0 0 2 100.0
2 0 0 2 100.0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 3 0 3 100.0
0 0 0 0 .0
0 0 I 1 10
0 0 1 1
0 0 1 1
100:0
100.0
REPORT TOTALS - " 7'5
3 70 45
12 8 5 25 35.7
May 4, 1989
TO:
Ed Shukle
City Manager
FROM: Greg Bergquist
Mechanic
SUBJECT:
April's Activity Report
This months shop activities included all the normal repairs that come
emery month ie: brakes, tune ups, electrical problems, normal service,
and flats. We built a brush guard for our bucket truck to protect the
cab and driver from falling objects.
May 4, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
City Manager
Joyce Nelson
Recycling Coordinator
April's Recycling
April's recycling seem to go better than March's. There were fewer misses.
The pickup on April 21, 1989 SuperCycle had completed Mound by 12:30 'p.m.
on the meeting we'had with S'uperCycle on April 25th SuperCycle told us
they had added 15 truck and drivers to their company.
Now as you all know Ed and I received a letter from SuperCycle stating
that they were going out of business. We received this letter Tuesday
afternoon, May 2, 1989. SuperCycle will be picking up our recyclable
items until May 31. I have called 3 other companies about this problem
we may have. Hennepin County hasn't come up with any ideas yet.
It seem just when things are running smoothly the bottom falls out. I
hope this doesn't hurt our program. We have received a few call from
citizens asking about the articles they have seen in the daily paper.
We have assured them that we Will still have a program and they seemed
quite.happy to read this.
April's tonnage 67.82 with 2,934 households.
May 4, 1989
CITY of IOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55~4
(612! 472-1155
TO:
CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK
RE:
APRIL MONTHLY REPORT
The Council had 2 regular meetings and 1 Committee of the Whole
meeting in April. There were minutes, 15 resolutions and 1 new
ordinance from these meetings.
The Tax Forfeit Office of Hennepin County is getting ready for
their annual sale and there were a number of people calling with
questions before the sale.
The bids were opened on the 1989 Sealcoating Project and awarded
to Allied Blacktop.
There were a lot of items that required a considerable amount of
time after the Council meetings this month, i.e. garden leases;
Arbor Lane, community energy council, tax forfeit parcels.
I am still working on inputting the city property into the com-
puter. I worked on the half secticn maps denoting the property
belonging to the City. Both of these items I will continue to
work on in. the future.
The cemetery had some activity this last month so there is
follow-up work to be done there.
There were the calls and questions on various items, such as: the
vacation of a fire lane, information on the City for a resident
doing a paper for school on local government; ordinances, etc.
I represented the Minnesota Clerk's organization at the House and
Senate hearings on certain school district election bills that
would affect cities adversely. This was quite an experience and
the cities finally after four days of testimony got their point
across to the legislature.
f
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
May 1,: 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jan Bertrand, Building OFFicial ~l~
April 1989 Monthly Report
STAFFING
During the month of April we had 20 working days, and I received
two days oF vacation and (2) one half days of sick leave. Peggy
James took one day compensation time off in April. The
inspection/Planning Department had two Planning Commission meet-
ings on April lOth and April 24th. I attended two City Council
meetings on April Ilth and April 25th as well as a Task Force
Meeting on April 20th. Peggy James has attended one Park Commis-
sion meeting on April t3th and two Planning Commission Meetings.
INSPECTIONS
The Following inspections were conducted during the month of
April:
Site Inspections 47
Footing Inspections lO
Framing Inspections 5
Insulation Inspections
Drywall Inspections 3
Final Inspections 15
Progress Inspections
Erosion/Grading Inspections 0
House Moving/Demolition 0
Heating Inspections Il
Plumbing Inspections 5
Fire Sprinklers/Fire Code 0
Complaints 13
TOTAL
REPORT5 AND PLAN REVIEWS
There were 4 plan reviews completed during April. The monthly
report for March was submitted ~o the City Manager. Research was
completed For the Planning and Zoning discussion regarding the
possible Fence ordinance height revision. Sound readings were
taken at ARCO/Century to determine the sound level of the
employee paging system. The sound meter reaOer was borrowed from
the Hennepin County Department of Transportation. The Central
Aoril 1989 Monthly ~eoort
Planning & Inspections
Page Two
Business District parking counts were made over several days by
the Police Department and myself in the vicinity of the proposed
bingo hall (Netka building). Reports were submitted Planning and
Zoning Commission, normal correspondence, and inspection notices.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission meetings were held April lOth and April
24th. They Forwarded to the City Council one Conditional Use
Permit amendment, three Conditional Use Permit recommendations,
one Variance amendment For variance reouest, one preliminary
plat, and one rezoning request. The Planning Commission briefly
reviewed the Implementation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and
continued most oF the discussion items from the April 24th
Workshop Meeting due to the case Icad of the Board oF Appeals.
LEGAL STATUS
During April, three citations were issued for exterior storage
and building code violations. A report was submitted to the City
Attorney to revise the Mechanical Contractor's Registration Or-
dinance. Notices were sent during April to all of the heating
contractors registered at the City Council Meeting notifying them
oF the changes in our proposed ordinance revisions. City Attor-
ney reviewed the variance denial from 1979 for 5012 Tuxedo Blvd.
as the owner continues to build without the required permits.
TRAININGZMEETINGS
I attended the City Council meetings o¢ April llth and April 25th
as well as the Planning Commission meetings. I attended the two
day seminar at the Eden Prairie Technical Institute conducted by
the State Building Code Division with topics oF review being pre-
manufactured housing, field inspection such as framing, weather
barriers and code interpretations with handouts From the Code
Division.
A tour was taken with Phyllis dessert to review City Council
Agenda items. I attended the North Star Chapter evening awards
banquet as well as the Chapter meeting. The North Star Chapter
meeting in April was a tele-conFerence From Indiana Purdue
University broadcasted nationwide. The subject of the tele-
conFerence was the I988 UniForm Building Code changes regarding
hazardous occupancies. I attended the regular Staff Meeting on
April 18th.
April 1989 Monthly Report
Planning & Inspections
Page Three
CItY EQUIPMENT & PURCHASES
The City vehicle required the normal gasoline fills; ! also our-
chased supplies at the Coast to Coast store. A trip was made to
and from the Hennepin County Department of Transportation office
in Hopkins to borrow the sound meter reader.
STATISTICS OF ACTIVITIES
The total number of building permits issued in the month of April
was 25 with a total valuation of $288,825. The valuation Figures
are attached on the building activity report for April
In addition, Peggy has prepared the monthly calendar for May'city
meetings, public hearings, and events, and has arranged appoint-
ments for the inspection of buildings, and plumbing. She has
prepared the Planning Commission agenda and minutes, the Park
Commission agenda and'minutes, typed correspondence For the
Building Official and Park Director. She has compiled month-end
reports for building activities, Sewer Availability Charge, and
U.S. Census Report.
* Site inspections include the review of the Planning Commis-
sion requests and requirements, site inspections For flood plain
verification, complaints and Follow-up to code compliance such as
no building permit, recheck of exterior storage compliance
notices, review status of various sites for the city prosecutor,
preconstruction meetings at the site for building permit applica-
tions or realtors, fire damage and periodic commercial inspection
updates.
** 'The heating inspections during the construction of a project
are included under the framing and final inspection of the build-
ing. The heating installations mentioned are for separate equip-
ment being placed in homes and businesses.
NOTE: "Most of what we call management consists of making it
difficult to get your work done."
Tor Dahl
NEW RESIDENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION
Total Fimily UnilI
NEW RESIDENTIAL
(GrouD & Tmn~lenl)
To~l NO~-FIm~/
NEW NON. RESiDENTIAL
(Comme~i&VlncL)
CITY OF HOUND
3.~41 Neyw~cl R~ad
Hound, MN 5;5564
BUILDING ACTIVrI'Y REPORT
~(~ ^prl~ , ~ 1989
697,409
Dele
138,413
Totll Noer ~lk~nlill
jRESIDENTIAL ADDIT~N8
AND ALTERATIONS
i (~,~ decks
NON-RESiDENTIAL ADDI-
TOTAL MONTH AND
YEAR TO DATE
~NVERSlON8
DEMOLITIONS
PERMITS, INSPECTIONS,
:TION$
DEtv10 L I T IONS
TOTAL
llO,41Z
40,000
28~,82~
40,000
932,217
CITY of ,fOUND
472-1155
May 3, 1989
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL .~....., ¢~j
JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR
APRIL FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
INVESTMENTS
The following is April investment activity:
Balance 4-1-89
$8,113,772
Bought:
CD 10.20 Due 10-27-89 4M Fund 250,000
Tr. Rec. 9.95 Due 5-15-91 Dain 168,959
Matured:
CD 8.05 First Minnesota (100,000)
· CD 8.10 St. Bank Mound (225,000)
CP 9.14 Marquette (293,459)
CD' 8.00 St. Bank Mound (150,000)
Balance 4-30-89
$7,764,272
1990 BUDGET
The 1990 budget process began in April. The budget schedule is
earlier than prior years due to the 1988 legislation Truth in
Taxation requirements. The budget must be completed by July so
the levy can be certified to Hennepin County by August 1st. One
problem with this early date is that the Department of Revenue
will not have the calculation of local governmental aid
calculated until late July (at the earliest). It is hard to
prepare an accurate budget when we are unsure of the amount of
Finance Report for April
May 3, 1989
Page 2
revenue to project. There is current legislation proposed that
would push back the dates the levy would be certified to the
County.
CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING
The 1988 audit will be submitted to the Government Finance
Officers Association for evaluation. The GFOA instituted the
program to encourage all governments to prepare an easily
readable and understandable audit report. The requirements go
beyond the generally accepted accounting principles to provide
users of the audit report with a wide variety of information
needed to help them evaluate the financial condition of the City.
Bond consultants and rating agencies look favorably on cities
that receive the certificate award.
JN:ls
May B, 1989
TO: CZTY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JOEL KRUMM, LZQUOR STORE MANAGER
RE: APRIL 1989 'MONTHLY REPORT
I am sorry to admit it, but my predictions for our April sales
this year were unfortunately correct. Compared'to norma], 'April
weather conditions were colder and rainier than usual, especially
on the weekends. And when you measure the elements of April 1989
against those of 1988, the two are juxtaposed. This year April
sales .were $67,1B2. 'Last year the figures for April read
$76,824. Needless to say, our customer count was down
considerably also. Thus, as far as the year is concerned, sales
have amounted to $254,601. sales to this same point last year
were $252,778. April's dismal results have brought us to running
dead even with last year. By the end of the summer, we will have
an accurate estimation of how we are to stack up against last
years's figures. Two important questions that consequently arise
are: 1) Can this summer's sales match last summer's sales, and
2) Was 1988 merely'a fluke?
On April 9th, we had our alcohol serving awareness seminar. I
mentioned to you in February that we were seriously looking into
this.matter, not only so that the City can save 10% on its Dram
Shop insurance, but also so that we can minimize, or
idealistically eliminate any liabilities against the City. The
seminar was very enlightening and informative. Even I was made
aware of things I had forgotten and new interpretations Of
ex. isting attitudes today. I'd highly recommend one of these
seminars to all alcoholic dispensary establishments. When I hire
new employees, they must attend this seminar as soon as possible.
LIQUOR STORE APRIL REPORT
May B, 1989
Page 2
This brings me to my final topic. Two of my employees have given
me their notice. "Ah", to put a stop to that revolving door.
That would be an impossibility I'm afraid. Anyway, new prospects
have been slim. Maybe in a couple of weeks when the college
students are looking for some summer work, employment will look
better. In the meantime, I have been putting in extra time and
Julie has been helping out with filling in some night shifts.
JK:ls
MOUND FIRE DEPARI'MEKT ~3KTHLY ACTIVITY P, EPOkT
THiS LAST THiS YEAR LAST YEAR
MONTH OF APRIl 1989 MONTH MONTH TO DATE TO DATE
NO. OF CALLS 27 30 109 126
MOUND - FI RE 5 7 21 31
EMERGENCY 7 11 i!l! 29
M~TONKA BEACH - Fl RE
- 0 3 ti
EMERGENCY i 0 1
MI NNETRI STA - FI RE 2 2 6 6
EMERGENCY ? 0 3 6
ORONO - F I RE :~ ~ 1 ~ 1 h
EMERGENCY J') J'l 1
SHOREWOOD - FI RE ~, Fi Fi Fi
EMERGENCY ~ Il Il Il
SPRING PARK - FIRE 2 1 5 lq
EMERGENCY 2 4 ] n 9
MUTUAL AlP - FI RE 0 0 I") 1
EMERGENCY 0 0 D
TOTAL FI RE CALLS
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 15 15 50 75
COMME RI CAL 12 15 59 51
RES I DENT I AL C: 2 LI 19
'~ 9 27 21
INDUSTRIAL -
GRASS & MISCELLANEOUS 0 0 1
AUTO 7 0 7 ]'~
FALSE ALARM _~ h R '
! Fi t q
NO. OF HOURS - HOUND FIRE 108 lq8 q12 811
EMERGENCY ] 1 q l 53 721
TOTAL 227 3(1] ]]33 1355
- MTF, A BCH FIRE 16 O 66 68
EMERGENCY 11 0 11 23
TOTAL 27 0 77 91
-M'TR~STA FI RE 57 166 26Lt
EMERGENCY 39 O ~;~ 95
TOTAL 96 1§0 318 229
- ORONO FiRE 152 9q Lt52 255
EMERGENCY 0 0 16 115
TOTAL 1 ~? qq /46R 3q6
- SHOREWOOD FIRE ,~ 0 O
EMERGENCY fl Il 0 0
TOTAL ~ 0 0 0
-SP. PARK FIRE 1~ 20 70 392
EMERGENCY 59 50 150 17~
TOTAL ~7 70 226 566
-MUTUAL AID FIRE 0 0 0
EMERGENCY 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 0 0 0
TOTAL DRILL HOURS 1~0 · 152~ 590 600
TOTAL EHERGE/ICY HOURS 208 603 952 929
TOTAL FI RE HOURS '~l a?R 127(1 1 gqq
TOTAL FIRE & EMERGENCY HOURS ~q l~t 2222
MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 1 ~ /l
MUTUAL A~D GIVEN ,., 0 C) O-- 1
I
APR I L 1989
F"r p~
DAI~ DAT~ DRILLS D~ ~N. ~ HO~Y
J. ~mz~s~x X X 2 19- 2! 6. O0 126.-
c. mmslSO:: ~ ~ ? !q- 21 6 ~O ]26 -
X X 2 lq- . 2~ 6.00 16~,-
~. ~cc~ X X 2 !9- ~j 7 6,00 q2,-
?, ~m.~ X Y 2 10- to ~ nn llq -
D. ~7.YC[ ' '
X X ? tq-
s. ~Yc~ X X ? lq- 27 6.flfl 62,-
~, r''~'~n''; X X 2 !~- !~ ~ nn ~ _
~:. CAS~ ~ T 2 1a- 21 ~.AA 2~,-
....... ,, X' 'X ? t~- 14 B.~ ~,,-
~. ~AVZO X X ? lq- P7 B.n~ 1~.-
~. ~.~Tr~n~ X X 2 ]~- 19 6,00 114,-
T Y ? 19- ]8 ~ nn nn _
J: GARVAIS X X ~ 19- 15 fi,tiff qn.-
!~, ~,~D~' X X 2 !9- 18 6, O0 10~,
[. ~zzz .............................................................
. c ~ ~n~Q,~ X X 2 1 ql ?p g nQ ~0. -
c. JO~SSON B ~ 0 O
~. ~ ~',mS,W~ X X 2 !9- 1
= ,,,~-~ X X 2 .19- ~0
~" .... Y ~ ? '1 q- 1 ~ ~. ftc q~.-
- nTM' X ~ 2 19- 17 6, O0 102,-
__c ..... · X ~ 2 lq- ~R g nn ~n~ _
' ~ .'~=-" X X' 2 19-
....... !4 a nm Rh .
~. S?A~,~A~: ~ X '1 q, ~N 11 ANN g~ -
T.m.~::~o:: X X 2 19- 17 6.00 102,-
........... X X 2 1~2-~ ~ ~,00 126,-
,, T. w~LL~,.'rS X X 2 19- 13 6,OO 78,-
~n ~n gn ~Tn. nn 55q 337? O0
' ,,150 ::,93 ~R~ 57N.flN
hB '
.... FOTAL ~942,
15¢2-
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
DRILL
Time
Discipline and Team work
Critique of Fires
Pre-Plaining and Inspections
Tools & Apparatus
Identifying
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue -"
Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
REPORT
Pumper Operation
Fire Streams & Friction
Loss
House Burnings
Natural & Propane Gas
talk & Demonstrations
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions.
Nozzle & Hose Alliance
Inhalator Operation
Time
Note:
.Hourse Training Paid
G Excused ~
Unexcused
O Present, Not paid
Miscellaneous:
~;/~- J. Andersen
G..Anderson
J. Babb
~'/~ J. Beauchamp
~il~ D. Boyd
D. Bryce
~ ~ S. Bryce
~ D. Carlson
Dtl~ J. Casey
~ S. Collins
~lID_. M. David
DI~ B. Erickson
~/2- S. Erickson
~ J. Garvais
K, Grady
C. Henderson
G. Johnson
B. Landsman
~.~t~}...R. Marschke
J. Nafus
M
. Nelson
A. Opitz
G. Palm
M. Palm
~'/~- G. Pederson
~ T. Rasmussen
~ M. Savage
Q;/~ R. Stallman
~ T. Swenson
'~'-~t~ W. Swenson
R. Williams
%t~ T. Williams
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
DRILL REPORT
Time
Discipline and Team work Pumper Operation
Critique of Fires Fire Streams & Friction
Loss
Pre-Plaining and Inspections ~//~- House Burnings
Tools & Apparatus Natural & Propane Gas
Identifying talk & Demonstrations
Hand Extinguisher Operation Ladder Evolutions
Wearing Protective Clothing Salvage Operations
Films Radio Operations
First Aid and Rescue ~ House Evolutions
Operation Nozzle & Hose Alliance
Use of Self-Contained Masks Inhalator Operation
Time
~ ~/,~
Note:
Hours~ Training Paid
G Excused ~ Unexcused 2 Present, Not paid
Miscellaneous:
~1/~_ j. Andersen
~'1~- G. Anderson
P~ J. 'Babb
~7/~ j. Beauchamp
p/~_ D. Boyd
.~//~_ D. Bryce
~/D- S. Bryce
'~qJ- D. Carlson
~//~_ J Casey
~//p_ S. Collins
~/~ M. David
,~'/~_ B. Erickson
~/~- S. Erickson 9//~- G.
~-~77A_ J. Garvais ~TT-~_ T.
-~7~_ K. Grady ~ M.
C. Henderson R.
_ G Johnson ~/.~, T.
-~'/,)_ B. Landsman ~'/7~.W.
D//~_ R. Marschke ,~//,~ R.
~//j_ J. Nafus ~ 1/~_ T.
D~/j- M. Nelson
A. Opitz
G. Palm ~
~'/~_ M. Palm
Pederson
Rasmussen
Savage
Stallman
Swenson
Swenson
Williams
Williams
lmaster
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR
MEN ON DUTY
j~ J. Andersen
/ ~j2. G. Anderson
0 J. Babb
~ J. Beauchamp
/5 D. Boyd
0 D. Bryce
/ S. Bryce
~- D. Carlson
.4 J..Casey
~ S. Collins
~ M. David
~ B. Erickson
~ S. Erickson
~' j. Garvais
~ K. Grady
~ L. Heitz
~ C. Henderson
~ G. Johnson
~ ~ B. Landsman
~ R. Marschke
~ J. Nafus
TOT~ MONTHLY HOURS
0
0
/O~ R. Stallman
~- T. Swensen
/ W. Swensen
~ R. Williams
~ T. Williams
M. Nelson
A. Opitz
G. Palm
M. Palm
G. Pederson
T. Rasmussen
M. Savage.
May 3, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
City Manager
Geno Hoff
Street Supt.
April's Activity Report
We started to sweep streets the 3rd, we didn't make much progress. The
first 2 weeks we couldn't start early in the morning because it was too
Cold to use wateg, it was freezing on the streets causing them to become
slippery. We even had some snow for a couple of days. Compared to the
last few years we are about 2 weeks behind schedule because of the weather.
We are closing out the month sweeping the Dutch Lake area, after that
we have Three Points and Harrison Bay left. That will complete the
Spring sweeping. We have had no major breakdowns with the sweeping
equipment, it makes a big difference in productivity when you have good
equipment to work with. (That new sweeper is running like a Swiss watch).
We took Tim Johnson off street work for a week to build some shelves for
the sanders and also to build a 6' X 8' expanded metal shield to protect
the .hood and cab of our Cherrypicker.
We dismanteled a 12' X 12' treehouse, about 30' up, located on the hill
behind Swenson Park. The police got a couple of complaints from citizens
that thought it was to dangerous for kids to be playing in.
The 2Oth and 21st we were busy cleaning up Lost Lake storage area. We had
alot of debris that accumulated over the past year. We picked up 166 yards
of debris, 8 of Blackowiak's big dumpsters. I think we better brace ourselves
when we get the bill for this.
SIGN WORK
2 Slow Children
1 Stop
3 No Parking
We took down our 4 ton road restrictions the 28th.
CEMETERY
2 graves
3 stones
CITY of }'r,O UX;D
May 3, 1989
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
City Manager
Greg Skinner
Water & Sewer Supt.
April's Activity Report
In April we pumped 22,900,000 gallons of water. We had one watermain
break this month. Well #7 has been reinstalled., we plan to put this
back on line either the second or third week in May. Time has been
spent in the meter shop reparing and testing meters. Looks like we
should have all of our spare meters tested and ready for service by the
end of May.
We spent 2 days in the stock pile removing debris that has been collected
over the winter.
The 1990 Budget process has began. Seems like we just finished the 1989
Budget.
I have been working with John Cameron on the blacktop repair in front of
the Bank on Commerce Blvd. Once we clean up the roof drain problem with
the Community Service Building we will be able to start the repair on the
road.
SEWER DEPT.
The Sewer Dept. has started their wet well maintenance this month.
will be completed by May 18. After that they will start sewer line
cleaning.
This
IS 7
APRIL 1989 MONTHLY REPORT
PARK DEPARTMENT
General Comments:
The Park Department in April began showing activity in all areas
of its responsibilities.
Tree Re~noval
To-date we have scheduled the removal of two trees, Five stumps,
and two large hazardous tree limbs. There has been one tree
marked on private property For removal.
Docks
With the low water that we have experienced during the last two
boating seasons, we have received a number of phone calls asking
about dock extensions. All private lakeshore owners are being
referred onto the LMCD. The Commons docks are handled by the
City under the guidelines that the LMCD is using. We have also
seen a number of homes For sale which has brought realtors and
prospective buyers in For explanations of the commons.
Currently, all dock applications have been processed and a recap
of the number of dock sites rented, boats moored, and income will
be available in May.
Cemetery
The cemetery grounds have seen a lot of impact From last years
drought. Most of the grass has died and weeds are springing up.
Without irrigation and the production of another dry summer, we
are not going to attempt to seed. We may look into next Fall if
the Weather is promising.
Parks'
This summer the parks will be seeing a number of improvements.
The three play structures have arrived and Minneapolis Tree Trust
is scheduled to begin installation May ISth. We will be removing
a number of old playground structures and repairing grounds where
needed.
We have settled into the old public works .building. We will en-
3oy working From one site, this will help save time when organiz-
ing daily projects.
dF:pj
HENNEPIN
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
A-2309 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0239
Phone [612] 348-6509
April 25, 1989
To: Municipal Recycling Coordinators
The Henneptn County Board of Commissioners approved storage for 1,000 tons of
newspaper at'the Hopkins Bureau of Public Service site. The storage will be
allocated according to households. Please refer to the enclosed chart for
your cities tonnage allocation. Haulers contracted with your city can not
deliver more newspaper for storage than the allocation ~or your city. If your
city has contracts with more than one hauler it is your responsibility to.
equitably divide your allocation among those haulers and inform me of that
allocation.
-The attached letter, map, procedures and agreement was sent to all haulers,
with municipal contracts to collect residential 'recyclables in the County, to
notify them of the storage availability. Also enclosed is a copy of the
resolution passed by the Board authorizing the storage. Upon receiving this
letter please contact your haulers to notify them of tonnage allocation they
can deliver. If you have questions please contact me at 348-6358.
Sincerely,
'Paul M. Kroening
Recycling Program
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
TONNAGE
CITIES ALLOCATION
....................
BROOKLYN CENTER 32
CHAMPLIN 17
CORCORAN 5
CRYSTAL 30
OAYTON 4
DEEPHAVEN 5
EXCELSIOR 3
GOLDEN VALLEY 28
GREENWOOD 1
HOPKINS 13
LONG LAKE 3
LORETTO 1
MAPLE GROVE 44
MAPLE PLAIN 2
MEDICINE LAKE 1
MEDINA 4
MINNEAPOLIS 408
MINNETONKA 59
MINNETONKA BEACH
MINNETRISTA
MOUND 12
NEW HOPE 21
ORONO 10
PLYMOUTH 56
RICHFIELD 43
ROBBINSDALE 21
ROCKFORD 1
ST. BONIFACIUS 1
ST. LOUIS PARK 56
~SHOREWOOD 7
SPRING PARK l
TONKA BAY 2
WAYZATA 4
WOODLAND 1
HENNEPIN
il
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
A-2307 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0237
Phone (6'12) 348-4077
April 24, 1989
DRAFT
Peterson Brothers Sanitation
740 Industry Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303
Dear Sir:
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is providing temporary
storage for 1000 tons of newspaper during the next four to six w~eks.
Haulers will be charged $12 per month to cover storage and handling.
The County will dispose of the paper and bill the hauler.
Space for the 1000 tons will be allocated by the Count~ to each city
based on the number of households.
It will be necessary for those firmswishing to use the'County storage
'to sign the enclosed agreement withHennepin.Countywhich should be
returned to my office.
Storage trucks will be located at the Hennepin County Department of
Public Works site, 320 Washington Avenue South in Hopkins. The scale
will accept loads beginning April 25th.
Sigcerely,
Associate County A~lministrator
Enclosure
HENNEPIN COUNTY
on equal opportunity employer
RUDY PERPiCH
GO\ER\OR
April 19, 1989
STATE OF ~IN;~ESOTA
OFFICE OF THE GOYTA~NOR
ST. PAUL 55155
The Honorable Steve Smith
Mayor
City of Mound
City Hall
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mayor Smith:
Enclosed are two articles from a California journal that I believe
should be read by all of our state and local policy-makers. It
describes the groundswell of support and the urgent need for
enhanced, aggressive recycling and waste reduction programs.
As a part of our efforts to make recycling a major element of all
waste management strategies in Minnesota, we must be sensitive to
the need for markets for recycled materials. Without markets, any
effort to expand recycling will be frustrated. So, I am urging all
state and local elected officials to review the existing procurement
practices in your offices and schools. It is time to act now to
convert to recycled office paper, ~to purchase items that can be
re-used, and to seek ways to substitute virgin-based products for
recycled products. Our schools and government offices should be
"models" to encourage all employees and students to participate in
source separation of recyclable materials and above all, to reduce
waste so that disposal is averted.
I have presented the 1989 Legislature with a comprehensive package
to bring Minnesota to the forefront in our efforts to recycle and
reduce waste and litter. The recommendations came as a result of
The Select Committee on RecYcling and the Environment (SCORE) which
included private industry, state and local officials as well as
those representing recyling and environmental interests.
It is time to enact environmentally progressive laws that will set
the solid waste policies for our state. Your participation in the
conversion of our citizenry from a "throw-away" to a
reduction-recycling oriented society is essential. Government
and our schools should set an example and lead the way.
Sincerely,
RUDY PERPICH
Governor
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EIdPLOYER
Kareem's message: out of baskets and Into recyclinG centers
Pigs, paper and politics
Recycling Waste seems simple, but there are problems galore in implementing
a reprocessing program. Even a successful program won't end
the need for landfills or waste-to-energy plants.
I used to say that asking people to
separate their garbage was hazardous
to an elected official's health.'
-- Joy Picus, Los Angeles city
councilwoman
By JOHN RUNNETTE
I't wasn't that long ago when pigs re-
.cycled part of Los Angeles' gar-
bage. The San Gabriel Valley was farm
country then. The year was 1947. The
population of the county was just over
4 million people. (It is double that
today.)
I ~)3 John Runnette is a free.lance writer
in Los Angeles.
Almost everyone lived in single-
family homes then. And utilizing pigs'
natural appetite for garbage to produce
pork, ham and bacon made sense in an
area still conscious of its rural
heritage.
Forty years ago, most Southern Cal-
ifornians still burned their trash in
backyard incinerators, then set out the
ashes for weekly collection, along with
the empty bottles and cans. Another
container held kitchen scraps or slop.
(Thes~ were the days before garbage
disposals.) City crews picked up every-
thing. The bottles and cans went to
scrap glass and metals dealers, the
kitchen scraps to the pig farmers of the
San Gabriel Valley.
But then the pigs suddenly got sick,
and tainted kitchen scraps proved to be
the cause. Cities stopped collecting
food garbage about the same time that
pig farms began being divided up for
new home developments.
Other habits changed too, once war-
time reasons for residential recycling
faded with victory. Falling scrap'
prices removed the last economic in-
centive. Smoke and foul-smelling air
put an end to backyard incinerators.
That set the stage for Sam Yorty's pop-
ular campaign promise of the early
1960s: He promised to free Los An-
geles housewives from the burden of
separati.ng their garbage.
Yorty's election did not singlehand-
edly initiate the age of landfills- like
all cities, Los Angeles already had a
few small dumps. But the Yorty vic-
tory gave impetus to a dependence on
landfills, and new habits helped too.
The growing waste stream now began
to contain a lot of new packaging
materials.
As larger landfills came on line in
the '6Os, recycling began to seem like
an old-fashioned habit. City trucks
carried everything away to new dumps
like Mission Canyon and Calabasas in
tween recycling and its first phase: re-
covery. Collecting and recovering
materials from some point in the solid
waste stream is only the beginning: re-
cycling comes when basic manufactur.
ers use recovered materials to produce
glass, aluminum, tin or paper.
In Los Angeles and several other
cities throughout California, citizens
appear to be ahead of the elected offi-
cials in support for recycling, and
elected officials are ahead of their bur-
eaucracies. The grassroots aspect of
Needed: o market for more recycled paper
the Santa Monico Mountains, Scholl in
Glendale. Spadra in Pomona. In 1971
the giant facility at Puente Hills
opened up.
Then the old :.tek-pig problem
popped up in modern form. From the
huge landfills, methane gases and
leachates began percolating into the
ground, s.e. eping down and out into
water supplies. As public health con-
'cerns grew, more citizens began ques-
tioning what was really happening
inside those mountains of g~'rbage.
Several smaller California cities --
Modesto, Downey, Davis and Berke-
ley among them -- gradually resumed
recycling programs in the '70s, while
Los Angeles flirted with and ulti-
mately rejected expensive waste-to-en-
ergy technology. Today recycling is a
thoroughly rehabilitated, "progres-
sive'' idea, even in the City of the
Angels.
-Vet even in its ne',,,' popularity, re-
J. cycling is little understood. A
basic distinction must be made be-
the issue has pushed it onto the polit-
ical agenda in many citie:: -- it may be
a point for debate in the L.A. mayor-
alty race this year.
The sense of urgency varies widely,
however. Some cities seem indifferent
while others are almost militantly
aroused. One rule of thumb seems to
work: The closer a community is to an
existing or proposed landfill, the
higher the interest. As John Waddell of
Refuse News has said, "We won't see
a solution until there's garbage on the
streetS."
Consider what happened in the San
Fernando Valley when Sunshine Can-
yon landfill began operating. Located
half in the city of Los Angeles and half
(mostly undeveloped) in the county,
this landfill currently.accepts a little
more than one-third of L.A.'s solid
waste stream. BFI Inc., which oper-
ates.3he facility, has petitioned the
county for expansion which, if ap-
proved, would make Sunshine one of
the biggest landfills in the United
States.
"Liv:ng next to a landfill." sa.rs
,Mary Efl~,'ards of the North Valley Co-
alition, "has made believers and re-
cyclers out of us." The Coalition F. as
been in the forefront of the battle to
limit the life and growth of Sunshine.
So have L.A. City Councilman Hal
Bernson. whose district includes part
of the landfill, and Citizens for a Better
Environment, which earlier fought
L.A.'s plan to build three waste-to-en-
ergy plants.
Another ally has been Assembly.
woman Marian LaFollette (R-North-.
ridge), who represents the north San'
Fernando Valley. LaFollette authored
AB 2818, which makes cities and
counties commit to recycling before
expanding landfills or opening new
dumps.
Edwards says the North Valley Co-
alition "did not feel it was ethically
correct to take a 'not-in-my-back-
yard'" attitude. In some other areas,
local efforts reflect similarly positive
reactions to the growing problems of
waste disposal:
~'~ Granada Hills Junior Chamber of
Commerce launched a residential re-
cycling program eves before any city
efforts began. The chamber provides
monthly curbside pickup of news-
paper, glass, plastic.,, and aluminum.
~' In the Lake View Terrace area of"
the San Fernando Valley, near the city-
owned Lopez Canyon Landfill, the
same type of neighborhood curbside
program began last May. Cooperating
with a private recycler, the Lake View
Terrace Improvement Association pro-
motes participation with the motto,
"Everything you put on the recycling
truck stays out of the landfill." The
group's profits have been spent on
library books and local improvements.
But profits are slim, in part because
of the falling price of used newsprint.
Association spokeswoman Phyllis
Hines says that as }ong as there's any
market for recycled goods, "things are
okay. But we'd love to have a paper
mill close by that used our paper. We'd
like to see legislation passed that all
city offices had to use recycled paper.~'
Hines' volunteers are reluctant to
join the city's pilot curbside recycling
program. "Our program isn't costing
the city a cent," she says. "There was
no startup cost. Our private recycler
even paid for the door hangers to tell
the community about the program...
Why would we want to pay money to
recycle? We're making money now and
How recycling cracked Walnut
G~eography was a key motivator in the campaign to
make the city of Walnut a leader in recycling. The
bedroom community of 25,000, just south of Los An-
geles, borders two large landfills -- the BKK facility in
West Covina and the L.A. County-City of Pomona
landfill at Spadra. (The latter also was the proposed
site of a waste-to-energy plant.)
Former Walnut Mayor Harvey Holden is now the
executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Associa-
tion of Cities and a leader in the recycling program.
"We studied recycling, composting, waste-to-energy
and a proposal which we didn't start out taking seri-
ously but in the end did, which was rail haul.
"in recycling we learned that we are not a Japan,
where they've been doing it, in some cities, for 100
years. We discovered what everyone probably already
knows: that composting is a great idea -- a necessary
component to solving the waste problem -- but we
simply haven't learned how to cope with the products
cc, ming out of citywide composting.
"The composting situation will have to have a break-
through to deal with the volume that will be produced.
Even here, the junior college started a program, and
then they had to say. 'Stop.' Where were they going to
put it?"
Holden is somewhat impatient with the pace of re-
cycling action. "(')r'e of the things which distresses me
most," he says, "is that all of the recycling information
is available from the state, from the L.A. County San-
itation Districts. Nobody needs to study it -- all they
need to have is the guts to implement it."
The possibility of a nearby waste-to-energy incin-
eration plant was enough to get Walnut's opposition
organized. "Never had so many people reacted so fast
to an issue," Holden recalls. "It was only rivaled one
time by the hint that a prison might be located (nearby)
in the City of Industry."
The city worked outthe cost of curbside collection
and charged all residents an additional recycling fee
of less than $1 a month. That will be rebated, says
program administrator Scan Joyce, when proceeds
from the sales of collected recyclables come in.
Ex-Mayor Holden believes the experts who say that
waste-to-energy plants must come eventually, as a part
of managing the waste stream.
He's convinced that there's a lot of misunderstanding
about recycling. "People hear .50 percent, and think
that's half of the problem solved. But residential re-
cycling is only 10 percent of our (total) solution . . .
Some people have used the argument of recycling
against waste-to-energy plants, but I haven't heard
anyone say that recycling can do everything."
Holden says the public must be educated and then
alternative solutions, with realistic cost estimates, must
be placed on the ballot. "We haven't got :be solutions,
because the issues are too politically hot," he says.
"We have tons of trash right now, with nu real place
to go.
"If we don't get the ball moving right now, then we
have a problem," he says. "For a politician now, you
have to forget this political suicide and put the issue
on the ballot." --LR.
helping our communi,v The city gets
so bogged down in p,~iitics and red
tape."
t~ In Walnut, a bedroom commu-
nity near Los Angeles, residents have
adopted one of the state's first man-
datory curbside recycling'programs
with virtually no political opposition.
(See box.)
t~ Santa Monica has wha? may lac
the most complete recycling program
in the nation. It has curside pickup,
multi-family zones (for apartments),
drop-off zones, bu.y-back centers,
composting, home toxic curbside
pickup, office paper programs, plastics
collections and even toy recycling.
The success of any recycling pro-
gram hinges on three questions:
What's in the trash? How much can be
recycled? What percent of the popu-
lation will be involved?
Garbage falls into three general cat-
egories, one-third residential, one-
third commercial and institutional.
one-third industrial. Most political
discussions of recycling focus on the
residential segment because it is the
easiest and most dramatic place to
begin.
Separating bottles from cans is a
daily reminder to citizens that some-
thing is being done about the waste
problem, but since residential waste is
only one-third of most waste streams,
residential programs can create the
impression that greater amounts are
being diverted from landfills than ac-
tually are.
Most private haulers feel they must
offer some form of recycling as part of
the collection service they seek to sell
their city-clients. Yet no matter how
committed the hauler and how enthu-
siastic the community, the content of
garb'llge defines what impact recycling
can achieve.
Among "garbologists," one gener-
ally agreed-upon statistic is that 20
percent of residential wastes are "read-
ily recyclable." Another 30 percent
from single-family homes is "yard
waste." Together, those elements form
the 50 percent which is considered a
realistic recycling target for residential
garbage.
,, Yet such figures hide as much as they
reveal. How much of the "readily re-
cyclable" cans, glass and newspaper
are already being diverted through
paper drives and the new California
"bottle bill?" How much of yard
wastes ar~ actually compostible (grass
clippings, leaves, etc.) and how much
ar~ solid wood?
Another problem is the amount of
miscellaneous paper than cannot be re-.
cycled readily. Junk mail is but one ex-
ample; food packaging is another.
Cities like Palo Alto have begun edu-
cation campaigns on so-called source
reduction, urging citizens to buy fresh
vegetables instead of frozen to cut
down on packaging wastes.
How many people will actually re-
cycle ho'usehold wastes? L. A. 's County
Sanitation Districts surveyed 600 res-
Timetable to crisis
Here are the grim numbers on Califorma's waste management scene:
Annual waste stream production: 38.8 million tons.
Remaining permitted landfill capacity: 490.230,909 tons.
Time remaining until all existing landfill is ciosed: 12 years.
Some cities and counties are in better shape than others, of course.
in some areas, existing landfills will be toaded in fewer than five years.
To see how Caliiornia's most DODUJOUS county will be affected, iook
at L.A.'s Sanitation Districts' "time-to-crisis" timetable.
~ if no landfill expansion is permitted, no new sites opened and
current recycling level continues, L.A. County will reach crisis condi-
tions in 1991.
~' If all possible expansions of existing landfills were permitted, no
new sites added and recycling is maintaine0 at the 1991 goal-level, the
crisis date will be 1995.
~ If landfill expansions are permitted, no new sites added and re-
cycling increases to 10 per. cent of the total waste stream, the crisis will
arrive in 1 997.
~ If all other conditions remain the same but recycling grows to 27
percent of the waste stream, the crisis day will arrive in the year 2000.
idents and found four distinct "attitude
part,ernst"
~ Early adaptors (18 percent of
those polled), persons ready to partic-
ipate in voluntary recycling.
~ Early majority (34 percent),
those. ~nterested ':nd likely to
.participate.
~' Late majorit?' ~:. percent), per-
sons with some ~.qt¢:est who m~ght
participate.
~a Non-participants (9-.3 percent),
those who proba~;:, wouldn't get
involved.
Altruism isn't th,, ~-..tire motivation
for recyclmg. Abc':? 48 percent of
those surveyed sbic :~'.'y already recy-
cle for cash. Another survey conclu-
sion: Most people will recycle if
programs'are convenient and appear
cost-effective.
Perhaps.'the biggest irn'pediment to
.large-scale recycling is the current lim-
ited market for recycled products.
Scrap metal and waste paler markets
are depressed and likely to become
more so if supply far exceeds demand,
say dealers in both fields.
By contrast, aluminum's recycling
potential has improved over the past 20
>,ears. The key to success is the fact
that the industry has converted enough
of its plants to accept used aluminum
as a source metal.
Similarly. the glass container indus-
try is tryir, g to create a market value
for bottles, and the plastics industry --
spurred by bottle bills in California
and elsewhere -- is developing a mar-
ket value for used plastic containers,
Currently 95 percent of recycled plas-
tic bottles are sent to mills outside of
the United States where they are pro-
cessed into items like carpet backings.
The problem of finding markets for
recycled products is particularly
clear in the second part of the waste
stream, the commercial and institu-
tional section. -' Most of this waste is
hauled by private carriers, and ~ts com-
position can range from restaurant
wastes to computer paper.
David Jones of City Fibers, a
paper dealer and recycler in Los An-
geles, says at least 75 percent of the
cardboard that comes into California
is being recycled, largely by peddlers
who are free-lance collectors. Of busi-
ness waste paper, more than 70 percent
is being retrieved and sold, he says.
"Any good businessman doesn't throw
something away that's worth money."
The dilemma, according to mem-
bers of the California Association of
Waste Paper Dealers, is this: Their ef-
ficient, taxpaying waste paper recy-
cling industry already exists. What
happens if government-sponsored re-
cycling begins competing in a big way?
Waste paper dealers foresee a market
inundated with low-value supply and
no new demand for r~cycled products.
Figures on volume from the waste
pi~er industry indicate that California
is significantly ahead of the rest of the
nation and, in fact, other countries in
the diversion of commercial waste
.=aper ff0rr, landfil!s. "There are three
countries 'o.-h0 lead the wor!d m recy-
cling.'' says Gary Peterson of Ec010.
Haul, a Los Angeles recycling and
waste paper company. "Japan. Ger-
man?' and California."
The problem, according to Al
Str ickman of Garden State Paper of Po-
mona (a leading producer of ne ' paper
out of old), is that the paper mills are
demand-driven. "No paper company
builds a plant without a market." he
says. Yet right now the city of Los An-
geles could produce more used news-
paper than could be consumed by all
California paper mills, he says. ,
One solution would be for govern-
ment to stimulate the market for recy-
cled produce, just as it has stimulated
marke.ts for.other products, according
to Ecolo-Haul's Paterson. "We don't
want or need government interference,
just stimulation. Why can't the gover-
nor grant a tax break for building more
paper plants that usc old newspapers.'?"
B ased on timetables developed by
the Sanitation Districts of L.A.
County (see box), it appears that re-
cycling will buy time but not eliminate
the need for new landfills. The city of
L.A. has already an'i~ounced a goal of
50 percent participauon from more
than '700,000 homes by 1993.
But achieving that goal will be dif-"
ficult, in part because Southern Cali-
fornians are used to cheap, easy
disposal in landfills .~ohn Waddell of
Refuse News says, "\~ r. have a bargain
at our landfills, we", orices as low as
59.60 (per ton) at Puente Hills. In the
eastern United States, they are pushing
as much as 5150 a ton."
Even more difficult will be changing
lifestyle habits. "The Japanese are so
good at recycling that they've closed
the loop on computer paper," says Pe-
terson. "They recycle all of it -- they
don't need any more, and there's no
market for used computer paper in
Japan right now.'
Pressuring for habit changes will be
health concerns-- landfill and
groundwater contamination, toxic
fumes and smoke from incineration,
deteriorating air quality from trucking
more garbage farther from urban
areas.
For politicians, the thankless task
will be giving voters a double whammy
of bad news: They must change their
behavior, and must also pay more for
less convenience. ·
CopltOI protest against recycling-bill veto
1 ,o7
The politics of waste
Meet the latest acronym, TWABAL m 'There will always be a landfill.'
But, asks a state legislator, how far away is that landfill in the sky
and how much will it cost?
By DELAINEEASTIN ·
Garbage is not the political issue
you're looking for if the goal is'
cheering approval from all quarters.
Californians produce 38 million
tons of it a year, and we are of one mind
about where it goes: "Out of here."
But that's where consensus stops.
There is, after all, no foolproof way
to turn 38 million tons of garbage into
joy for all.
Local officials want a smooth and
convenient way to have trash hauled
off. In pushing for that narrow aim,
they faithfully represent their constit-
uents, who have come to expect low-
cost curbside waste removal as a
municipal service on a par with fire
protection.
And it is. Without regular garbage
collection, no place would remain hab-
itable for long. California communi-
ties would be the first to bury
themselves because we generate waste
at nearly twice the rate of the country
as a whole.
~'onsequently, our dumps are filling
up. About 70 percent of California's
urban areas will be out of landfill space
within eight years..Eight of our largest
counties have less than five years to go.
What then?
Cities should be worried, but the
same local officals who demand trou-
ble-flee waste disposal also r0ake land-
use planning decisions. And they tend
to oppose new landfills anywhere
nearby.
There is still remote space in Cali-
fornia, but trucking waste long dis-
tances will run up garbage bills
astonishingly, violating the citizen ex-
pectation that waste disposal should be
cheap as well as easy.
Recycling is cheap but not easy. And
so for a long time, few households
did it..
Now, some communities have gone
to curbside recycling. These experi-
ments have shown that people will
recycle it' the system can be made
convenient.
t.~ In San Jose, curbside recycling is
expected to reduce tonnage to landfills
one-third by 1992.
~" In San Francisco, more than 25
percent is already being recycled.
," In my ciistrict, in aciclition to San
Jose. the communities of Fremont,
Newark and Union City will go to curb-
side recycling in 1989.
Such programs should be models for
urban and suburban recycling. But for
less densely populated areas, we will
have to invent methods that match the
dispersed characteristics of those com-
munities, and that will not be easy.
S tate government's encouragement
of recycling has so far been lim-
ited. AB 2020, the so-called bottle
bill. was carried successfully in the
1985-86 session by Assemblyman Burr
Margolin. But the results to date have
no~ been the kind of bottle recycling
wu had hoped for. Perhaps the incen-
tive -- I cent per bottle -- does not
outweigh the inconvenience.
In the 1987-88 legislative session,
advocates of recychn~ were optimistic
at first, but disappo:n;ed in the end. We
passed :lnree good -ecycling measures
with bipartisan support. All, however,
were vetoed.
~ AB 3298. by 4ssemblymembers
Lucy Kitlea and Dom Cortese, would
have required cive~ to draft waste re-
duction plans for t~.e ~nd of 199:2, with
a goal of recycling ~'5 percent.
t,/SB lgg, by Sen. Alfred Alquist,
would have allowed a 10 percent tax
credit to banks and cc rporations for the
purchase of recycled mat.trials.
Assemblywoman Eastin at work In Sacramento
~' AB 3746, a bill I carried, would
have required state agencies, the Cal-
ifornia State University system and the
state Legislature to buy more recycled
products.
All.three measures would have cre-
ated new opportunity in the private
sector. The new markets they envi-
sioned would have diverted tonnage
from landfills, would have added value
at several stages and (the bottom line)
would have converted a public nuis-
ance into economic growth.
We had been led to believ~ that Gov.
George Deukmejian likes that ap-
proach, but his vetoes clarified a point:
It is not all markets he wants to stim-
ulate, just old markets. The governor's
thinking evi~ntly comes down to this:
Old ways are the best ways, and new
approaches are bad. U6fortunately, the
old ways have been failed approaches
in Califo,'mia.
The l.,cgislatum has had better luck
on hearth and environmental protec-
tion around landfills, which can
amount to uncontrolled subterranean
factories of toxic contaminants if
properly monitored and maintained.
Moisture leaches poison out of bur-
ied garbage, and in some instances the
toxins have migrated into the water
supply. The decay :,rocess also gener-
ates methane, a poisonous and explo-
sive gas.
So in 1985, thc Legislature passed a
measure to require air and water test-
ing at all solid waste landfills. That
measure has not been well imple-
mented, however. Local officials and
landfill operators claim they can't bear
the cost.
It is, indeed, costly to manage a
solid waste landfill in a competent
way. And to make sure there is no mis-
understanding about that, I carried AB
2448 in 1987. Among other things, the
law makes owners financially respon-
sible for their landfills up to 30 years
after they close. The bill also sets up a
so-called garbage superfund to ensure
that there is a means to clean up un-
foreseen problems.
This is the most comprehensive solid
waste management law in the history
of California. It's likely to succeed
';,here others have not because waste
I o?
industry representatives, local offi-
cials and citizens' groups all helped
out in good faith to make the measure
workable.
'n the 1989-90 legislative session,
.we'll go at it again. The first item
on the solid waste agenda, it seems to
me, should be discussions with local
government over the landfill siting pro-
cess. That will be controversial.
I am a former city councilmember
and a strong backer of the "local con-
trol'' principle. A few years ago, I
fought a measure that would have per-
mitted state government to override
localities that rejected siting applica-
tions for controversial operations like
chemical plants.
But we have to clarify openly the
tradeoffs and then choose consciously.
Cheap waste disposal implies nearby
landfills. Remote landfills imply very
significant cost increases. It will not be
fair play for city officials to profess
"shock" later if they deliberately se-
lect the high-priced option.
This is not a decision we can post-
pone. Ten years from r,(,w, five years
from now, even two ~,:ars from now
will be too late. We should decide in
this session, or get ready for Califor-
nia's version of the famous New York
garbage barge that had no place to go.
Decisions like this are complicated
these days by a new ar;'J nasty public
affairs acronym -- NiMBY. It stands
for "not in my backyaccl," and it refers
to the growing tendency to resist the
siting of facilities that could conceiv-
ably cause problems, even though all
agree the facilities are essential: sewer
plants, jails, mental hospital~ and land-
fills, to name a few.
But there is another acronym that
should inform this debate: TWABAL.
It means "there will alw~'ys be a
landfill."
That is a disagreeable assertion to
those who hope the need for landfills
soon will fall drastically. These folks
expect that environmental limits will
force us, under the whip of necessity,
to re-learn the lost art of efficient
consumption.
That would be wonderful, but noth-
ing of the kind is in sight. Even if we
could reduce the flow of waste to land-
fills, as this year's vetoed legislation
attempted to do, state growth and the
continued use of non-recyclable prod-
ucts means these materials will have to
be disposed of somewhere.
Cutting the absolute quantity of
waste to extremely low levels probably
means Draconian cuts in both produc-
tion and consumption -- something
only the tiniest sliver of public opinion
would countenance.
So, TWABAL is probably true:
There will always be a landfill. The
only question is how far away and,
therefore, how costly.
Asecond solid waste iteTM on the
new session's agenda should be a
policy encouraging localities to de-
velop household hazardous-waste col-
lection programs.
Products like paint, insecticides and
motor oil are discarded by the ton in
the trash every day. Most people don't
even know that these dangerous sub-
stances should be disposed of sepa-
rately. Even if they do know, there is
usually no ready channel for proper
disposal.
The garbage superfund created by
AB 2448 earmarks 20 'percent of the
At Woodward-Clyde Consultants we've been
helping private industry, including the wood treating
industry, develop cost-effective solutions to waste
management problems for more than 35 years.
Our services include: · Site Investigations
· Groundwater Investigation and C'~canup
· Underground Tank Management
· Waste Minimization
· In-Sim Remediation
· Environmental Audits
· Regulatory Compliance
· Health Risk Assessment
· Expert Testimony
· Remedial Design and Construction
· Environmental Permitting
Here when you need us.
For more information, please contact:
Jim Sartor
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
500 12th Sa'eeL Suite 100. Oakland, CA 94607. 4014
(41S) 893-3600
SlO0 million fund for household haz-
ardous waste programs. The next step
is the development of local implemen-
tation plans.
Third. the Legislature must find
ways to promote more recycling, and
we can do that by stimulating the
growth of markets for recycled goods.
To gain the governor's support this
time we probably need a fresh way to
filu,,,:ate the economics of the s~tua-
rich. I suggest we develop a new mar-
ket model of waste disposal that
quantifies not only the out-of-pocket
costs of recycling, but also the costs we
avoid when recycling reduces the need
for so much waste disposal.
The federal government did this sort
of "avoided costs" analysis during the
oil embargo. It based energy strategies
not only on the costs of developing al-
ternative sources, but also on the costs
we could escape by not importing for-
ei?,n crude.
Applied to the waste question, it
seems reasonable that there is a poten-
tial benefit to the state if, by recycling,
we can avoid some of the costs and
risks that come w:.th ~andfilling.
t think such a n>a...'.'i will quite likely
demonstrate that ":.:...-' tradeoff is this:
Pay me now or pa? ,ne later, with a big
carrying charge tacked on if it's later.
Finally. we need to re-think the role
of the Califorma Waste Management
Board. which is omtlnually mired in
turf wars w)th c;he? :.:ate agencies. As
a consequence, too little that is con-
structive gets done.
Perhaps we should consider estab-
lishing a select committee to oversee
the clarification of waste management
roles in California. and by that process
define the concrete targets each is to
achieve.
The solid waste issue is partly a tech-
nical problem for professionals to
solve. But it ts driven by a number of
non-technical truths we cannot avoid
confronting:
~ California generates 38 miIIion
tons of garbage a year. and we're run-
ning out of places to put it.
~ Buried garbage turns to poison.
There is no longer any doubt about
that.
~" Unless we act, the poison will get
into the water and into the air, and
eventually into our bodies.
So this is not a hard problem to un-
derstand. But there are many eco-
nomic and political interests involved
with waste disposal. Most are valid.
And yet that means some part of every
proposal offends one or more inter-
ested parties.
City. officials want waste disposal
that's cheap and easy but not nearby --
a patently inconsistent set of
objectives.
The disposal industry wants to cut
its legal exposure by surrounding land-
fills with buffer zones. But it doesn't
want to buy the land.
Environmentalists oppose burning
and landfillir and they support re-
cycling. But to<lay only 10 percent of
our trash is recycled, and nobody wants
to wade around in the other 90 percent
until recycling can handle more.
Recycters want to see the market be-
fore they invest heavily. But potenuai
buyers of recycled goods are reluctant
to sign contracts with what the,',' ~
as bootstrap operations.
It reminds me in some ways of L'C
biologist Garren Hardin's classic
ograph, "The Tragedy of the Cc.,n:
moas." it's about the peril that al~,'a~s
attends a community's use of a com-
mon asset- in Hardin's paper, a com-
mons for the grazing of cows.
The critical point is this: Each in-
dividual impact on the commons is so
small that community members feel
right about defending the principle of
unfettered access. But each little im-
pact inexorably nudges the commons a
trifle closer to catastrophic collapse.
Professor Hardin's prescription was
an elegantly simple statement of
mocracy in action: "Mutual coercion.
mutually agreed upon."
Applied to the ,*'a$te issue, it sug-
gests all won't be perfectly happy ~'ith
the solution, h ',~ il be a system of.
compromises.
But mutual coercion, mutually
agreed upon at least buys time -- each
of us giving up a bit because each of us
throws away a lot. ·
On the fast track
As' waste-to-energy projects go, the new Stanislaus
County Resource Recovery Facility 20 miles
south'~est of Mode~to is something of a California
miracle.
Plans for the plant, which started trial runs at the
end of 1988, were initiated only about three years ago.
Given California's strict environmental controls, most
waste-management specialists estimate that it can take
five years just to get a proposal through the permit
process.
But when local officials get full steam behind a proj-
ect, it can move rapidly, as was the case of this venture
involving Stanislaus County, the city of Modesto, Og-
den Martin Systems Inc., the California Pollution Con-
trol Financing Authority, the state Department of
Health Services, the state Energy Commission, the
state Solid Waste Management Board a-nd the state Air
Resources Board.
The $ ~ 20 miItion project is designed to process 800
tons of waste a day and will serve more than 400,000
residents of Stanislaus County, relieving pressure on
two landfills that will reach capacity in 1991 and
2004. Electricity from the plant will be sold to Pacific
Gas & Electric Co.
The facility is California's third waste-to-energy plant
and Ogden-Martin's first in the state. The New Jerse,,-
based firm designed, built and helped finance the
plant. It will own and operate the facility until 2014.
May ~, 1989
CIT]" ()f
'I()L'XD
Response to Rod Plaza's letter dated April 19, 1989
Due to the length of Mr. Plaza's letter and the number of ques-
tions he has posed, my response will be outlined in relation to
the letter.
1. Question: Who maintains the commons?
Answer: All dock site holders, whether abutting or non-
abutting, are required to maintain their areas. This in-
cludes maintaining their dock and area to the standard for
public health, safety and general welfare. .Ail materials or
workmanship must meet building codes and not be unsightly,
unsafe or create a public nuisance. Generally, we have
Found that the abutting property owners have taken on the
general grounds maintenance because they benefit the most.
The City does not have the staff.that could support this
type of maintenance. Although, tfa tree is to be removed
due to it being a hazard, it is done at the City's expense.
The removal of garbage and weeds from the beach is done
daily through the months of June through August, and garbage
is picked up weekly, except in the winter months.
Question: Mr. Plaza questioned the Park Department's lack
of interest or involvement of maintenance in the subject
area.,
Answer: Mr. Plaza points out that the area in question is
narrow, about 5 to lO feet wide. In the early 1980's this
area was lO to 15 feet wide. The high water years saw the
waves erode away this shoreline. Without foresight and the
water returning, this area will be lost completely.
Ouestion:
commons?
Who has responsibility of debris left on the
Answer: Again, all dock permit holders are responsible for
the maintenance of their area. The dock inspector visits ..
each site throughout the season 5 to 6 times. If he notes
an infraction of any kind, the site.holder is notified. We
also receive calls from individuals of sites not up to
standard. These are inspected immediately, as can be
verified through our Files of copies of all notices sent
each year.
Question: Expi=nation of fees.
Answer: In the Ig?O's and early Igao's all dock fees were
based on measured length. With a system as large and varied
as the commons, this led to many problems, mainly each dock
ha~ ;o be measure~. This was time consuming an~ not practi-
cal, so a system OF a Fee based on design was born.
Naturally, a dock with more sections to Form a "L", "T", or
"H" shape would incorporate more lineal Footage and higher
Fees· This system allows the insmector to visually see that
a aock complies with an application without spenaing a lot
oF time measuring.
Mr. Plaza only needs to check with other communities that
offer docks with their sites and see that the rental fees
are much higher. For example, Wayzata is currently getting
$400 to $450 per slip. Tonka Bay who offers sites charges
$250 For the First 15 Feet of boat and $25 per additional
footage. Public marina slips will run between $1,500 and
$3,500 per slip.
As far as the income of the dock system that Mr. Plaza
believes the City is receiving, a review of previous year's
budgets will show that the general Fund has been supporting
the dock system· .t987 showed that From a budget ~otal
$54,B65, $]6,027 was ~ransFerred From the general Fund, in
1988 $24,340 and in 1989 $6,940. These Funds are From
mostly non-users of the dock program and that is why a Five
year plan is being used to make the dock system self sup-
porting.
Question: The dock inspection program is a joke.
Answer: This statement is based with no knowledge of how
the dock system works and the amount of supervision used.
To see that all sites are in compliance with City Codes. if
'Mr. Plaza would like to visit with us, we would be more than
happy to show him what is involved in overseeing 420 docks,
587 boats, and 4-l/2 miles of shoreline. His question on
minimum distance maintained between the docks is easily
answered. With each dock their is a given space for the
dock and boat, for example: 30 Feet is our general site,
which means the dock or boat may not infringe on the next
dock's 30 Foot site. The dock may ll:e offset From the cen-
ter of the 30 Feet due to a large boat, or the shape of the
dock. Again, any violation From this can easily happen
after an inspection has been made and will not be noted un- '-
til hfs next scheduled round, it is impossible to inspect
all areas daily and inFract:ions seen by a resident and
reported to us gets immediate attention.
Z
6. Question: Additional dock sections "gravy" for the City.
Answer: The larger docks create more work because they
require more inspections and tighter control. Again, if Mr.
Plaza would look at other dock systems, he will note that
the larger docks or slips show an increased fee.
7. Questions: Does the City take care of the commons?
Answer: Please note the attached list o¢ maintenance done
since 1982.
8. Question: Payment to Mr. Plaza for labor?
Answer: This Was answered in my response to question #1.
Mr. Plaza needs to remember that an abutting property owner
benefits most from the system. The abutting owner is
guaranteed a dock site that transfers with the sale of the
house, and receives a reduction of taxes when compared to
private lakeshore property owners, these ~re only a couple
of examples.
Question: Listing of issues.
Answer: Host of these concerns have been answered in pre-
vious explanations. To respond more would only be repeating
what has already been explained. Mr. Plaza needs a better
understanding of the system and that can only come from him
taking the time to call the Park Department office. We
would happily sit with 'him and show him items in our files
that substantiate how the dock program operates.
The City Council, Park Commission and staff have spent many hours
to administer the dock system to alloW it to operate efficiently.
To revert back to the problems that were prevalent in the 1960's
and Ig?o's with non-residents using the sites, docks installed at
random and not maintenanced to preserve shoreline would be a
travesty.
MAY 4, 1989
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR
COMMONS MAINTENANCE 1982 - 1989
1982 1.
1983 2.
Installed new steps at south end of Canary Lane on Wiota
Co~xnons at a cost of $650. Completed spring of 1982.
Installed new steps at south end of Avocet Lane on Wiota
Commons at a cost of $700. Completed spring of 1983.
1983 3.
Emerald Lake (strom drain) removed approximately 150 cubic
yards of material at a cost of $1500. Completed October
1983.
1983 4.
Ridgewood Access (storm drain) removed approximately 300
cubic yards of material at a cost of $3000. Completed Ap'ril
1983.
1984 5.
Rip Rap 400 feet of Devon Commons south of Pembrook Beach at
a cost of $8000."--Completed February 1985.
198~ 6.
198~ 7.
Storm drain Martin & Son Edgewater Drive removed
approximately 100 cubic yards of material at a cost of $600.
Completed Spring of 198~.
Carlson Park (storm drain) removed approximately 120 cubic
yares of material at a cost of $1200. Completed fall of
198q.
198~ 8.
198~ 9.
198~ 10.
198~ 11.
Devon Lane (storm drain) removed approximately 450 cubic
yards of material at a cost of $4500. Completed fall of
198q.
Rip Rap approximately 300 feet of waterbank commons at a
cost of $1500. Completed fall of 1984.
Rip Rap approximately 450 feet of Waurika Commons at at cost
of $15004 Completed fall of 198~.
Rip Rap dock area at end of Shorewood Lane at a cost of
$250. Completed summer of 1984.
1984 12.
Filled low area on Wiota Commons near Eagle Lane at a cost
of $200. Completed summer of 1984.
Removed numerous dead trees from Commons areas since 1983 at a cost of
$10,570. This cost was not taken from Cocoons Maintenance Fund.
1985
1985
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1986
1987
1987
1988
19'89
1989
13.
lq.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2q.
25.
Installed new steps at south end of Gull Lane on Wiota
Commons at a cost of apprx. $800. Completed summer 1985.
Tree removal from Co~mmons areas at a cost of $2,912.
Tree removal from Connoms areas at a cost of $4,155.
Rip rap apprx. 300 feet of water bank on Wiota Commons at a
cost of apprx. $1,480.
Rip rap of apprx. 100 feet of water bank on Waterside
Commons at apprx, cost of $8~0.
Rip rap of apprx. 1 O0 feet of water bank on Waterside Lane
at a cost of apprx. $8~0.
Filled Iow area on East Cresent Commons at a cost of $1000.
Rip rap of apprx. 60 feet on Waurika Commons at a cost of
$2,8_8O.
Rip rap 3,045 feet of shoreline - $29,000.
Dredge Dove Lane and Excelsior Commons at a cost of $1900.'
Rip rap 3,010 feet of shoreline at a cost of $29,000.
Dredge of Ashlund at a cost of $12,000.
Rip rap 1740 feet of shoreline at a cost of $22,660.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ~OAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
April 28, 1989
Rodrigo Plaza
PLAZA-NAVARRETE & COMPANY
4539 Island View Drive
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Sir:
In regards to your letter of April 19, 1989 to the Mayor pertaining
to commons and docks, we are inviting you to the Mound Advisory
Park Commission meeting being held on May 11, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Your letter and the issues addressed will be discussed by the
Park Commission at this meeting.
If you have any. questions or comments, please contact me.
tor
JF:pj
cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager
Steve Smith, Mayor
An equal opportunity Employer that ooes not chscriminate on the basis of race. color, national or~g~n, or ~'anO~capped status
in theadm,ss~on or access to, or treatment or emplo/ment,n .Is programs and
Plaza-Navarrete & Company
ADVERTISING PHOTOGRAPHY - GRAPHIC DESIGN STUDIO
4539 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1042
April 19, 1989
Mr. Steve Smith
Mayor
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Commons access area docks
Dear Mayor Smith:
In April 1985 we bought our house at 4539 Island View Drive, Mound. To
date this means that we have lived here four summers and are looking forward
for the fifth.
Since becomming owners of this property, we have taken pri~e to upgrade the
aesthetics of the yard and have renovated the buildings. We have planted
trees, weeded our property and all land, including the commons access. We
are caretakers for more than 170 feet of commons shoreline, with a combined
area of approximately 525 square feet.
What we do to keep up the commons in front of our property includes:
1) Cut weeds on commons several times each summer.
2) Mow the commons grass area at least three times a month.
3) Fertilize commons grass area three times a season.
4) Remove garbage that accummulates in beach area. (Pembrook Park)
5) Pick up lake debris that floats to shore along our boundary with the
lake, a commons area.
6) General policing the commons docks for boat owners that share this area.
7) Installing security night light for all who may benefit from night
illumination and safety to provide deterrent to vandals that prowl the
'docks at night.
8) Absorbing extra electrical fees for security light.
The Park Department, two years ago, performed the one and only involvement
of interest and maintenance of this area by spending funds to deposit
rip-rap for more than 300 feet of lakeshore to contain a receding lakeshore
that is at its lowest since the 1940's. A brilliant use of funds for a problem
that did not need to be addressed at that time or for years to come.
Never have we seen or observed park employees doing ~ny maintenance on
commons property in front of our property. In fact, much of the debris
left by beach patrons has been picked up by us, Why? because we care.
But now, I am coming to believe that there is something wrong here.
Mayor Steve Smith
April 19, 1989
Page 2
Consider this:
Dock permits in 1985 were $85.00 for a straight dock. Additions of one
section to either side cost $50.00 additional! Today the same dock is
$120.00 and an additional section either side $50.00, an increase of
41%, and the City has done absolutely nothing except put rip rap where
it was not needed. Why the extra costs to have our own owner placed,
owner maintained, owner removed dock? More money to the City, that's
why and the City has expended absolutely zero cash for these docks.
Dock inspection is a joke. Just look at some docks installed and measure
the minimum distance between docks. You will find that the City is
paying for a job that has no compliance. I have to call the City and request
the dock inspector to inspect violations that should have been discovered by
him es part of his employment responsibilities.
I really do not understand why we have to pay so much money to the City
to install a dock on the lake.
Consider:
1) We buy the dock - not the City.
2) We install the dock - not the City.
3) We remove the dock - not the City.
4) We maintain the dock - not the City.
5) We paint the dock - not the City.
6) It does not matter to the City i.f an additional section is added
left or right of a straight dock because they do not move other
docks to maintain a 30 foot minimum distance between docks. So
this extra fee (profit) is paid as "gravy".
7) The City does not clean or take care of commons in front of my
property, yet we have to pay the City to have docks on the lake.
8) Because of our labor, investment in tools, water and fertilizer
'to keep grass green, for the concern of all who walk and use the
commons, have a clean and green access to their dock spaces. Does
the City pay me for this? Of course not. Has the City asked me to
do so? No, but if I do not do maintenance, the weeds and debris
would be unsightly for all concerned.
The issue now has come to the following:
1) Dock fees are too high.
2) Paying a dock inspector to visit docks and nail aluminum tags
is 3 questionable expense.
3) We spend our time and money to make this commons more attractive
and safe to those visiting, in turn, receiving nothing from the
City. It makes us wonder why we have to pay so much to the City
to have a dock in front of our living room, less than 30 feet from
the shoreline.
Mayor Steve Smith
April 19, 1989
Page 3
4) Additional monies of $30.00 have been paid to the City because
of a fee for additional boats docked at the dock, in this case,
a Mound resident. This is a ridiculous fee when yOu consider the
amount of days a season this boat will be moored. And, what is
the concern by the City as to whom, if anyone, I allow to share
my dock? It must be profit motivated.
5) Why does City government care about a second boat using my dock?
Such as a resident friend, is this dockage for profit?
6) Visiting boats have a time limit on my dock! Currently it is set
at 48 hours. Why should the City control who visits us by water?
Is there a time limit as to how long a visiting car is parked in our
driveway. Next to our property is Pembrook Park, that parking lot
has cars parked for more than four days at a time (one van parked
for three weeks last summer) without the slightest interference
from anyone, until the authorities were notified.
7) The City charges extra for different style docks, strbight dock
-is $120, L or T dock is $170 and U or Special size is $205. Why
does it do this when no additional work either physical or clerical
is needed and no adjustment to the existing allocations is being done.
I think it is an opportunity to "enhance City revenues".
8) Presently if you want an "L" dock, one with an extra section to right
or left, you have to pay an additional fee while the City does nothing
to the dock or the arrangement of other docks to accommodate the,
I'infringing onto other dock owner's area".
Our good will and labor (taken for granted by officials of the City
of Mound) for the past four years to maintain 170+ feet by 5 feet wide
on average, is considerable. If you figure the minimum wage times
the number of hours devoted per season, the value is considerable
for the season. These charges have never been billed to the City.
Yet, the City bills me excessively for the privilege of having a
dock in front of my property on commons, maintained at my labor and
expense.
10) This year an additional $10.00 has been levied upon us by the LMCD
above the exorbitant fees paid to the City of Mound for a dock permit.
11) I am considering a fence marking my property at the edge of the
commons. Then, we will see whose side is kept correctly.
Why does the LMCD discriminate boat owners who have larger than 20 feet
boats? Why should a 20 foot boat pay $10 and a 24 foot boat pay $20
when the LMCD does nothing different to help accommodate the larger vessel?
These revenues extracted from boat and dock owners should be looked into
and a reasonable fee paid to the City if the City does something to
contribute to the upkeep of commons or shoreline area.
Mayor Steve Smith
April 19, 1989
Page 4
In summary, the following I feel very strongly about:
The dock fee should be waived to homeowners whose land is adjacent
to the commons and who wish to have a dock. This is especially for
those who maintain and clean the commons.
Alternative:
Commons area such as ours, where the land is flat and there is easy
access to docks, thanks to the homeowner's dedication to its upkeep,
should receive more attention from the City and Park Board
maintenance personnel.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this letter.
Sincerely,
Rod ri go Plaza
cc: Editors of Laker and Sailor
,Z
DF..VOI~ LA ~ '¢,,, ..
,KE LA '~.
RANDY JOHNSON
COMMISSIONER
PHONE
612-$48-3088
TDD 348-7708
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
RFC'D MAY 1. lg8g
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 21, 1989
Mayors, Council Members, City Managers,
and Recycling Coordinators in Suburban Hennepin Co.
Randy Johnson ~
Plas tic Recycling
There has been a great deal of recent publicity about the Minneapolis
ordinance that purportedly bans plastic food packaging. Some suburban
cities are considering similar ordinances.
I believe that for both environmental and economic reasons, a
better approach is to recycle plastic. Unlike newsprint, there is
a strong and growing local demand for recycled plastic that is separated
by resin.
That is why I introduced a resolution at the April 18th County
Board meeting to require cities in Hennepin County to collect plastic
(in addition to aluminum, glass and newsprint) in order to remain
eligible for the .county's recycling cost reimbursement program. At
my request, the resolution was referred to the April 28 meeting of
the Public Service Committee and to our Recycling Task Force.
I expect the County Board to enact this significant change to
our recycling program early next year, to be effective only after
our. Materials Recovery Facility is operating and densification equipment
for collection trucks is available.
Council Member Steve Cramer, who authored the Minneapolis ordinance
announced that he supports my proposal although he may still want
to ban some packaging.
Enclosed for your information are copies of a news release, questions
and answers about plastic recycling, and some information that has
been printed in newspapers.
REJ:sls
Enclosures
RANDY JOHNSON
CObiMIS~SION ER
BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
PHONE
612- 346- 3088
TDD 348-7708
NEWS RELEASE
"RECYCLE PLASTIC - DON'T THROW IT AWAY AND DON'T BAN IT"
Next year at this time Heunepin County residents will be recycling
plastic, and all the talk of a so-called plastic ban will be a distant
memory predicted by Heunepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson.
At Tuesday's Heunepin County Board meeting Commissioner Randy
Johnson will introduce a major amendment to the county's source separation
ordinance and recycling reimbursement plan. It will require cities
to collect plastic as part of their curbside recycling programs in
order to remain eligible for the county's generous 50% to 80% cost
reimbursement.
One result of adding plastic to the three materials already being
collected (glass, newspaper and aluminum) will be, in effect, to supercede
.the Minneapolis ordinance that purportedly bans some food and beverage
plastic packaging. That ordinance exempts from 'its ban any material
that is collected in a recycling program.
"The fact is that plastic is much too valuable to throw away
- and it is also much too valuable to ban. Plastic can and ought
to be recycled," said Johnson.
"For example, to an end user, aluminum is worth about $1200 per
ton, glass is worth about $50 per ton, and newsprint is - or was -
worth about $20 per ton. Meanwhile, properly separated and ground
plastic can be sold locally for $200 to $600 per ton. But local companies
have to buy it from recyclers in cities hundreds of miles away because
we are not collecting it yet in our own recycling programs," explained
Johnson.
Johnson said he chose to introduce the amendment adding plastic
to the collected recyclables at this time for several reasons.
"First, the county board soon will be issuing a Request for Proposals
to operate a "Materials Recovery Facility" that will separate and
prepare recyclables - including plastics - and sell them to the appropriate
users.
(over)
Recycle Plastic
April 17, 1989
Page 2
"Second, just a few weeks ago the S~ate Pollution Control Agency
took two major steps forward to encourage recycling plastic rather
than banning it. The PCA proposed regulatioms to adopt a plastic
coding system developed by the plastic industry to help recyclers
identify the different plastic resins.
"In addition, the PCA awarded a $40,000 grant to a private company
to explore the feasibility of building a plastic resin recovery facility
iu Minnesota.
"The third reason to begin to recycle plastic is illustrated
by the tons of newspaper we now see piling up every day in Twin Cities
recycling programs.
"It proves the overriding importance of making sure there is
a real ~u%rket for what we collect. Nothing is recycled until somebody,
somehow, somewhere, actually takes the material and re-uses it," Johnson
said.
"Umfortumately, the past focus of Twin Cities recyclimg programs
has been almost entirely on increasing the supply of materials that
residents separate out for collection. Now we k~ow those "supply
side garbologists" were wrong. We must focus our recycling efforts
on materials like plastic for which there is a strong and growing
market, and we must work at creating new markets for materials such
as newsprint.'
After discussion at the Tuesday board meeting, Johnson said he
will ask that this change in policy be reviewed by the county's recycling
task force. He said that the amendment adding plastic to the list
of recyclables should take effect o~ly after the county's Materials
Recovery Facility is operating'early next year, and only after the
county board has determined that, if necessary, a portable "on board"
compactor is commercially available for local recycling collection
trucks.
If all 47 cities in Hennepin County decide to continue to participate
in the county's recycling cost reimbursement program, Johnson said
thaC Hennepin County will have the most extemstve plastic recycling
program in the nation next year. He pointed out that any city could
still opt out of the' county's reimbursement plan and continue dowm
the path of banning plastic, but for Minneapolis that would mean turatng_
dow~ nearly $2 million next year.
We are giving the cities the opportunity -;and a very strong
financial incentive - to recycle plastic and I hope they respond positively.
R.~D¥ JOHNSON
COMMISSIONER
PHONE
612- 348- 3088
TDD 348-7708
BOARD OF HENNEI:'IN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER
MINNE.~OLIS, MINNESOTA 55487
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ABOUT COMMISSIONER RANDY JOENSON'S
PLASTIC RECYCLING INITIATIVE
Question: What exactly is Randy proposing to do in order to recycle plastic?
Answer: Under state law'and municipal ordinances, cities are primarily responsible
for deciding how to collect recyclable material within their boundaries. Hennepin
County has overall authority for managing solid waste. The county's funding
assistance policy reimburses a city for up to 80% of its recycling costs if
the program meets the county's guidelines.
Randy's proposal would add plastic to the three materials (aluminum, glass and.
newsprint) that a city recycling program already must collect to remain eligible
for reimbursement.
Question: 'How does the plastic recycling proposal affect the highly publicized
Minneapolis ordinance that might ban some plastic packaging next year?
Answer: The Minneapolis ordinance exempts from the ban any material that
is being collected in.a recycling program. Thus, if Minneapolis wants to remain
eligible for county reimbursement, it will collect plastic instead of banning
it. Of course, the city could choose to turn dowm the county's reimbursement
and'Proceed to ban plastic instead of recycling it. (The city's 1988 reimbursement
was $1,421,144 and the amounts for other cities are attached.)
Question: Won't this "recycle plastic instead of banning it" plan pit the county
against the city on recycling?
Answer: Not at all. Minneapolis couuctlmembers who authored the ban have
acknowledged that their real goal is to increase recycling. Now they will have
the opportunity - and financial incentive - to do so. Cou~cilmember Steve Cramer,
author of the Minneapolis ordinance, supports the plan to collect plastic, although
he still may want to ban some packaging.
Question: What is the source of money for the county's recycling reimbursement
plan?
Answer: None of it comes from property taxes! To date, funds have come from
interest earnings from bond proceeds. In June, the funding will come from a
surcharge on non-recycled waste sent to landfills and the waste-to-energy plants.
Plastic Recycling Initiative
Page 2
Question; Are plastics really recyclable?
Answer: Definitely yes. of the five basic types of resins used
in most consumer plastic packaging, four of them are in strong demand
by local plastic companies who can reduce costs and maintain quality
by mixing the recycled resins with virgin resins in manufacturing their
products.
Question: What are the most readily recyclable plastics?
Answer: High-density polyethylene (H.D.P.E.) is the most widely
used plastic resin, it is Used for rigid containers such as milk jugs
and household product containers.
Polyethylene terephthalate (P.E.T.) is used in rigid containers, often
for soft drinks. It can be recycled, into many diverse applications
such as soft drink base cups, strapping, paint brushes, geotextiles,
carpets, shower stalls, and boat hulls.
Polystyrene (PS) is used most often as a foam for cups, trays and fast
food containers. In its solid form, PS is used for cutlery. Recycled
PS is in demand for use as an energy-saving insulation board.
Polypropylene (PP) has many applications, including smack food packaging,
and it is often interchanged with polyethylene or polystyrene.
Question: How will plastics.be recycled?
Answer: Heunep!n County will be contracting with a private company
to operate a Materials Xecovery'Facility that will separate collected
recyclables including plastics and sell the materials to the appropriate
-end-user. Most plastics can be separated by resin through hand sorting,
or by using established mechanical or chemical technologies, and then
washed and ground into chips for shipment. Plastic packaging that
contains unidentified or mixed resins can be co-mingled and used for
relatively "low-tech" applications such as landscape timbers, car stops,
road.sign markers, etc.
Question: A Star Tribune editorial claimed that the plastics covered
by the Minneapolis ordinance should be banned because they cause problems
in landfills and harmful emissions in municipal incinerators. Is the
editorial accurate?
Answer: No, the Star Tribune is wrong. Although plastic buried
in a landfill does not decompose for hundreds of years, the fact is
that hardly anything under the top few feet in a' landfill decomposes.
In fact, the stability of plastic in a landfill means that it contributes
neither to leachate nor methane productfon.
Plastic Recycling Initiative
Page 3
As for incineration, over 90% of the plastic in the waste stream, and
virtually all of the food packaging, contains carbon, hydrogen and
oxygen. Under federal law, plastic food packaging cannot contain heavy
metals. Even incineration of polyvinylchlorides (PVC) does not yield
dioxins/furans when properly combusted.
Question: How much of our garbage is plastic?
Answer: According to a recent Environmental Protection Agency study,
plastics make up only 7% of the waste stream by weight. However, plastics
may constitute nearly 30% of the waste stream by volume.
Question: What are the disadvantages of a broad plastic packaglug
ban?
Answer: For many applications, consumers prefer plastic packaging.
Families with children understand that plastic bottles ~nd jars do
not break into sharp fragments. Others prefer the lighter weight or
microwaveability. Also, many plastic containers, such as butter or
margarine tubs and ice cream buckets, are re-used indefinitely for
many common household purposes.
Question: Will anybody pay for the plastic that is collected in a
recycling program, or will we have a glut like we now have with separated
newspapers?
Answer: The local market for recycled plastic separated by resin
is strong and growing. For comparison, end users of the three materials
now collected for recycling in Hennepin County pay approximately the
following amounts: aluminum $1200 per ton; glass $50 per ton; newsprint
$20 per ton (but there is an excess of supply and the price throughout
the nation is dropping quickly). Recycled plastic separated by resin
can be sold for the equivalent of $200 to $600 per ton.
Question: What are the practical problems in recycling plastic?
Answer: The advantages of plastic packaging - its durability and
capacity to enclose a large volume of product with very light weight
- can raise difficulties in collection. In short, a recycling collection
truck can fill up very quickly with plastic containers that weigh very
little, and end-users of recycled plastic pay for resins based on weight.
However, the new "on-board" portable compactors should be commercially
available near the end of the year, and some preliminary plastic collection
programs have indicated that asking residents simply to "stamp" on
most plastic containers achieves sufficient densification.
(over)
Plastic ~ecyclin~ Initiative
Page 4
Question: Why did the county wait until now to make public this information
about the value and recyclability of plastic?
Answer: In fact, the county's plan to accept plastic at its Materials
~ecovery Facility has been discussed publicly for the past year. Commissioner
Johnson also provided this i~formatio~ at public hearings before both
the Minneapolis and St. Paul city councils before they voted on their
plastic "ban."
Question: When would Randy's proposal to include plastics as a recyclable
material for collection ~ake effect?
Answer: This new recycling initiative requires an amendment of the
county's funding assistance policy and perhaps even the county's source
separation ordi~ance. Moreover, ~andy has asked that the new policy
be reviewed by the county's Recycli~g Task Force, composed of public
officials and concerned citizens. In all likelihood, plastic will
begin to be accepted for collection shortly after the Materials Recovery
Facility opens early next year. ~
Revised 4/21/89
MbT~ICIPAL REIMBURSEMENT AND FUNDING PERCENTAGE FOR 1988
CITIES I FUNDI~
BLOO:'~INGTON
B?,OO}LLY~f PAI~:
CORCORA~
CT, YST3£
D~_EPHAV~,~
EDINk
D~CELS I OP,
GREERrWDOD
HOPKINS
MINNEAPOLIS
MINNETONKA
MINNETRI STA
MOUND
NEW HOPE
PLYMOUTH
RICHFIELD
ROBB INSDALE
ROCKFORD
SHOREWOOD
SPRING PARK
ST. BONIFACIUS '
ST. LOUIS PARK
TONKA BAY
WAYZATA
WHRC (A)
WOODL~/~D
5O
70
80
6O
70
5O
80
6O
6O
70
50
60
70
7O
60
70
50
8O
70
8O
60
70
50
6O
8O
80 ~
80
60
80
$18.243
$19.786
$51.562
$12.097
$7,898
$26.t83
$7.905
$51,312
$811
$26,776
$1,421,144
$32,912
$2,603
$21,245
$11,567
$122,126
$80,383
$163,195
$351
$8,546
$3,047
$423
$208,075
$17,452
$32,408
$12,675
$3,545
TOTALS
$2,395,387
(A)
WHRC - West Hennepin Recycling Commission which
includes Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake,
Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina and Orono.
ct All Plastic Blights the Environment
~ the Editor:
As a Commissioner of Hennepin
County, which has the responsibility
and legal authority to manage solid
waste in Minnesota, I was amused to
read of the supposed ban on plastic
food packaging passed by Minneapolis,
where about one-third of our county
residents live (news story, April 1).
Several years ago I proposed, and
our county board supported, a much
more comprehensive statewide ban on
plastic food packaging. We thought we
were enlightened environmentalists.
Further study taught us 'that not
only was such a ban unnecessary, but
also that it w6uld reduce use of a.
product that offers greater potential
for recycling than almost anything
else in the waste stream. Plastic food
packaging (with few exceptions) does
not contain heavy metals or other
toxic components that can cause.
problems in incinerators. Also, plas-
tic does not pose serious leaching
problems in landfills.
Apparently, Minneapolis council
members learned the same thing.
Some refer to their ordinance-as a
ban, but it really sets up a commis-
sion to study which plastics, if' any,
should be banned. It also exempts
polyethylene terepthalate and high-
density polyethylene -- most of the
plastic and container packaging -- if
they are collected for recycling.
Our county pays up to 80 percent of
recycling costs for each of our 47
cities if they meet our guidelines. The
money ts raised not from a tax, but by
a surcharge on nonrecycled waste.
Despite the hoopla about a sup-
posed ban od.plastic food packaging, I
am confident we will move quickly t~.
ward recycling, instead of banning,
most plastic. RANDY JOHNSON
Minneapolis, April 7, 1989
StarTribune
Proposal would have-
Hennepin COunty pay
'cities to recycle plastics
Hcnncpin Countyshould add
plastics to thc list of garbage it pays
cities to recycle, County
Commissioner Randy Johnson
said MOnday.
He said he'll ask the County Board
to authorize that change after cities
get a chance to discuss it. He said
plastics recycling should begin once
the county's proposed recycling
center is operating early next year.
Recycling plastics is better than
banning them, Johnson said,
referring to a recently passed
Minneapolis ordinance that will
prohibit some types of food
packaging.
But Minneapolis Council Member
Steve Cramer, who engineered the
packaging ordinance, said that
although he supports Johnson's
proposal, some packaging that
can't be reused needs to be banned.
The county already pays cities~up
to 80 percent of certain recycling
costs, depending on what share of
garbage is recovered. The county
made $2.4 million in payments for
paper, glass and can recycling last
year.
Among the most easily recycled
plastics are those'used in milk and
pop bottles, Johnson said. A study
for the Metropolitan Council last
August found that 6.8 percent of
the garbage picked up in
Washington and Ramsey .counties
consisted of plastics.
St. Louis Park collected 40,000
pounds of milk and pop bottle-type
plastics last year. Recycling
coordinator Wally Wysopal said he
4/Z8/89
Randy Johnson
· expects that financing such
collection would result in much
greater cost for the county.
Johnson said he was confident that
recycling plastics would not result
in the same sort of market glut that
has reached crisis proportions for
newsprint. He said there is an
extraordinarily strong market for
recycled plastics locally.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION
402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391
DISTRICT
TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
JoEIlen L. Hurr. Chair
Orono
Thomas Reese. Vice Chair
Mound
Jan Boswinkel, Secretary
Minnetonka Beach
Mark Westlund, Treasurer
Wayzata
Marvin Bjorlin
Tonka Bay
David Cochran
Greenwood
Albert O. Foster
Deephaven
James N. Grathw, oi
Excelsior
Ron Kraemer
Spring Park
John Lewman
Minnet rista
John G. Malinka
Victoria
Robert K. Pillsbury
Minnetonka
Robert Rascop
Shorewood
Robert E. SlocuEn
Woodland
TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 4, 1989
FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE
SUBJECT: APRIL REPORT - LMCD
1. QENERAL INTEREST ITEMS
1.1 Eurasion Watermilfoil Task Force.
A services contract for the operation and maintenance of the 5
harvesters purchased last month by the LMCD was let this week. Low
bidder was Atlas Marine, a Division of Arias Foundations, Inc.. This com-
pany is owned by Bud Stannard of Mound. Bud was a charter member of
the LMCD.
The contract is a flexible one providing for the operation initially of
two harvesters, then three, and then perhaps all five. The initial plan was to
buy three harvesters and two transports. In the equipment bid tally, the
price of the transports was so close to the price of the complete harvester,
that it made good business sense to purchase five harvesters, and initially
use two as transports. When five are used as cutters, the contractor will
provide two high speed transports to haul the weeds to shore off-load
points.
On a maximum cutting schedule, the program will run out of
operating funds by mid-August. In order to preclude having to shut down
the operation at the height of the cutting season, there is a need that
$150,000 more in funds be raised for this cutting season.
The Scientific Sub Committee of the Weed Task Force has had
several meetings. They are assembling a work plan and a data collection
scheme that will hopefully meet the Corps of Engineers requirements so that
matching funds can be obtained in 1990.
Suburban Hennepin Parks has purchased a harvester which they
indicate they will make available to us. They are also providing computer
time and the assistance of some staff individuals.
1.2. Comprehensive Lake Management Plan
The Public Safety Section has been initially approved by the
Advisory Committee. The f'mal meetings of the Wetlands sub-committee
have been concluded. Work progresses on the Lake Use and Lake Access
sections, with sub-committee meetings slated for this month.
1.3 St Alban's Bay Marina
Of general interest is the recent turndown of the new marina
application of Gerald Toberman for St Alban's Bay Marina. This centers
2
around the request of Mr Toberman to rebuild and reconfigure the docks at
this very old installation. The request was turned down by a vote of 7 to 5.
This will certainly result in a lawsuit. It is my belief that Mr Toberman
should have been granted a license, as he conformed in everyway but one to
all of the LMCD requirements for a commercial marina. The one, was the
need for a sideline set back variance caused by converging property side
lines into the lake. This variance was granted, while the license itself was
turned down. We are seeking to reconsider this action.
2.0 CITY SPECIFIC ITEMS- MOUND
2.1 Numerous applications from Mound residents for dock
extensions have been received and processed.
2.2 The City Manager's request that the Lost Lake channel be put
on the list of those being considered for work by the county may run into
the same blockage that the recent private request did: that of the Wagrnan
claim of ownership of the channel bottom. This needs to be resolved.
/,,"'~T~oi'h Re. ese
/ // Mound Representative
/ Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
cc. Gene Strommen
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
473-7033
L.M.C.D. I~EETING SCHEDULE
May 1989
RE 'O MAY
3 'lgSg
Wednesday 5-10-89
Advisory Committee
7:00 p.m., Tonka BaY Village Hall
Thursday 5-11-89
Lake Access Subcommittee of Advisory Committee
7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall
Saturday 5-13-89
Water Structures & Environment Committee
7:30 a.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata
Monday 5-15-89
Lake Use Committee
4:30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata
Thursday 5-18-89
Lake use Subcommittee of Advisory Committee
7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall
Friday 5-19-89
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 a.m., Freshwater Foundation, Navarre
Wednesday 5-24-89
Public Hearing: Lake Minnetonka Sailing School/Minne-
tonka Yacht Club New Dock License
7:00 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall
Regular Meeting, Board of Directors
7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay Village Hall
To be announced
On'Shore Facilities Subcommittee of Advisory Committee
To be announced
Upland Environmental Protection Subcommittee of
Advisory Committee
4-28-89
Around the Twin Cities'
Hennepin~County recycling task forCe backs''
proposal toestablish processing center
A Hennepin County recycling task
force recommended Monday that
the county proceed with plans to set
up a center to process recyclable
materials collected under municipal
programs. -
The county already has asked for
proposals to operate such a plant
and would like to have it running
by the end ofthe year. It would bale
items for sale in recycling markets.
The group, consisting mostly of of-
ficials from cities in Hennepin
County, also said the county should
try to put somekind of floor Under
local recycling markets by compen-
sating cities when prices drop below
sp~.fied levels.
Kathy O'Brien, majority leader of
the Minneapolis City Council, took
the lead in both actions during the
session held at Sc Louis Park City
Hall. Both also are supported by
Commissioner Mark Andrew,
chairman of the task force.