Loading...
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.