The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-05-23CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA A ~ E N D A MOUND CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Pledge of Allegiance. Approve the Minutes of the May 9, 1989, Board of Review, Regular Meeting of May 9, 1989 and the Committee of the Whole Meeting of May 16, 1989 Pg. 1635-1647 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 1648-1649 CASE ~89-809: Jack Cook, 4452 Denbigh Road, Block 1, Lot 2, Avalon, .~¥~~ -' PID # 19-117-23 24 0002.~_~-/'~ Request: Variance Pg. 1650-1675 Se CASE #89-814: A Resolution Denying a Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Operate a Bingo Hall at 2313 Commerce Boulevard. Pg. 1676-1680 CASE ~89-817: David Lanz, 6230 Westwood Circle, Lot 5, Block 2, Westwood Circle; PID #23-117-24 23 0016 Request: Variance for Rear yard Setback Pg. 1681-1691 CASE ~89-818: Thomas Kieltz, 2033 Arbor Lane, Lot 3, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist Request: Variance for Front & Side yard Setback Pg. 1692-1705 CASE ~89-819: Patrick & Diane Ruhr, 5133 Emerald Drive, Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit C, PID #24-117-24 13 0016 Request: Variance for Existing Side yard Setback Pg. 1706-1719 CASE ~89-820: Harold & Beverly Christianson, 2933 Cambridge Lane, Lots 7 & 8, Block 34, Wychwood, PID #24-117 24 42 0007 Request: Variance for Side and Rear Yard Setback Pg. 1720-1730 Page 1632 10. ii. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Request for Assistance - Eurasian Water Milfoil Problem at Dutch Lake - Richard Wagner, Chairman, Citizens Concerned About Dutch Lake--~~~~pg. 1731 comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present Proposal to Revise Park Dedication Fee Schedule, Section 330:120 of the City Code Pg. 1732-1740 Request for Maintenance Permit, Rodney Beystrom, 4466 Denbigh Road Pg. 1741 Recommendation from Park Commission Regarding Pembroke Park~irr~er Motorized Vehicle Access Pg. 1742-1750 Proposed Street Improvements on Denbigh Road Pg. 1751-1772 An Ordinance Amending Section 170 of the City Code By Adding Sections 170:15, 170:25 and 170:30 Relating to Unclaimed, Lost or Abandoned Property Pg. 1773-1781 An Ordinance Amending Section 905:00 of the City Code, Adding Subdivision 5A, Relating to the Possession of Knives on School Grounds Pg. 1782-1786 An Ordinance Repealing Sections 1000:05, 1000:10 and 1000:15 of the City Code, Relating to Nuisances and Abatement in Their Entirety and Replacing Them With Revised Sections 1000:05, 1000:10, 1000:15 Relating to Nuisances and Abatement. Pg. 1787-1794 Recycling Update -5~~ ~r~~ -J~~- DISCUSSION: Central Business District (CBD) Parking Lot Approval of Licenses Pg. 1795 Payment of Bills Pg. 1796-1810 INFORMATION/MISCELLaNEOUS: ae April 1989 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director Pg. 1811-1812 B. Park Commission Minutes of May 11, 1989 Pg. 1813-1817 C. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 1989 Pg. 1818-1825 De Letter from Janelle Hunt, Community Education Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools to Mayor Steve Smith Pg. 1826 Page 1633 64 May 9, 1989 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REFIEW MAY 9, 1989 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review con- vened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on May 9, 1989, at 6:30 P.M. 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, Hennepin County Assessors Keith Rennerfeldt and Mike McDonald. Mayor Smith opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the assessed value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1989. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene Wednesday, May 24, 1989, 7:00 PM, and bring back their final decision on each property. Hennepin County Assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, explained that one fourth of the city is reviewed in detail each year. The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. They all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 1. PID #23-117-24 13 0040 - M.L. BUZZ SYCKES, 5900 BEACHWOOD. 2. PID #14-117-24 31 0030 - CHARLES CARLSON, 2208 COMMERCE. 3. PID #14-117-24 31 0024 - DUANE NORBERG, 6015 ASPEN. PID #23-117-24 44 0005 - JANET CHASE (CHARLES CHASE, JR), 3048 HIGHLAND BLVD. 5,. PID #23-117-24 14 0021 - LYDELLE SKOGLUND FOR MERLYN SKOGLUND, 5823 BARTLETT BLVD. 6. PID #22-117-24 44 0031 - MICHAEL MALASKE, 6557 BARTLETT. 7. PID #23-117-24 13 0066 - BERNIE MALCHESKI, 5820 BARTLETT. 8. PID #23-117-24 31 0030 - KENT CHRISTENSEN, 2971 OAKLAWN. 9. PID #13-117-24 33 0011 - GARY BREUHAN, 54220 BREEZY. 65 May 9, 1989 10. PID #13-117-24 14 0045 - HARVEY REDER, 0046 - DEAN & JULANN HUNTER 0047 - DEAN & JULANN HUNTER. 11. PID #19-117-23 13 0003 - MAURICE J. LEUTHNER, 7670 HWY. 7, EXCELSIOR, MM. 55331. 12. PID #14-117-24 34 0019 - HOWARD ORN, 6057 LYNWOOD. 13. PID #13-117-24 21 0047 - TOD & KAREN HOLMBERG, 1712 CANARY. 0048 14. PID #14-117-24 34 0018 - VERNON & SHIRLEY ANDERSEN, 2210 #14-117-24 14 0045 SOUTHVIEW. 15. PID #14-117-24 13 0006 - GARY & NANCY NORDSTROM, 5856 GRANDVIEW BLVD. 16. PID #14-117-24 41 0039 - G.T. PRESTIDGE, 5733 SUNSET 17. PID #19-117-23 13 0148 - MICHAEL COLBERT, 4338 WILSHIRE. 18. PID #24-117-24 42 0001 - KENDALL RONNING, 4990 BRIGHTON BLVD. 19. PID #13-117-24 44 0007 - BEATRICE MILLER, 4949 BARTLETT. 20. PID #23-117-24 24 0021 - STEVEN BERKEY, 2621 GRANGER. 21. PID #23-117-24 41 0030 - JOHN SHACKLFORD & PAULA MESSER, 2940 HIGHLAND COURT. 22. PID #13-117-24 43 0016 - ROBERT ERICSON, 5064 WOODRIDGE. 23. PID #23-117-24 23 0058 - R.A. 7 P.A. DE MARAIS, 2794 HALSTEAD LANE. 24. PID #13-117-24 22 0008 - SLYVIA OGREN, 1756 LAFAYETTE LANE. 25. PID #13-117-24 44 0015 - OSWIN PFLUG, 4851 SHORELINE. #13-117-24 44 0016 #19-117-23 24 0028 26. PID #19-117-23 13 0025 - THEODORE W. FOX, 4363 WILSHIRE. #19-117-23 13 0090 #19-117-23 13 0129 #19-117-23 24 0060 27. PID #14-117-24 31 0023 - JOHN BEAUCHAMP, 6029 ASPEN ROAD. 28. PID #19-117-23 13 0083 - ELLEN GRAVELY, 4379 WILSHIRE BLVD. 29. 30. 66 May 9, 1989 PID #23-117-24 14 0062 - STEPHEN & JOANNE MAR/CL~D, 2670 #23-117-24 14 0010 COMMERCE. ~23-117-24 14 PID #23-117-24 14 0076 - CHARLES & DIANN STANISICH, 2670 #23-117-24 14 0094 COMMERCE #23-117-24 14 0095 31. PID #25-117-24 12 0223 - PAUL HENRY, 5056 SULGROVE 32. PID #13-117-24 32 0117 - ELLEN SCHOLER, 2100 FERM. 33. PID ~13-117-24 42 0020 - ALLEN ANDERSON, 5060 EDGEWATER, 34. PID #25-117-24 21 0089 - WARREN GOODROAD, 3624 ROBINWOOD #25-117-24 21 0090 TERRACE, MINNETONKA, MN. 55343 35. PID #14-117-24 31 0022 - FRANK WEILAND, 6045 ASPEN. 36. PID #19-117-23 31 0104 - RON JOHNSON, 4417 DORCHESTER. 37. PID #19-117-23 23 0075 - RONALD EIKAAS, 4704 CAVAN. 38. PID #13-117-24 33 0053 - MASONIC LODGE (ORV FENSTAD). #13-117-24 33 0054 39. PID #14-117-24 32 0029 - BARRY WING, 6348 WALNUT. #14-117-24 32 0030 40. PID #14-117-24 32 0010 - GENE GARVAIS, 6272 RED OAK ROAD MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - M~Y 9, 1989 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 9, 1989, following the Board of Review, 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, Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Offi- cial Jan Bertrand, City Planner Mark Koegler and the following interested citizens: Oswin Pflug, Sylvia Ogren, David Morse, Jon Nelson, Robert & Carolyn Cuthill, Michael Netka, Bill & Dorothy Netka, David Banghart, Ray Kuehn, Bill Dunkley, Fred Guttormson, Ray Peters, Craig Anderson, Paul Melby, Kathy McClure, Jim & Beverly Ratican, Lucille Pearson, Paul & Pat Meisel, Stan Drahos, Ken Smith, Don Bryce, John & Sandra Wilsey, Gerald Babb, Duane Leisinger,. Robert Shanley, Doug'Coleman, Jerry Kust, Jerry Longpre, John A. Friden, Tom Wimler, David Feerhusen, D. R. Beede, Mark Hokanson, Michael Mueller, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Jack- 7 67 May 9, 1989 son. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten- dance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MINUTES MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve the minutes of the April 25, 1989, Regular Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #89-8O8: DAVID & VIRGINIA HERZENACH, 5101 WOODLAND ROAD, LOTS 23 & 24, BLOCK 12, WOODL]tND POINT, PID #13- 117-24 12 0209, SIDE & REAR Y~RD SETBACK VARIANCES The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval on a 5 to 3 vote. The Planning Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %89-50 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 %89-8o8 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~89-810: PAUL OLSON, 2636 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT 2, WILBUR K. PALM ADDITION, PID ~24-117-24 13 0027, LAKESIDE & FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 7 to 1 vote. The Building Official recommended that 3.c. be added to the proposed resolution to read as follows: "Upon the further condition that a registered land survey be submitted establishing the existing structure above the 933.5 N.G.V.D. Lake Minnetonka flood plain minimum elevation." The Council agreed. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %89-51 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION FOR LOT 2, WILBUR K. PALM ADDITION; PID %24-117-24 13 0027 (2636 WILSHIRE BLVD.); P & Z CASE %89-810 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 68 ~¥ 9, 1989 PUBLIC HEARING - CASE #89-811 & 89-812= JON R. NELSON, $54S THREE POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 27 & PART OF GOVT. LOT 4t I~a~FAYETTE PARK I.u~KE MI~TONF~I~, PID ~13-117-24 22 002~; PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT KND VARIANCE (LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES The City Planner explained that there would be 3 town house units constructed on the site. He then explained that the applicant is asking for 5 variances: 1. Lot area variance, Block 1; 2. Neck lot, Block 2; 3. Side Yard Setback; 4. Driveway width variance; and 5. Curbing materials variance. The Planning Commission recommended approval of all except the side yard setback variance. The City Engineer explained that he would like to see the driveway shifted to the west away from Lafayette Lane. The Utility Superintendent explained that he would like to have the watermain looped and not dead ended. This would help with maintenance. The Fire Chief agreed with the looping for fire protection services as it would provide more water. Jon Nelson (land owner and subdivider) and David Morse (developer) stated they were against moving the driveway, and extending the watermain and would like the Council to allow the requested side yard setback variance. The Planner stated the Planning Commission and Staff could not find a hardship to allow the side yard setback variance. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Sylvia Ogren, 1756 Lafayette Lane, stated she would like the driveway moved so that it would be further away from her lot line. The following persons spoke in favor the the applicant's requests: Mike Mueller, agent for the seller (Jon Nelson); Dave Feerhusen, attorney representing David Morse, David Beede, 1824 Commerce Blvd. David Banghart, 1760 Commerce Blvd., stated he is in favor of the project but expressed concern about a possible encroachment of his view of the lake. Jan Bertrand, Building Official,' stated that the side yard setback is needed for drainage on the property and that she would like to see the watermain looped. 69 May 9, 1989 The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed compromising with the owner/developer on the following points: 1. Allowing a 5 foot side yard setback variance. Adding Section 330:35, subdivision 6 (2) to #4, regarding the Developer's Agreement. Add to #7. "Developer shall revise plans to indicate changes in the utility plan to show looping of watermain to the pump house. Costs will be paid by the developer for the watermain looping to the pump house property line and the City will pay for the watermain on the pump house property." Changing #8 to read as follows: "The driveway entrance to Three Points Blvd. shall be shifted westerly, a maximum of 7.5 feet, minimum of 5 feet if the driveway impacts the forestation and grades revised to meet the maximum City standard of 8%." Add #10. E. to read as follows: "Side Yard Setback variance - Side yard setback variances of 5 feet are granted due to the unique shape of the site." Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution with the above changes: RESOLUTION #89-52 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRELIMINARY PLAT (REPLAT) APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF VARIANCES FOR HARRISON SHORES ADDITION,' PID %13-117-24 22 0023, P & Z cASE %89-811 & 89-812 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~89-813: DESPERADO'S, INC., 4451 WIL8HIBR BLVD. t LOTS 3-18t BLOCK 8, AVALON, PID ~19-117-23 0021~ REZONING FROM B-3 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO B-2 GENERAL BUSINESS The City Planner explained the background of this request and that Lots 1 through and including 18, Block 8, Avalon be rezoned. The Planning.Commission recommended approval of the rezoning. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in favor of 'the rezoning: Fred Guttormson, developer; Ken Smith, 2927 Cambridge Lane and Planning Commission member. Oswin Pflug spoke in favor of the 70 May 9, 1989 restaurant project but stated he would rather see it remain a B-3 district so that other uses allowed in the B-2 district never have to be dealt with. Craig Anderson, Skelly Station owner, spoke against the rezoning. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #26-~989 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (B-3) TO GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~89-814: JAMES RATICAN, 2313 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 54 & 55t LYNWOLD PARKt PID ~14-117- 24 44 0042; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BINGO HALL The City Planner explained the applicant's request. The .Planning Commission recommended denial based on the request not meeting the criteria for granting a conditional use permit because the use is not reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The issue of parking needs also was a problem for'the Planning Commission. Mr. Paul Melby, representing the applicant, made a presentation to the Council on the following: 1. How' the operation would function. 2. A typical bingo program; a. cost to play b. payouts. 3. How money is collected and handled. 4. Parking and traffic flow. 5. Selection of charities. 6.' Who is a typical bingo player. 7. Impact on the citY: a. image b. payroll c. economics 8. Goals of the business. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke in opposition to granting the conditional use permit: Stan Drahos, President Northwest Tonka Lions; Ken Smith, Planning Commission member; Paul Meisel, owner of the old bank building; Shorty Jackson, representing the American Legion; Bob Shanley, Gamblin~ Manager for the American Legion; Father Mike Tegeder, Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church; Duane Leisinger, representing the Northwest Tonka Lions 71 May 9, 1989 and the American Legion; and Gerald Babb, representing the Mound Volunteer Fire Department. The following persons spoke in favor of the project: James Ratican, applicant for the conditional use permit; Kathy McClure, Life Styles counselor; Jerry Longpre, 2300 Commerce Blvd.; Bill Netka, owner of the building; Mike Netka, 4949 Island View Drive; Hank Ulrick, Prior Lake. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the proposal, the Planning Commission's recommendation and the criteria for granting a conditional use permit. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith directing the City Attorney to prepare a denial resolution for P & Z Case #89- 814 because the proposal does not meet the criteria for granting a conditional use permit as listed in Section 23.505.1 of the City Code numbers 1, 4, 6, 8 and 9. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~89-816: TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOC. t L.P., 2385 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 24t 25~ 26 & 27, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F; SIDE YARD VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %89-54 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A METER RECEIVING DISH ANTENNA FOR TRIAX CABLEVISION LOCATED AT 2381 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 24-27v BLOCK 3 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F; PID %13-117-24 34 0071; P & Z CASE %89-816 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were no comments and suggestions. REVIEW OF DOCK APPLICATIONS FOR L~KEWINDS, MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL AND EDGEWATER MARINA, SE;tHORSE CONDOMINIUMS AND CMAPMAN PLACE No action was taken. REVIEW oF APPLICATION TO DNR BY HENNEPIN COUNTY TO PERFORM MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN CERTAIN CHANNELS ON LAKE MINNETONKA 72 May 9, 1989 The City Manager explained that he has already written a letter to Hennepin County asking that the Lost Lake Channel be included in the dredging schedule. Coun¢ilmember Jensen asked that the resident at the end of the channel be kept informed on this item. The City Attorney explained that the County has a policy not ~Q maintain a channel that does not go into another lake. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens requesting Hennepin County include the Lost Lake Channel in their dredging schedule. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO DNR BY C~APMAN PLACE FOR INSTALLATION OF DOCKS, REMOVAL OF WOODEN SEA WALL AND INSTALLATION OF RIP-RAP No action was taken on this item. APPROVAL OF 1989 DOCK REFUNDS The City Manager stated the revised amount is $1,709.00. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by'Johnson to authorize the payment of the 1989 dock refunds as listed by the Dock Inspector in the amount of $1,709.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADDITIONAL CONCRETE - HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD 15 PROJECT The city Engineer reviewed the liSt of options and the costs for the open area between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the sidewalk along County Road 15. They are as follows: Plain Concrete Colored Concrete Exposed Aggregate Concrete Paver Brick Special Paver Brick 11,500 S.F. 11,500 S.F. 11,500 S.F. 11,500 S.F. 11,500 S.F. $1.86/S.F. $3.25/S.F. $3.00/S. F. $3.75/S.F. $5.50/s. F. $21,390.00 $37,375.00 $34,500.00 $43,125.00 $63,250.00 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve the installation of plain concrete in the open area between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the sidewalk along County Road 15, at a cost of $21,390.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NEW LICENSE APPLICATION MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance of a Cigarette License to Joe's Vending, 2009 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RECYCLING UPDATE 73 May 9, 1989 The city Manager explained that Hennepin County had an emergency meeting regarding the waste newspaper market. The group recommended that the County Board approve a site for Hennepin County to process waste newspaper. The City Manager will keep the Council informed on the replacement of Super Cycle who will no longer be performing collection services. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to set June 13, 1989, at 7230 P.M. for a public hearing on proposed vacation of a utility easement on private property. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jess.n, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $157,800.58, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS APPRECIATION RESOLUTION The City Manager explained that the Northwest Tonka Lions have built a new concession building at Wolner Field. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %89-55 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried'. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. 'Department Head Monthly Reports for April 1989. Be 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. Letter from Governor Rudy Perpich on making recycling a high priority. 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 I qq E® Fe 74 May 9, 1989 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. Memo from Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson on plastic recycling. LMCD Representative's April report. LMCD Meeting Schedule for May 1989. REMINDERS: Annual LMC Conference June 6-9, 1989, Minneapolis. Let Linda know by May 19, wish to attend. Hyatt-Regency, 1989, if you 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. MOTION made by Ahrens, seoonded by Jessen to adjourn at 12:15 A.M. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. EdWard J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MAY 16, 1989 The meeting was called to order at the Public Works facility at 6:30 PM. Members present: Smith, Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen and Johnson. Absent: none. Also present: City Manager, Ed Shukle; City Engineer, John Cameron; Street Superintendent, Geno Hoff; Water and Sewer Superintendent, Greg Skinner. Lori Hamm of the Laker and Parker Hodges of the Sailor were also present. The Public Works outdoor storage issue was discussed. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed a report dated May 16, 1989 which covered alternative sites to the present Lost Lake Storage area and the present method by which we handle materials. The Council suggested that other alternatives be looked at: 1) Contact private contractors in the area with regard to using their facilities on a lease basis or having them provide equipment and/or materials at their site. 2) Contact various cities to see what types of arrangements might be available. 3) Investigate the MWCC property on the west side of the existing pump station on Westedge Blvd. for snow storage only. 4) Investigate use of the Our Lady of the Lake Cemetery for the storage of snow only. 5) Investigate the property on County Road 110 West across from the new Lion's Park area in Minnetrista. 6) Investigate the Bickman site directly across from the Public Works building on Lynwood Blvd. and Belmont Lane. The Public Works outdoor storage issue will be discussed at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. A discussion was then held on the Central Business District parking lots. City Manager, Ed Shukle reviewed the history of the CBD assessment program and the immediate problems of property owned by Dakota Rail that the City leases from Dakota Rail and an additional parcel. Dakota Rail has approached the City regarding this possible purchase and/or lease of railroad property for parking purposes. Following the discussion, it was moved by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to offer $1.50 per square foot for the area on the north side of the tracks that is currently leased and an adjacent 13,000 square foot area to the east. The motion was them amended by Johnson, seconded by Jensen, to add the lot across from the House of Moy and the driveway adjacent to the law firm on the west side of County Road 1 10 to the offer for purchase. The Council voted unanimously to make this offer. City Manager, Ed Ehukle, then reviewed a memo dated May 16, 1089 from John Norman, Finance Director, with regard to Capital Improvement Debt Service Fund. Committee of the Whole meeting dates were discussed with regard to June, July and August. The next meeting will be held on June 20, 1989, 6:30 PM, in the City Council Chambers with the following meetings to be held July 18, 1980 and August 15, 1989. Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Johnson, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:07 R~et~i.fTitted' City Manager ES:is Delinquent Water and Sewer 5-17-89 11 0010 151 11 0130 123 11 0160 931 11 0250 091 11 0250 663 11 0280 182 11 0280 54.1 11 0550 091 11 0640 243 11 0670 332 11 0670 721 11 0672 391 11 0700 031 11 0700 092 11 0730 061 11 0760 033 11 0760 123 11 6850 421 11 0850 511 11 0850 751 11 0850~872 11 0880 152 11 0882 391 11 1030 422 11 1032 181 11'1090 154 11 1120 034 $168.27 69.54 193.81 137.30 85.16 88.48 243.76 77.99 123.34 153.81 69.76 94.81 154.18 102.78 161.53 158.59 114.54 148.31 97.28 298.22 163,29 I38.02 144.29 155.36 211.45 184.28 96.69 11 1120 241 11 1240 391 11 1690 571 11 1692 871 11 1694 572 111750 062 11 1750 181 11 1900 091 11 1990 241 11 2050 121 11 2050 151 33 5870 633 11 2200 241 112290 421 42 3430 752 $189.97 174.15 151.24 162.99 238.80 309.05 100.73 226.92 183.18 265.55 173.22 347.91 160.79 135.09 197.26 $6851.69 Planning Commission Minutes Apri'l 10, ]989 Page Five Case No. 89-809: Jack Cook, 4452 OenDiqn Road, Block l? Lot 2, Avalon, PID #I9-117-23-24-0002. VARIANCE. City Planner, Mark Ko.gl.r, reviewed the history of this case. Resolution #B7-i91 was granted in October of B? which included a variance to allow an attached deck with a walkway within zero feet to the side property line at the west. This deck was al- lowed under the condition that the deck elevation be reduced to within 30 Inches from existing ground level with a stairway From the patio door down to the lower deck, proceeding at ground level to the lakeside, and then a stairway to the elevated deck begin- ning at the 3.7 Foot building setback line. Mr. Cook is request- ing a variance to allow this deck to be maintained at a con- tinuous level aOove grade. The City Planner concluded that this is the same request that the Plannlng Commission and City Council denied in November 1988, and added that staff does not find that any new material has been presented in support of overturning the previous unanimous decisions. 'Staff recommends denial of the variance, and if denied, the ap- plicant will be required to comply with the findings outlined in Resolution.#B7-]9]. Smith questioned the applicant, Jack Cook, tf he has removed the ! foot encroachment onto the property to the west. Mr. Cook formed the Commission that the deck has not been altered and still encroaches onto the west property line. The applicant, Jack Cook, spoke on his behalf and stated that his neighbor, Sandra Konnad has agreed that a deck at a continuous level would look better.. Mr. Cook added that he believes to lower and then raise his deck over a distance creates a hazardous and unsafe condition. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Sohns to approve the staff recommendation For denial of the variance. Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard at the City Council meeting of April 25, I989. Case No~ 89-8]0: Paul Olson~ 2636 Wilshire Blvd.~ Lot Wilbur K. Palm Addition, PID #24-117-24-13-0027. SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. The Building OFficial, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants proposal to add 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 would be ]0 feet to the northwest side yard and PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 4, 1989 SUBJECT: Deck Setback Variance APPLICANT: Jack Cook LOCATION: 4452 Denbigh Road CASE NUMBER: 89-809 VHS FILE NUMBER: 89-310-A11-ZO EXISTING ZONING: R-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: In August of 1986, Mr. Cook received a variance to allow construction of an attached garage to his residence at 4452 Denbigh Road. In the summer of 1987, the Building Official issued a stop order because the work that was being done included items not covered in the original variance. One of the items involved a deck that was partially constructed on the west side of the home without variance approval or building permit approval. Mr. Cook then filed for a variance to add a second story to the existing dwelling and sought approval for the deck which had been partially completed. The result of the review was the approval of Resolution 87-191 which allowed a modified version of the deck providing that an existing one foot encroachment on the property to the west was removed. The modification involved reducing the deck elevation to within 30 inches from the existing ground level with a stairway from the patio door on the west side of the home down to the lower deck. The deck was to proceed at ground level to the lake side where a stairway 3.7 feet inside the property line was to connect to the elevated deck on the north side o,f the home. Resolution 87- 191 was unanimously supported by both the Planning Commission and City Council. 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 The applicants current request is to leave the deck on one plane rather than descending to an at-grade deck and then reascending to an elevated deck portion. This is the same request tha~ was reviewed in 1987. In the applicants supporting documentation, he references "new ideas" pertaining to this application. In reviewing the material, the only new ideas that staff finds is a statement that Mr. Cook and his neighbor on the west side have "come to agreement on our differences". While it is always desirable that abutting property owners agree on property use issues, it is not a germane argument in support of the criteria for granting variances found in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. RECOMKENDATIO#: In reviewing the application, staff does not find that any new material has been presented in support of overturning the previous unanimous decisions by both the Planning Commission and City Council. Denial of the variance request is recommended. If denied, the applicant will be required to comply with the findings outlined in Resolution 87-191. OF MOUND PART II 0t989 Case No. Fee $50.00 & co.. ss o. (Please type or print the fo, lowing ,.,orrna~ion.) Address of Subject Property LOt Owner's Name 7 B 1 ock Day Phone 4~ 7~! ~-~ ~7 Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address isttng 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 / no . If yes, list Uate(s) o6 application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (Copies oC previous resolutions 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 posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may beAPPltcantrequired by laW.Sl.gnature ~.~ ~ ~.~ s ~ Bate ///////////////////////////////////////////I///I/////////I////////////l/// FOR OFFICE USE ONLY~ Planning Commission Recommendation Date il Action: Resolution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Does the present use of the property conform to a)] regulations for the zoning district in which it is locate~? Yes /0~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area, hefght, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~,, No ( ). If no, specffy each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses penmitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small (- ) too shallow I. ) topography ( ) soil ). drainage ' ( ) sub-surface ( ) ~hape (' ) other= specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes' ( >, No ~). If yes, explain Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocati'on of a road? Yes ( ), No (~). If yes, explain IANCE APPLICATION Case No. ~x~ _~(~ Are the conditions o~ hardship Eot 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 fs the "minimum" modification (variance) f=rom the area, bulk, and setback regulations that wtll permit you to make reasonable use your land? (Specify,~ using m.,~, ~itxe~)pt~ns with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. .~_ Will grantlng of= the varfance be materially detrimental to property tn the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? · . .. PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION= All supportinq documents such as sketch plans, attachments? etc.? must be submitted in 8-1/2"x11" size· If larger drawings are submitted, one must be 8--1/2"x11"? 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 clartty show- ing the following inf=ormation: Location, area, and dimensions of= existing and proposed= (Lot(s), buildfng(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and utfl.lties. Existing and proposed elevations. Distance between: building.and Front, side and rear lot iines~ principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. Location of=: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional inf=ormation as may reasonably be required by the city staf=f= and applicable sections of= the Zoning Ordinance· .. ~ I -~ ..... t .......... " .... t ........... . ~ ' ~~ ~ ' ' I - ............. X .... ~' 'l%.:-.-l--):--..: ............. ,-:-: 335 December 13, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 88-184 RESOLUTION EXTENDING RESOLUTION %87-191 ENTITLED I~RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNIN~ ~OMHIZSION R~CO~NDATION TO APPROFE A FARIANCE FOR A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE ON LOT 2 INCLUDING ADJACENT VACATED ~TREET, BLOCK 1, AVALON, PID %19--117--23 24 0002, (4452 DENBIGH ROAD) t P & Z CASE #87-675", FOR 60 DAYS, UNTIL FEBRUARY 13, 1989 WHEREAS, on October 13, 1987, the City Council approved Resolution #87-191; and and WHEREAS, this resolution expired on October 13, 1988; WHEREAS, the applicant has now requested an extension of Resolution %87-191 so that he can complete the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the. City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant an extension of 60 days from the date of.adoption of this resolution for Resolu- tion ~87-191 entitled "Resolution to Concur with the' Planning Ccmmission Recommendation to Approve a Variance for a Nonconform- ing Structure on Lot 2 Including Adjacent Vacated Street, Block 1, Avalon, PID #19-117-23 24 0002 (4452 Denbigh Road), P & Z Case ~87-673" The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Abel and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Ma~or Attest: City Clerk 1 279 October !3, 1987' RESOLUTION 87- 1 91 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH PLANNING cOMMISSION RECOM2~2{DATION TO APPROVE A VAKIANCE FOR A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON LOT 2 INCLUDING ADJACENT VACATED STREET, .BLOCK 1, AVALON; PID ~ 19=117-23-24 0002 (4452 Denbigh Road) .y&z Case No. 87-673 W~dF~REAS, the applicant is requesting a var~'ance 1:o allow an attached deck with a walkway within zero feet to t~e. side property line at the west, add a second floOr..on the existing dwelling within 3.7 feet of the side lot line and 20 feet to the front property line; and WHEkEAS, the R-2 single family zoning district requires 6 foot side yards,20 food front yard, and 50 foot lakeside setback to the Ordinary High Water Elevation of.929.5 N'.G.V.D.; and WHEREAS, SECTION 23,404 Subd. (8) provid'es a building containing a lawful nonconforming .residential unit when the alteration will improve the livability thereof but the alteration may not increase the n,m%er of dwelling units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the. City of 'Mound,'MN., as follows: 1. That the City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming principle ' 'Structure setback lat 4452 Denbigh Road; PID #19-117-23 24 0002. ' The City Council ~uthorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes' the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subd. (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and re- strictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential.unit will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to the nonconforming property: .. k second story (floor) is to be added to the existing dwelling within 3:7 feet of the west property line, a 'minimum of 6 feet to the east property line, 50 feet to the 0.H.W. elevation of 929.5 N.G.V.D. to lakeside, and 20 feet to the street front property line. Reduce the deck elevation to within 30 inches from existing ground level '' with a stairway from the patio door down to the lower deck, proceeding at ground, level to the lakeside, and then a stairway to the elevated deck begihning at the 3.7 foot building setback line. Upon. the further condition that the existing dwelling must meet State Building Code, the existing basement entry at zero feet to the property line be relocated into the new construction and then to be removed to ground level, provisions be made to divert water run off away from the adjoining'property. Variance approval is valid for one year from the date of this resolution. -tEI. VED K,A.R ! 3 1989 La, RI, ON. P.A. F'. UND[.RWOOIDo P.A. LAW OrlrlCE:$ WURST, P£AR~ON, LAR.~ON~ UNDE;RWOOD & ME;RTZ I100 fIRST lANK PI. AC[ WIfST MINNrAPOI. 18~ MINNr$OTA $S40~' March 10, 1989 (111) 358 -4&'O0 Mr. Jack Cook 4452 Denbigh Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Cook: On March 10th I received a note from you returning my letter of March 1, 1989. You make certain statements in your note and ask for extensi'ons. I am returning to you my letter of March 1, 1989 which expresses the concerns and frustrations of the City staff concerning your failure to respond to the staff's attempt to have you follow the resolutions approved by the City Council. By this letter I am indicating to you that if you feel there is some reason oF logical explanation for an extension, you will have to apply for that extension by sitting down with Jan Bertrand, the Building Official. She will then process that through the City process and the Council will make that ultimate determination. The point I am trying to make in my letter of March 1, 1989 and in this letter is that you must follow the procedures and the process established by the City and the City Council. I have no authority to grant you extensions nor does Jan Bertrand and you will have to work through the City process. Please sit down with Jan Bertrand at your earliest opportunity and the two of you will have to come to some conclusion how you are going to resolve this matter. If nothing is done, the Building Inspector has asked us to commence a legal action against you and the purpose of my letter was to give you warning so that we didn't file complaints against you without your having an opportunity to try to resolve your problems. Please see Jan Bertrand at the earliest opportunity. CAP: lkg Very truly yours./2 ,,d':' :_. x.-- , //:,.. ,..//~/~'-/,,, ~-d.r~ -~- ~.uc"ci~ ~. 9e'arson City Attorney cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager, City of Mound Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Official, City of Mound/ RECEIVED MAI - 2.19iL° 'I'~OMAe: WU~$?. P.A. UAN"r~ 0. I~A~$ON, P.A. · rHo~4.1 F'. UNO~--RWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. ROGER ~. LAW WURST, I~EARSON, {-ARSON, UNDERWOOD ~ ME:RTZ IIOO fiRST lANK PLACE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA March 1, 1989 T I: L. I' lll. I 0 N I: ~ll~') IPAX Mr. Jack Cook 4452 Denbigh Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Resolution No. 88-184 - 4452 Denbigh Road Dear Mr. Cook: On October 17, 1988, the City Building Official sent you a letter indicating that certain things needed to be done on your property to comply with Resolutions 88-104 and 87-191. Jan Bertrand informs me that there has been no response to her concerns. On October 13, 1988, by Resolution No. 88-184, you were granted a 60 day extension, and that extension has now expired. Jan Bertrand informs me that you have not complied with the building code for your remodeling project and that it is necessary that you renew your expired building permit. She further informs me that there are a number of items which need to be completed on the bathroom area on the second floor, door hardware, window trim, handrail/guardrails, caulking, nailing of siding, as well as the garage firewall. The City staff is frustrated and has suggested that we commence legal action to bring this to a conclusion. After discussion, we felt it would be better to try one more time to get you to voluntarily comply with the City ordinances and the state codes. Mr. Cook,. I would very much appreciate it if you would go to City Hall and confer with Jan Bertrand. Please work out all of 'tbe deficiencies in your construction and arrange to have your permits and your variances extended so you can complete the work as your originally told the Planning Commission and the Council you were going to do. If we are unable to resolve this in a friendly manner, you leave the City with no alternative WURST, P£ARSON, I.ARSON, UND£RWOOD & M£RTZ Page 2 Mr. Jack Cook March 1, 1989 other than to pursue through the courts its remedies in having. the codes, council directions, and statutes complied with' Please, please let's resolve this withoUt any additional wasted time and bad feelings on anyone's part. Your help and consideration will be very much appreciated. CAP:Ih CC: VerX truly yours, City Attorney City of Mound Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Official CIT ' ()f ,X iC)L:XD February 24, 1989 Curt Pearson WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: 4452 Oenbigh Road Dear Curt: I am enclosing all of the background material as per your request 'For the 4452 Denbigh Road variance approval and extension. The materials include all of the packet information that was For- warded to the City-Council as well as the resolutions that were approved. I would like you to also mention to Mr. Cook that he has not complied with the building code for his remodeling. He has an option of renewing his expired building permit and com- pleting such items as: bathroom area on second floor~ door hardware, window trim, handrail/guardrafls, caulking, nailing of siding, as well as the garage firewall. AFter reviewing the material, would you send him a warning notice from your office and if he fails to respond, ! would like you to proceed with a .Formal complaint. Possibly we could process this under a-civil action so we can correct the deck and retaining wall that is encroaching on the neighbors property through court action. If y~u have any questions, please phone me. Sincerely, .~dan Bertrand Building Official JB:pj 89/25 Enclosures cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager 4b iidir rni%'. 785 + 7ql CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 October 17, 1988 Mr. Jack Cook 4452 Denbtgh Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Cook: You have the City Councti approval on Resolutions 88-104' and 87- 191 for a 3' side yard setback and IZ.5' street front setback to allow the construction df the attached garage and second floor upon the condition there be no encroachment of the extsttng base-. ment stairway, reduce deck to 30 Inches high within 3.7 feet of side lot 1Ina except at the patto door, etc. I have enclosed a copy of your variance Resolutions 88-104 and 87-191 for your convenience. Now that the garage and second f'loor have been constructed and the resolutions have expired, you w111 need to proceed wtthln the next 30 days to remove the non- conforming structure of the deck and stairway entry on the west side of the lot. I have not been to your home since April except for the trench footing Inspectlon to the north In June. Please also arrange a progress Inspection for your second floor addttton and remodeling of the existing house within 30 clays. Sincerely, Bertrand. Bulldtng OEftclal JB:pJ Enclosures equal opportunity 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. Planning Commission Meeting Novem~e~ 28, ~958 BOARD OF APPEALS .C_ese No. 8?-_6?3: 4..zJ_S_2_._Deo_b i g.hE__.o.a_~_,.__J_ack Cook _l _.,._L_ .o t 2 i n.c_l..u__d.j Do__pO. t~a_ce, ot__y_a.c.a_t._~.~__.s_t_r_.e_e_t_,. PI Dj] 9- ! 1 ?-23- Z 4- 0 0 0 Z_i.__S.E.T..BA.C _K_. V..A_RIA N_ ¢_.E_ .-. _.C_H.A. N_G_E._ _R__E_Q. UE $ T. Applicant, Jack Cook, was not present. ~qcommendatt.~n b% Buildinq__Officta]~._~an Bertrand: The applicant ts rectuesttng an extension on his variance Resolu- tion · #87-191 clue to lack of funds to remove the noncon~=o~-mtng entry way. The applicant is also requesting a change in the variance to al Iow him to keep his deck at a continuous level above grade. The existing variance requires btm to r'educe the deck elevation to within 30 inches From existing ground level with a' stairway from the patio door down to the lower deck, proceeding at ground level to the 'lakeside, and then a stairway tO the elevated deck beginning at the 3.?' building setback line. Mr. Cook. believes, to lower and then raise his deck over a dts- tance of 20' or less creates a hazardous and unsafe condition. 'The Building Official supports the original staf~= recommendation. The neighbor, Sandra Konnad had her property surveyed, which shows 'a !' encroachment of the present deck. To-date the deck has not been moved back or lowered to grade. Discussion: Ms. Konnad spoke on her behalf and stated she has not discussed any of these issues with Jack Cook. She does not approve of his deck encroaching on her property, and would like him to move It. There is also a retaining wall encr6achlng on her property. Reese recalled asking Mr. Cook to negotiate with his neighbor in terms of purchasing t' or Z' of Ms. Konna~'s property to solve his situation. MOTION'made by Wetland, seconded by Reese, no action will be taken by the Planntng Commission until the encroachment Is resolved. _It ~as discussed if Ms. Konnad .has enough property to sell and still'keep her lot conforming, Ms. Konnad stated her lot Is 50' wide, however she would prefer not to sell her property, but to have Mr. Cook remove the deck. The Building Official informed the ~ommissIon if this variance is not extended by this Commission and the Council, then the pltcant wtil be taken to task because his variance is expired. Weiland moved to withdraw bls motion, Reese seconded. MOTION 'moved by Wel land, seconded by Sohns to deny the request for the change tn the variance. Hotlon carrled un- animous,y. /(~f Case will be heard by the City Council on November 29, !9B8. BERNICK AND STERN A~-FORNEYS AT ~W STERN, ~IN~, Lt~ON ~ STRAUSS, P. A. AND PARKDAEE I, SUITE (~) 54~-~00 October 21, 1987 Mr. Jack Cook 4452 Denbigh Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Encroachment onto Lot 3 and the East 10 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, Avalon Dear Mr. Cook: I have been retained by Sandra J. Konnad with respect to the encroachments onto her property by the recent construction originating from your property. For your reference, I enclose a copy of a survey recently completed, which shows the following encroachments onto Ms. Konnad's property: Your metal shed is located three-tenths of one foot on Ms. Konnad's property. The wooden retaining wall immediately south of the shed encroaches seven-tenths of one foot on the north end and eight-tenths of one foot on the south end. The wooden retaining wall to the north of the foregoing retaining' wall encroaches 1.15 feet on the north and 3.7 feet on the south. The wooden deck adjacent to your home encroaches one foot on.the north and eight-tenths of one foot on the south end. The concrete foundation of the entrance to your basement on the west side of your house encroaches .08 feet across its entire width. l¢qo Mr. Jack Cook October 21, 1987 Page 2 BERNICK AND STERN It is unfortunate that these improvements were made without securing the necessary permits. I understand a survey was obtained by you two years ago, but the stakes were lost during the extensive regrading of your back lot. Had you reestablished the lot line prior to commencing construction, you could have perhaps avoided this problem. On behalf of Ms. Konnad, we are requesting that these encroachments be removed immediately. I have been provided with a copy of a Resolution by the City Counsel dated October 13, 1987, Which appears to authorize a variance from the six foot side set back to within 3.7 feet of the side lot line on the west. At a minimum, that side lot clearance should be reestablished adjacent to the home. It is not clear whether the retaining walls to the north and the metal shed are subject to the variance or must be reestablished at a minimum of six feet to the east of the property tinel It is my understanding that your request for a variance was 'placed upon the Planning Commission agenda for the meeting October 12, 1987, and further placed upon the City Counsel agenda for approval the following day, October 13. Ms. Konnad advises me that she spoke with you on the morning of October 13, and that you advised her of the results of the Planning Commission meeting the previous evening. In response to her inquiry as to the date of the next counsel meeting, you advised her not of the meeting scheduled for that evening, but of a meeting to be scheduled for the 23rd or 28th of. October. Certainly if she had been advised of that evening's· City Counsel meeting, she would have atte:ded and expressgd her opposition to your request for a variance. We intend to bring this matter up before the counsel at the next meeting, so tha~ both sides can be heard on this matter. IrresPective of the outcome of the meeting, and whether the City grants a variance or not, the encroachments have to be removed from Ms. Konnad's property. Mr. Jack Cook October 21, 1987 Page 3 BERNICK AND STERN A PROF[~,~IONAI. ,A,$,~OC. iATiON In order that we may advise our client whether legal ac{ion is required, we would appreciate your response at your earliest opportunity. Very truly yours, BERNI ~Kf. AND~TERN, P.A. David L. 01son DLO/cmw Enclosure MS. Jan Bertrand Ms. Sandra J.'Konnad Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. Mr. Steve Smith DE.MARS- GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 ~,rbor Lmne No. Phone: (Gi2) ~ ?.$ if ~y ~hrreon. and all v~tib;~ ~, ....... ; ~;c~,.. . . .... , M,nn. Re~ No. q II ..: ,',, any, thereo.. In~ all v;siolt e~crolchmentt, if any, trom or on Sa,d land. At ~urvey~ ~ % I I "" ' 9~ · l"' 30' '~..~ Minn. Reg. No: , ' ,,. /! 9'3- ~IoW~_' I "I~, ~ A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. dAMES D. I-ARSON, P.A. THOMAS F'. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. ~£RTZ ROGER ~J, FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ME:RTZ I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 May 16, 1989 Re: Bingo Hall Dear Ed: At the last Council meeting, the Council directed us to prepare a resolution of denial for the Conditional Use Permit request to operate a bingo hall. I have reviewed my notes, and I enclose herewith a proposed resolution. I think I have picked up most of the points stated by people in opposition and by the Council in their discussion. I suggest that the resolution and this letter be sent to the Council, and if they have changes they wish to make, that can be handled at the Council meeting on May 23, 1989. CAP:Ih Enclosure Vey~y truly ~~ City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A BINGO HALL AT 2313 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, CASE NO. 89-814 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 commercial recreational use (to operate a bingo hall) on part of Lots 54 and 55, Lynwold Park, at 2313 Commerce Boulevard in the Mound Central Business District (B-2); and WHEREAS, public testimony was given by a large number of people concerning the type of use and various problems and concerns the use might have on the Central Business District, including representatives of the American Legion, the Mound West Tonka Lions Club, the VFW, and Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church, along with general citizens, and WHEREAS, all of the charitable organizations which currently conduct bingo in the City of Mound testified that they are opposed to the issuance of this permit and that they had no interest in renting space from the operators because their operations are based on volunteers, and WHEREAS, Mr. Paul Milby and Mr. James Ratican indicated that it was their intention to operate a bingo and pull tab operation at this location, and they stated that the charities who would use the bingo hall would be locally supported charities, and they further indicated that they would be spending approximately $80,000 to remodel the building to bring it up to code and to have it so it would operate as a gaming hall, and that they would supply employment to a large number of people, and WHEREAS, it was determined by the City staff that the maximum occupancy of the building would be 242 persons and that the parking spaces required, using a 3 to 1 ratio, would be 81 spaces, and the current owner of the building acknowledged that under the current policy in downtown Mound, he is being assessed for approximastely 20 spaces and that therefore there is a shortage of 61 spaces, and WHEREAS, the applicants indicated that the City of Mound would have the opportunity to review the charities who would be renting space in the building, since each of them would need a state gambling permit, and the Mound City Council does have the authority to indicate that they wish to have a permit denied, and the applicants further indicated that they hoped to average 150 people per day, seven days a week, and that this would be a social event and would be entertainment; and several area residents who were in attendance agreed this would provide entertainment without liquor and could be a plus; and WHEREAS, Mound residents testified concerning what they believe to be problems regarding parking and the loc'al charities questioned how many dollars were available to spend in the City of Mound for pull tabs and bingo, and that currently the organizations having charitable gambling were operated by resident volunteers and the money is used within the community, whereas the applicants' proposal is to operate a business and it therefore is logical to believe that substantial sums of dollars that currently go to community charitable purposes would be diverted from those charities, and WHEREAS, members of the.Planning Commission and the community testified that they did not feel that a gambling establishment was conducive to bringing business to the community, and the professional firm who owns the building next door objected and did not feel this was a suitable use; and parking and traffic flow concerns were raised; and the Pastor of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church indicated that much of the traffic from the parking behind the applicants' building would utilize the church driveways to exit the Central Business District parking lot, and Mr. Paul Meisel, who owns the store located southerly of the proposed hall, stated that the current Central Business District parking arrangement is under stress and there has been discussion about disbanding the arrangement due to perceived unfairness to certain building owners; and WHEREAS, if the Central Business District parking arrangement is terminated, the property owners to the south of the applicants' building could fence off those lots and the subject property would be extremely short of parking and there would not be a traffic flow to serve the proposed establishment; and WHEREAS, Father Michael Tegeder of Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church indicated that the Church had operated bingo for 40 years, and that they have approximately 150 people each Thursday, and the money from their operation amounts to about $32,000 per year, with $2,000 going to the State, $15,000 to prizes, and $15,000 goes into supporting education at the Church-operated school, and further testified that the Church would not use this rental hall and in his opinion a seven day a week bingo operation would destroy the church's program, and he also called to the attention of the City Council numerous problems that have taken place with charitable gambling in other areas of the state which is operated by people other than the charities themselves and volunteers serving the charities, and he further testified as to the traffic from this lot tending to use the church parking facilities as a means of getting out, and he felt this would have a negative effect on the operation of the educational facilities at the Church as well as his personal life, since he lives on the church property; and WHEREAS, the Mound Volunteer Fire Department testified that they had been approached by the applicants and that the Volunteer Firemen had voted not to use the facilities and further indicated that it appeared that all of the charitable organizations in the community currently operating charitable gambling were opposed and they wondered why a facility would be approved if there was no need for the facility and if the organizations who were the potential renters of the space had all testified in opposition and had indicated that the hall would not be used by community organizations, and WHEREAS, members of the City Council calculated that it would take 27 events per week to carry out the applicants' projections, and they wondered where these charitable organizations would come from in lieu of the testimony from the charitable organizations based in the City of Mound, and other members of the Council also were very concerned about the lack of parking and the flow of traffic from the area, and Council members also quoted Roger Franke, who is the head of the Charitable Gambling Board, who questioned whether it was advisable to operate charitable gambling by utilizing outside professional help, and the councilmembers were very concerned of the effect on Our Lady of the Lake Church and questioned whether the applicants had established the criteria for granting a conditional use permit, and WHEREAS, Section 23.505.1 of the Mound Zoning Code points out in detail the criteria in granting a conditional use, and therefore members of the Council indicated that they could not make a finding that this use would not be injurious to other property in the immediate vicinity of the building; and further that the proposed use is not conducive to the orderly development and growth of the downtown area; and further that there are not sufficient access roads; and further that there is not sufficient off- street parking; and further that this proposed use is not reasonably related to the over-all needs of the City; and further that the use could cause traffic problems and congestion; and WHEREAS, the Council questioned how they could deny charitable gambling permits after approving the use and the location and what rights they would have to deny charitable gambling organizations from charities outside the City if they had permitted the applicants to spend substantial amounts of money to operate a gambling hall in the Central Business District; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: Case No. 89-814. James Ratican Application to Operate a Bingo Hall under a Conditional Use Permit for Property at 2313 Commerce Boulevard is hereby denied for the following reasons: ae The applicants have not shown a need or a reasonable expectation that the facility will.be used by charitable organizations within the Mound area. be The applicants have testified that they will spend substantial monies retrofitting the building, but have made no provision for parking and have further acknowledged that they would need outside charities to come in to rent their establishment if Mound charities did not use it. Ce Granting of the permit does not meet the requirements for issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, and the City Council cannot make the findings established by Section 23.505.1 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance. The proposed hours of ope'ration seven days a week and hours from 5:30 in the afternoon to 12:00 midnight on certain dates would require the uilization of the building by such a large number of events that it is highly unlikely that ee fe ge the applicants could get that many charitable organizations to participate without extending way beyond the Mound trade area. Ail of the Whereas provisions of this resolution shall be considered findings of fact. The parking and traffic control problems have not been adequately addressed by the applicants and if other property owners in the area remove their properties from the municipal parking agreement, the deficiencies in parking would overwhelm the Central Business District. It is a finding of this Council that for all the reasons stated herein, the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit would be adverse to the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City of Mound, and therefore the application must be denied. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-BI7 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 5 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 2, WESTWOOD; PID #23-1]7-24-23 00i6 (6230 WESTWOOD CIRCLE); P&Z CASE NO. 89-817 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow construction of an in-ground swimming pool within lO Feet of the rear property line for Lot 5, Block 2, Westwood; PID #23-I17-24- 23 0016, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I Single Family Zoning District which allows a i5 foot rear yard setback for swimming pools as an accessory use to a single family home, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to afford the owner reasonable use of his land due to the topography, aha WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval with modifications to the variance application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize the 5 foot rear yard setback variance to a]]ow the in-ground swimming pOd) installation at 6230 Westwood; PIP #23-]]7-24-23 0016. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant to 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the c)ear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, non- conforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the Fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property due to the topography and shape of the parcel: PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 89-817 An in-ground swimming pool will be cOnstructed with a setback to the rear property line oF lO Feet with the other regulations oF City Ordinance in compliance with the site. be The applicant shall re-survey the property and indicate the dedicated drainage and utility easement as well as the location oF the current dwelling. This variance is granted For the Following legally described property: Lot 5, Block 2, WestwooQ; PID #23-1]7-24-23 0016. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar oF Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be useO. The property owner shall have the responsibility oF Filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs For such recording. Planning Corem{ss{on M{nutes May 8, 1989 Page Three ' c. Case No. 89-817: David Lanz, 6230 Westwood Circle, Lot 5, Block 27 Westwood Circle{ PID #23-l17-24-23-0016. VARIANCE: rear yarO setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicants request for a rear yard setback variance to construct an tn-ground swim- ming pool. Due to the topography of the yard, their is little room to create a level area to construct the pool. The pool In- staller suggested that the pool be setback from the deck 10 feet to deter persons From Jumping from the deck Into the pool. Staff recommended setting the pool no closer that lO feet to the rear of the lot line as the plat for Westwood Indicates a utility and drainage easement at the rear lot line. The applicant should re-survey the property and indicate the dedicated easements. Staff would, however, recommend a 5 foot variance to allow the pool to be constructed outside the drainage and utility easement. The Commission questioned tfa hardship existed. there will still be plenty of open space. Thai noted that MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to recommend ap- proval of staff recommendation for a 5 foot rear yard variance. MOtion carried unanimously. Case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. Case No. 89-818: Thomas Klelty, 2033 Arbor Lane, Lot 3T Sub- division of Lots I & 32 Skarp & Lindqulst Ravenswood AddttionE PID #13-117-24-41-0032. VARIANCE: Front & side yard setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for a front and sloe yard setback variance to add onto the exist- ing nonconforming detached garage. The existing garage is I foot from the side property line and 0 feet from the front property line. The applicant's reviseO proposed addition is 9 feet wide and 12 feet Oeep. The addition will be within the 4 fo~t reqdlired setback. Staff recommended approval of the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow the addition to his detached accessory building with a conforming 4 foot side yard setback, upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. Staff also recommended that the existing detached accessory building have fire resistive wails and ceil- ings constructed at the Interior where the setback is within ] Foot of the south property line. CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 1612. 472-1155 Case No. 89-8 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of May~, 1989 CASE NO.: 89-817 APPLICANT: David d. Lanz LOCATION: 6230 Westwood Circle LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 5, Block 2, Westwood Circle PID #23-117-24-23 0016 SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant, David d. Lanz is requesting a rear yard variance of 11 feet to construct an in-ground swimming pool. The applicant presently has an above-ground swimming pool ap- proximately in the same location. Due to the amount of work needed to maintain and repair the existing above-ground pool, he ts planning to put a new pool in the ground. The fencing around the parameter of the yard does meeting the 5 Foot height limita- tion under the ordinance. COMMENTS: The property slopes quite readily to the northeast corner. Due to the topography of this yard there is little room to create a level spot to construct the in-ground pool. To deter persons From jumping From the existing deck into the pool, it is necessary to move the pool 10 feet From the deck. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends setting the pool no closer than 10 feet to the rear lot line as the plat for Westwood Indicates a utility and drainage easement at the rear lot line. The ap- plicant should re-survey the property and indicate the dedicated easements. Staff would, however, recommend a 5 Foot variance to allow the pool to be constructed outside the drainage and utility easement. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on May 23, 1989. pJ Date Fiiecl // //..~ / Fee. $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property LOt¢ - Addition Owner's Name Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ~1/,~ Address~//~ Day ' :xisting Use of ProperTty: Has an application' ever been made for zoning, variance, ~tonal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this'property? yes (/ no'.) If yes l i te(s) of application, action taken, and provide resol~pY~t~ number(s; ('C~pies 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. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises Oescribed in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of in~pecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ApPl!cant's SI'gnature FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning co~ission Recommendation Date il Action: Resolution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which tt is locate~? Yes (X), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: .Z. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zontng district in which tt is located? Yes ~), No ( ). ]f no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasOnable use for a~y of the uses permitted tn that zoning district? ( ) too narrow (~) topography ( ) soil ._ .( ) too small (.). drainage ( ) sub-surface (' ) too shallow (X) ~hape (' ) other: specify Was the harOship described above created by the action o~anyone having property Interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes' ( ), No ~. ]f yes, explain Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocati'on of a road? Yes ( ), No (~>~. If yes, explain i~J/ARIANCE APPLICATION C~$e No, Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property UescriDed in this petition? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, how m~ny other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that wtll permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- Will granting of the vartance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the ent=orcement of this ordinance? -' ,~)0 ~2o 7-.i' .2~o ~c/ E- Ue PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION= All supporting documents such as sketch planst attachmentst etc.t must be submitted in 8-1/2"xlI" size. If larger drawings are submitted? one must be 8-1/2"xll"? and 15 larger size copies mus~ 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(si/street access, off-street' parking, and utf. llties. 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. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. / 77 i' ~c,m~.cm,vc,iet .~'. .- - .- :. .. ,~...,.....,~:~.~,~:;.:. Pac,flc Pool & Patio "4 ~'-~W.. ~..~..., ~,~....~.:.~. ~.~, .', ...... . .... . '.' ~?...~ ~ A~._ _ ~.:. ~' ~ ~, . 1R7~ W, ~ ~ ~ '.'.':: .. 1~ W~= ~ ':.~-~'.'~,.~' '- . ~ ~, M~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Paul M~ ~1~ ~11~ M~ ~7 ' - .... MI~ M~ ~ ~.~r~'''': '. (~ ~1313) (~) (M1-91 ~ - · CREW GHIEF ' - Equipment 0 Cat O' Truok O Snow Fence O UnI-Lcader Irmpecttone Contra~ :' ' :- ' O Wells Footing Before Backfill line, end wires. 0 '/z:, .~ : ..... ,~....: . ::'.~ .'i?-.!' .'- - - / - . ~ "~' .:' '""C.,,- -.'~.* ~'.~ . ...: . ....... ',.. .::':' .,;, . * .... ,~,,"~"/~ .-';.:.~..,.:-.~.~..::~:::.:_::-... ~' ,.., , .' ..... ..":. : :"' ' --t'- :..:': '" ':'::.'. :'." ":' :':"::i~:; ::: ~ 4' .. ::: ~ .,.-. ' :'.:':.' -:-'L::' :.'--? ~... ~" :: .-.-:'~.. ;,'.3,'~:'::; ::'..~::;,-:'. ' ;',. :: Pacific POol & Patio Will make application fo~: and pick-up your swimming poo! building permit. (Electrical, :.,.,..;: responsibility of the contractor doing the work) .... . .'"/,~::':.'~rhe~ o.f the .p?rm~. is the responsibility of Ihs hpme owner and Pac ,l~ic Pool &.Pat~ will exl:)e~t to ,'~'";': i n;:l/ooaysofobtainlngtnepormltfory(xl:.*;:,:;;.. :. *.-:: ,..,1..: ,:': : ..,..,-~.._.:_~.* -' '. ~..,..:. '~, ?:. ' =/,4~,~. d..p.nd ,C~. ' '.' ' '' ~ / ""' :": : ':'~?':"::'"'::? /:-~'-:~::'I~'WIII any obstructions lie encounter~l -- such a~ dee& ~'~ ~,;I. RaiD gut~m-~jaclent to cool /'~/~. ~:. ~:.:J~:'::~,"~:.<:;: ..:~;.,~ · .' ,/a,z,~/,.,~ .,~),/, ~0 ~.~ ~ /~.,~,~.~ :.: ': ~)-~/ , . · ~, . ~ ... - 3. Run offcontrolor,dralnfleld_ ~-!~' :'.: j~/' ' , ,,.,// . 4, P?manentoetem~',oraryfenoe \/~'~- ' <~-~' .',: :"- -'...'".~ E:..t ' .. E3/Elevation from location marked "A" In diagram: ?'- ~ - ! '._.,-" ~ /.' _.. ~..:: - ':.~ :":.;: ~''-' "".,': ':'~ ,: .' .. · ., . . I:.'.. ,orm., ~.--"on,m, u,lng,.ok h..nd dump.., i,,....n on. d.y. ~ ~ !!~:'" "'. * * * CUSTOMER ALSO UNDERSTANDS & ACKNOWLEDGzE.~ FOLLOWlN(3.., ',.:~'.'.."~.i.i'::~,/' '~'jt ~:! .-.. If umestone, Sandstone, Shale or any unusual substance, tike construction debris or backfill meter a that Is unu. qeable_ln the construe'teen ":~1 ;~ ':' of this pool, the customer Is responsible for the cost of removal an.d replacement of suitable material& X ~"~,.-,,.~----- ' ;,..:. '.zemovel o~ dl.,~~r unl-loeder or any special equipment customer will be char°ed by the hour for the extra'~me and equipmant ~ u~'ed.X ~_.~ . . . ... , - :. Tress and or tree stumps are the relponsJbllity of the customer and muet be removed beforl construcUon I~lnl. X ~ _,. ':i.'.'i-. - ~ome damage may be done to the yard and/or driveway entering and leaving tha yard during construcUon: Initial.__~ Customer assumes res~on$1bllitv for atactrical ~'|rlnn ~nd nr~HIn~ ~t fha ~1 *'1~1,,~1~ ~ OUTEOT City 22O. A ,,I .UTLOT B 89.2 Res." PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-818 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 3, SUBDIVISION Of LOTS I & 32 SKARP & LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD ADDITION; PID #13-117-24-41 0032 (2033 ARBOR LANE) P&Z CASE NO. 89-818 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming Front and side yard setback to a]- Iow structural modifications to a detached accessory Duiiding for Lot 3, Subdivision of Lots I & 32 Skarp & Lindquists Ravenswood Addition; PlO #13-1117-24-41 0032, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Sing)e Fami)y Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a 20 foot front yard setback to the street, a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory bui]dings with the doors facing the street right-of-way, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon- Forming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recmend approva) for the request to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the ity of Mound, Minnesota, as Follows: 'i The City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming accessory building structure setback to the public right-of- way and side yard at 2033 Arbor Lane, PID #I3-117-24-4] 0032, with an approximate 0 Foot setback to the front public right-of-way and a I foot (+/-) side yard setback, on an un- der sized lot of approximately 5,280 square feet (+/-). The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set Forth below, pursuant to Section 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 RESOLUTION Page Two C~se No. 89-818 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the Fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property due to the narrowness of the parcel: The detached accessory building has 0 Feet to the public right-of-way and a I foot (+/-) setback to the south property line. The proposed 9' x 12' addition to the structure will have a setback to the south property line of 4 feet. Upon the further Following condition that the applicant submit a registered land survey prior to the building permit issuance and the applicant install fire resis- tive materials of I hour fire rating on the interior walls and ceiling where the building is within 1 foot of the south property line. This variance is granted For the following legally described property: -Lot 3, Subdivision of Lots Lindquists Ravenswood Addition; PID #13-1117-24-4l 0032. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, 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 May 8, 1989 Page Three c. Case No. 89-817: David Lanz, 6230 Westwood Circle, Lot 5, Block 2, Westwood Circle; PID #23-117-24-23-0016. yARIANCE: rear yard setback. Building Offfclal, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicants request for a rear yard setback variance to construct an tn-ground swim- ming pool. Due to the topography of the yard, their ts little room to create a level area to construct the pool. The pool In- staller suggested that the pool be setback from the deck 10 feet to Oeter persons from Jumping from the deck into the pool. Staff recommended, setting the pool no closer that 10 feet to the rear of the lot line as the plat for Westwood Indicates a utility and Orafnage easement at the rear lot line. The applicant should re-survey the property and Indicate the dedicated easements. Staff would, however, recommend a 5 foot variance to allow the pool to be constructed outside the drainage and utility easement. The Commission questioned if a hardship existed. Thai noted that there will still be plenty of open space. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by 5ohns to recommend ap- proval of staff recommendation for a 5 foot rear yard variance. Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. Case No. 89-818: Thomas Kielty? 2033 Arbor Lane, Lot 3, Sub division of Lots I & 32 Skarp & Lindquist Ravenswood AddttionE PID #13-]17-24-41-003Z. VARIANCE~ front & side yard setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for a front and side yard setback variance to add onto the exist- ing nonconforming detached garage. The existing garage is I foot from the side property line and 0 feet from the front property line. The applicant's revised proposed addition is 9 feet wide and 12 feet deep. The addition wt il be within the 4 foot required setback, Staff recommended approval of the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow the addition to his detached accessory building with a conforming 4 foot side yard setback, upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted to the City prior to'building permit issuance. Staff also recommended that the existing detached accessory building have fire reslstive walls and ceil- Ings constructed at the Interior where the. setback ts within foot of the south property 1ina. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, ! 989 Page Four The Commission noted that the lot is undersized, staff agreed that a lot area variance also be granted. The existing lot area is approximately. 5,280 square feet, the required lot area in the R-2 zone is 6,000 square Feet. The applicant, Thomas Kielty confirmed that the addition is to provide for extra storage. He stated that he presently has an old shed on his property which he p)ans on ren~vlng. The Commission confirmed that the applicant Is not Intensifying the existing nonconformities since he will meet the setbacks with the addition. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Smith to recommend ap- proval of the staff recon~endatton for construction of a 12' x 9' addttton to an accessory building, and to recognize the existing nonconformities, Including the lot area. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, .1989. e. Case No. 89-8197 Patrick & Diane Ruhr, 5133 Emerald Driver Part of Lot l~__~[9~_Jj_ ShiEld% Hills Unit C; PID.#24-I]7- 24-13-0016. VARIANCE: existing side yard setback. - ~ Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request For approval of an existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow construction of a three season porch and deck with conform- ing setbacks. The existing structure is within I Foot (+/-) of the side property line. Staff recommended recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow structural modifications For the construc- tion of a 14' x 14' three season porch and a 14' x 16' deck to afford the owner reasonable use of his property upon the condi- tton. that the survey submitted From 1949 be re-submitted includ- ing the structure, the proposed additions, and floor elevations of the existing structure at sea level (N.G.V.D.). The applicant, Patrick Ruhr, requested the requirement For an up- dated survey be waived due to the cost involved. He did not agree that It should be necessary since the proposed construction meets the setback requirements. CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 f612i 472-1155 Case No. 89-818 TO: FROM DATE Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~[~ Planning Commission Agenda of Ma9 8, 1989 CASE NO.: 89-818 APPLICANT: Thomas Klelty LOCATION: 2033 Arbor Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 3, Subdivision of Lots I & 32 5karp & Lindquist Ravenswood Addition PID #13-117-24-41 0032 SUBJECT: Front and Side Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant, Mr. Kielty, has revised his request after discussion with staff. He is proposing an addition to an existing detached building within four feet of the south property line to an existing nonconforming structure. COMMENTS: The R-2 zoning district for lakeshore lots requires a detached accessory building to be 20 feet from the front property line, 4 Feet From the side lot line and not larger than 10% of the lot area. If the doors face the side property, the setback requirement to the front lot line is 8 feet. After discussion with the applicant, he has revised his addition to the existing garage to allow a 4 foot conforming side yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend approval of the existing structure setback to allow an addition to his detached accessory building with a conforming 4 foot side yard to the south property line, upon the condition that a registered land survey be sub- mitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. Staff would also suggest that the existing detached accessory building have fire resistive walls and ceilings constructed at the inte- rior where the setback is within I foot of the south property line. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on May 23, 1989. pJ OF MOUND PART I I APR t 7 1989 : '! Case No. Date Filed ~--Iq--~q Fee. $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property LOt ~ Block 'PlO No. Day Phone Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone :xtsttng Use of Property: Zoning District ~- Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this*property? ~--~/ no . If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(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. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application'by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~-~~ ~z~ ~/fz~ Date. ~- /7- ~ I!111111111111111111111111111111111111111111~11111111111111111111111111111 FOR OFF[CE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date ii Action: Resolution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Does the present use of the property coni=orm to all regulations for the zoning district tn which it is locate~ Yes ( ), No (~X~). If no, spect~=y each non-cont=ormtng use:tjl~¢C~_.~ )~. Do'the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it t,s, ip.cat, ed?j Yes (), No (~). If no, specify each non-conforming use.-btJ~L~[G(~) Which unique physical characteristics oE the subject p~operty prevent its ~easonable use Eo~ a~y oE the uses permitted tn that zoning ( ) too narrow -IX) too sm~11 ) too shallow ( ) topography (.). drainage ' ( ) ~hape ( ) soil (- ) sub-surface ( ) other: specify Was the hardship desqribed above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes' (), No (~). If yes, explain Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (~. If yes, explain lANCE APPLICATION Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance peculiar only to the property OescribeO in this petition? Yes No (). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) From the area, Bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property tn the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch pians~ attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8-1/2"xll" size. If larger drawings are submitted? one must be 8-.1/2"x11", 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), buf)dtng(s), driveway(si/street access, off-street parking, and uti. lities. 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. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I '~oo ¢/¢// 1~7~¢,,d7-/,,,~~' I I I I I I I I I ?.¢') 9¢.'7 L /70~ 77 -279 6-28-77 RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 279 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE SIDE YARD VA. KLANCE BUT THAT THE SHED BE NOT LESS THAN SD( FEET FROM THE MAIN DWELLING STRUCTURE WHEREAS, Geo. 'Wohlman of 2033 Arbor Lane, with property described as Lot 3 Subdivision of Lots 1-32 Skarp & Lindquist's Ravens- wood, and WHEREAS, a shed was erected too close to residence (must be 6 ft from main structure) anderected on,a concrete slab already con- structed previously as a dog run or kennel, and WHEREAS, a side yard variance is needed as only 4 ft from the lot llne NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission and recommends that the side yard variance be approved but that the shed be not less than six feet from the main building structure. Adopted by Council this Z8th day of June, 1977. 77-Z79 6-Z8-77 NORTHERN .,? ~ LLJ : PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-819 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 1, BLOCK l, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "C"; PID #24-117-24-13 00]6 (513~ EMERALD DRIVE); P&Z CASE NO. 89-8]9 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 0 to I Foot from the west property line to allow a platform and three season porch addition For Lot l, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit "C"; #24-117-24-]3 0016, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I Single Family Zoning Distr!ct which according to the C!ty Code requires a IO,O00 square foot lot area, 50 foot ]akeshore set- I~ack, lO foot side yard setback, and a 30 Foot front yard set- back, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon- Forming residential property when the alterations will improve the )ivability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval to afford the owner reasonable use of his )and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 'the City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming principal structure setback to the west property line of 0 to I Foot at 5133 Emerald Drive; PID #24-117-24-13 0016· The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant to Section 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 23.40a. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 89-81g It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. To construct a 14' x ]4' three season porch and a 14' x 16' platform/deck with conforming setbacks to the side yard and lakeshore. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "C"; PID #24- 117-24-13 0016· This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, 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 ali costs For such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been Filed with the City Clerk. 17o7 Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Four The Commission noted that the lot ts undersized, staff agreed that a lot area variance also be granted. The existing 1or area is approximately 5,800 square Feet, the required lot area in the R-2 zone ts 6,000 square Feet. The applicant, Thomas Kielty confirmed that the addition Is to provide For extra storage. He stated that he presently has an old shed on his property which he plans on removing. The Commlssion confirmed that the applicant is not Intenslfytng the existing nonconformities since he will meet the setbacks with the addition. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Smith to recommend ap- proval of the staff recommendation for construction of a tZ' x 9' addltion to an accessory building, and to recognize the existing nonconformities, Including the lot area. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City-Council on May 23, 1989. Case No. 89-819, Patrtck& Diane Ruhr, 5133 Emerald Drtvet Part of Lot 1, Block It Shirley Hills Unit Cs PID #24-117- 24-13-0016. VARIANCE: existin~ side yard setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request For approval of an existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow construction of a three season porch and deck with conform- ing setbacks. The existing structure is within ! foot (+/-) of the side property line'. Staff. recommended recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow structural modifications For the construc- tion of. a 14' x I4' three season porch and a ]4' x 16' deck to afford the owner reasonable use of his property upon the 'condi- tion that the survey submitted from 1949 be re-submitted Includ- ing the structure, the proposed additions, and floor elevations of the existing structure at sea level (N.G.V.D.). The applicant, Patrick Ruhr, requested the requirement For an up- dated survey be waived due to the cost Involved. He did not agree that It should be necessary since the proposed construction meets the setback requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Five The Building Official explained that the survey from 1949 cer- tified by Arleigh C. Smith Is no longer a valid survey due to the fact that they are no longer licensed. She explained other reasons for having the survey updated: there are no elevations on the current survey which would indicate if the property ts in a Flood hazard area, the house was sketched on the survey and has not been properly surveyed, and there is a question on the side yard setback since it could be encroaching. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen to recommend ap- proval of the staff recommendation, however waive the requirement for a updated survey. Mot!on carried 4 - 3. (Those In favor: Andersen, Sohns, Jansen, Smith; those opposed: M i chae I, Tha ! $' Meyer. ) This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. f. Case No. 89-820: Harold & Beverly Chrtstianson, 2933 Cambridge Lane, Lots 7 & 8, Block 34, Wvchwood; PI0 #24-117- 24-42-0007. VARIANCE: side and front yard setback. Building.Official~' Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for approval of a side and front yard setback variance to allow structural modifications to raise and remodel the second floor on the existing dwellfng. To afford the property owner reasonable use of his land, staff recommended recognizing' the existing 7.5 foot nonconforming garage setback as well as the i.35 foot exist- ing nonconforming front yard (side street) setback to allow ex- pansion of the second floor to the existing dwelling within the same footprint upon the condition the eaves be limited to I foot. Scott Williams of 2]49 Cambridge Lane, who is a neighbor to the applicants, commented on the messy appearance of their property. He stated it has gotten cleaner, however there is still room for work to-be done. The Building Official commented that she did notify the applicants for having exterior storage, and th'ey are making an effort to clean the property. The applicants also responded and stated they are working towards a cleaner yard. The Commission commented that they encourage the property be kept clean. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Thal to approve staff recommendation for approval of the existing nonconforming side and front yard setbacks. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. CITY of N, IOUND 534! MAYWOOD ~OAD MOoND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Case No. 89-819 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and StaFFyk FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of May 8, ~989 CASE NO.: 89-819 APPLICANT: Patrick & Diane Ruhr LOCATION: 5133 Emerald Drive LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot l, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit C PID #24-117-24-13- 0016 SUBJECT: Existing Side Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a variance to the side property line From the existing dwelling within I Foot (+/-) to the west lot line. They would like to add a three season porch and deck to the existing structure with conforming setbacks to the property line and lakeshore. COMMENTS: The stoop/deck is proposed to be 22 inches in height within 6 Feet to the side lot line, this would be in addition to the existing deck. The three season porch would be a 14'x14' ad- dition to the south with a setback to the side property line of 22 Feet and 60 Feet (+/-) to the lakeshore ordinary high water elevation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow structural modifications for the construction of a 14'xl4' three season porch and a 14'x16' stoop/deck to afford the owner reasonable use of his property upon the condition that the survey submitted From 1949 be re-submitted with the structure, the proposed additions lo- cated on the new survey, and Floor elevations of the existing structure at.sea level (N.G.V.D.) added to it. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on May 23, 1989. pJ OF NOUND PART II Case NO. Fee. $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the foliowln9 information.) Address of Subject Property. LOt i Addition Shirley Hills 5133 Emerald Drive Block J Owner's Name Patrick & Diane Ruhr Day Phone 593-5000 Owner's Address 5133 Emerald Drive, Mound, MN Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone tng Use o6 Property: Residence Zoning District R-i Has an application ever been made for zoning, varlanc~=~ ~onditionai use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property?_~ no . I6 .yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide Fesolutlon number(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I certify that all o6 the above statements and the statements contained tn any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized o661clal o6 the City o6 Mound 6or the purpose o6 inspecting, or o6 posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may Applicant's Signature /7/-/~- ///////////////////////// / //////////////////////// FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date 1 Action: , Resolution No. Oate VARIANCE APPLICATION Does the present use of the property conform to all regu]ations for the zoning district In which it ts Iocate~? Yes ( ), No (X). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Existing structure has side-yard setback encroachment Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations For the zoning district In which It Is located? Yes (), No ~ ). ]6 no, specify each non-conforming use: As Above Which untque phystcal characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for amy of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography · ( ) too small (.).drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) ~hape ( ) soil ( ) sub-surface (~) other: specify Was the hardship desc. ribed above created Dy the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopteO? Yes (), No ( ~. If yes, explatn Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No iX). If yes, explain RIANCE APPLICATION Case No. Are the conattlons of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described tn this petition? Yes iX), No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?.. What is the "minimum" moOtftcatlon (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with Otmensions and writ- ten explanation. The proposed addition is to the southside of the' house. The existing non-conforming use is an encroachment on the west side. No variance is required beyond acquiescence in the already ~xisting~nQn-conforming use. Will granting of the variance be materially Oetrimentai to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO PART Ill SITE PLAN INFORMATIONJ All supporttn~ documents such as sketch plans, attacl~ments, etc., must be submitted in 8-1/2"x11" size. If larger drawings are submittedt one must be 8-.I/2"x11", and 15 larger slzc ~oples. 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), Duildlng(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and utilities. Extstin9 and proposed elevations. Olstance 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. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional Information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. ... 1'71 Iql~l PATRICK M. RUHR 5133 EMERALD DR. MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612-472-6606 STATEMENT OF PETITIONER The Petitioner owns the house located at 5133 Emerald Drive in the City of Mound, and has owned this home for 12 years. A variance is being requested to permit the construction of a three season porch with a 14 x 14 foot dimension and a related stoop/deck area. The Petitioner believes the proposed addition conforms in all respect to current bu'ilding and zoning codes with the exception of a side-yard setback encroachment which has existed for approx- imately 70 years, pre-dating any building or zoning ordinance required such a setback. The original portion of the structure was built in (we believe) the late teens or early 1920's. This one story frame house of approximately 1,000 square feet was expanded in 1975 with the addition of approximately 1,400 square feet containing three bedrooms and two baths over a three car garage. With the consent of abutting homeowners, a variance was granted at that time. The request for a variance contemplated herein would in no way aggravate the non-conforming use arising from decades old encroachment on the side-yard setback. * ~otVexed the ~rope~y des~l~d a~ve and ~at ~e a~ve on the above ~'y.? t~ ,~.y . said building Is y shown on'the shove plaL ' ' plat ~ a correct re~r~senta~on of said su~y. /'7/7 RESOLUTION NO. 74-260 RESOLUTION GRANTING FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES (Lot 1, Block 1, S. H. Unit "C") WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 1, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit C bas requested front and side yard variances in order to build a deck 12 feet by 36 feet, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recomended a front yard variance of 12 feet conditional on letters of approval from neighbors on either side of him, and WHEREAS, these letters are on file in the City. Office, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BT THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That a front yard variance of 12 feet be granted .to build a deck provided all other requirements are met.. Adopted by the Council this 10th day of September, 1974. PAR ~ 0 EME N K A PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-820 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD; PID #24-I]7-24-42 0007 (2933 CAMBRIDGE LANE); P&Z CASE NO. 89-820 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming front yard setback to the unimproved fire lane at the north and from the existing accessory building Front yard setback to the east for Lots 7 & 8, Block 34, WychwooQ; PID #24-117-24-42 0007, and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a 50 foot setback to iakeshore, a 6 Foot side yard and a 20 Foot front yard setback to the north and east public right-of- ways, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon- Forming residential unit when the alterations will improve the iivability 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 to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 'The City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming principal and accessory structure setback to the public right-of-ways at 2933 Cambridge Lane; PID #24-117-24-42 0007. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant to Section 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. /?A o PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 89-820 It is determined that the livability o¢ the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the Fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land with open space to the north proviOed by an unimproved public right-of-way: The second Floor will be added within the existing Footprint as shown on exhibit ], upon the condition that the eave overhang be limited to ! Foot. This variance is granted For the Following legally described property: Lots ? & 8, Block 34, Wychwood; PIP ~24-1!?-24-42 0007. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar oF Titles in Hennepin County ~ursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. · he 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 FileO with the City Clerk· Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Five The Building Official explained that the survey from 1949 cer- tified by Arletgh C. 5mtth is no longer a valid survey due to the fact that they are no longer licensed. She explained other reasons for having the survey updated: there are no elevations on the current survey which would Indicate if the property ts in a flood hazard area, the house was sketched on the survey and has not been properly surveyed, and there is a question on the side yard setback slnce it could be encroaching. MOTION made by Smtth, seconded by Andersen to re~r~ proval bE the staff recommendation, however waive the requirement for a upclatecl survey. Motion carried 4 - 3. (Those In Favor= Andersen, Sohns, Jansen, Smlth~ those opposed: Michael, Thai, Meyer.) This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. Case No. 89-820: Harold & Beverly Chrtstianson~ 2933 Cambrfdqe Lane~ Lots 7 & 8~ Block 34~ Wychwood~ PID #24-117- 24-42-0007. VARIANCE: side and front yard setback. Buildtng Official? Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for approval of a side and front yard setback variance to allow structural modifications to raise and remodel the second floor on the existing dwellfng. To afford the property owner reasonable use of his land, staff recommended recognizing' the existing 7.5 foot nonconforming garage setback as well as the 1.35 Foot exist- tng nonconforming front yard (side street) setback to allow ex- pansion of the second floor to the existing dwelling within the same footprint upon the condition the eaves be limtted to I foot. Scott Williams of 2]49 Cambridge Lane, who is a neighbor to the applicants, commented on the messy appearance of their property. He stated it has gotten cleaner, however there ts still room For work to be done. The Butldlng OFficial commented that she did notify the applicants for having exterior storage, and they are making an effort to clean the property. The applicants also responded and stated they are working towards a cleaner yard. T~e,COmmt ss ion commented that they encourage the property be kep~-~ ~ MOIIO~ mdc ~y Andersen, seconded by lhal to approve st~ff ] \ recommendation for approval of the exist~n~ nonconform~n~ /. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, CITY ()f MOUND 534' MAYWOOD ROAD MOU?4~5 MINNESOTA 55364 ~612) 472-1155 Case No. 89-820 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official <~j DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of May B~ 1989 CASE NO.: 89-820 APPLICANT: Harold & Beverly Christianson LOCATION: 2933 Cambridge Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots ? & 8, Block 34, Wychwood PID #24-117-24-42 0007 SUBJECT: Side and Front Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting a side street variance and a Front yard variance to allow structural modifications to raise and remodel the second Floor on the existing dwelling. COMMENTS: The R-2 zoning district requires a 20 Foot Front yard setback and a 4 Foot side yard for detached accessory buildings. The existing garage is 12.5 Feet From the Front yard with the doors Facing the street. The R-2 zoning district requires a 20 Foot front yard setback when Fronting on two public right-of- ways. The east setback is in the excess of the 20 feet, however, the north setback is 1.35 Feet at the closest point to the north right-of-way. The north right-of-way is an unimproved fire access lane with the neighbors driveway paved along a portion. The structure on the north side of the al lay is also ap- proximately I to 2 Feet From this dedicated right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: To afford the property owner reasonable use of his land, staff recommends recognizing the existing 7.5 Foot non- conforming garage setback as we11 as the 1.35 existing noncon- Forming Front (side street) yard to allow the expansion of the second Floor to the existing dwelling within the same footprint upon the condition the eaves be limited to ! Foot. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on May 23, 1989. pJ cTi of MOUNO PART II Date Flied /-"~-~. O- _~q Fee. $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMHISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property Add i t t on Owner' s Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Existing Use of Property: Zoning District .,/~ Day Phone' Has an application' ever been made for zonlnq, variance,_, c~nai use permit, or other zoning procedure for thts'p~°perty? i'ye's~.l/fno%~d/.If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide~].reso~umber(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. 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 Qs may ApPlicant's Signature .. . Date IIIIIIIIIIII/1111111111111111111{11111t11111111111111111111111111111/11111 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commissioh Recommendation Date Council Action:' Resolution No. Date ANCE APPLICATION Does the present use of the property conform to ali 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 suDject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) to<) narrow ( ) topography -( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) ~hape ( ) .soil ( ) sub-surface iX) other: specify e Was the hardship desc, ribed above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes' ( ), No ~. If yes, explain Was the harOship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (X~), No ( ). If yes, explain / VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. Are the conditions DE hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property descriDed in this petition? Yes No (). IE 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 1and? .(Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATIONJ All suppor~ctng documents such as sketch plans~ attachments? etc. t must be submitted in 8-1/2"xl1" size. IF larger drawings are submtttedt one must be 8-.I/2"x11"~ and 15 larger size comies 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: 1. Location, area, and'dimensions oF existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street' parking, and utt. littes. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: buiiding.'and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of= signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 4/19/89 Dear Jan, Harold and I have filled out the application for the variance the best we can. We've enclosed an up-to-date survey and a rough, to scale drawing of the plans. Jan, we checked the flooring upstairs. We could park a truck up there with NO PROBLEM! It's a triple floor. We'n take it down to a double floor. Over the joists, the previous owners put down 1x12's parallel to the joists. The 1X12's are covered with plywood. We will tear out the plywood and replace it with a new subfloor. If there are parts (like the attic spaces, that don't comply with the existing codes, they will be corrected. Jan, we want to remodel the second floor. We need to replace the roof. It's a perfect time to correct many of the problems with this home. The advantages are many...insulation, useable Interior space and exterior appearance. The proposed siding ls natural log pIn~. If we can, we want to reslde the entire house. Sincerely, Harold/645-0740 .Bev/829-1926 /'73 7 BUS, I612~ 544-7619 ~t~ SURVEYING & LAND PLANNING 5905GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD, StJ[TE 223 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 % - 18.0 Certificate of Survey HAROLD CHRISTIANSON , ..,.....,,...,,.--. -,--.-.-- J --I0O.0O-- ~( ISTI N6 DECK O Deho~-es ,o.Os ,EXIgTING HOUSE K---6' WOOD FE~C.F. .,J~ESCRIPTIDN OF PROPERTY: Lots 7 ~ 8 , Bloc. J( WYCHWOOD HEI~EPI~ SCALE: I"= 20' WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LAND ABOVE DESCRIBED AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS. IF ANy, THEREON. AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, IF ANY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND Doted this, day of AD. 19~'~:> Job No. by Sec ~ Surveyor, Mtnne~olo Reg~trahon No /'~'.~-'- 504&.01 · Page 73 T. 1t7 r. 24 This block ~ oil morsh '¥ ......-". ..... :. : Mr. Ed Shukle, Mound City Mgr 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, Mn 55364 March 23, 1989 Richard Wagner Chairman, Citizens Concerned About Dutch Lake 6020 Aspen Rd. Mound, Mn 55364 Dear City Council Members, I'm Writing on behalf of Citizen's Concerned about Dutch Lake to ~equest time at your council meeting of April 25. We are worried about the spread of Eurasian Milfoil to Dutch Lake and would like to discuss the extent of the problem, preventative measures and financial support. By that meeting we will have signed petitions, an evaluation by DNR about the extent of the problem and cost estimates for combating its spread. Given that Dutch Lake is partially located in Minnetrista and partially in Mound, we are requesting time at both council meetings. Please let us know. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ Richard Wa~ Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Six DISCUSSION/INFORHATIONAL~ a. County Road 15 (Shoreline Blvd.) Beautification update. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the plans For the Shoreline Blvd. improvements. He explafned the color scheme and the plant- ings which are being suggested. :. The Planning Commiss!on suggested expand!ng this plan through to ..:ii'~.- Commerce Blvd. They also suggested that banners, .such as the .~ ones to be instal led on Shorel the, be continued onto Commerce B1 vd. City Council Representative, Jansen asked the Commissioner's opfnfons on having grass or concrete along the sidewalk on Shoreline Blvd. The Commissioners expressed that they were in favor of a concrete type surface. be 1989 Commercial DOck Licenses For Lakewinds~ Minnetonka Boat Rentals/Edgewater Martna~ Seahorse Condominiums, and Chapman Place. The Planning Commission had no concerns-with the 1989 appltca- -'t'ions For commercial dock 'liCenses. c. proposal to revise park dedication fee schedule~ Section 330:120 of the City Code. City Planner, Mark Koegler, recommended that a resolution be adopted identifying a $500 per unit park dedication fee For any new minor subdivisions. Koegler reviewed a listing of the sur- rounding cities and their park charges which averaged ap- proximately $500 per 'unit. The Building Official also recom- mended this Fee be changed. MOTION made be Thai, Seconded by Smith to recommend to the City Council that a resolution be adopted identifying a $500.00 per untt park dedication fee for minor subdivisions. Motion carried unanimously. Building Official, Jan Bertrand proposed to the Commission that they recommend approval to eliminate sewer and water deficient unit charges for new construction, and tn lieu of, Increase the sewer and water availability charges. 5he Further explained the reason for eliminating the sewer and water deficient unit charges as being difficult to administer. 5he added that the City's bonds for the sewer and water installation are being paid off. Currently there Is a sewer availabi'l tty charge of $[25 and a water availability charge of $125 for n~J~construction, s~e is suggesting that we raise these rates ~rom~each to $30~) each to compensate for the elimination of the~-S-~wer an---O-water "deficiencies. Planning Commission Minutes Page Seven MOT]ON made by Sohns, seconded by Thai to recommend that the City Council approve changing the fee schedule by eliminat- ing sewer and water deficient unit charges for new construc- tion, and increasing the sewer availability charge From $i25 to $300 per unit and to increase the water availability charge from $t25 to $300 per untt. Motion carried unanim- ously. DNR Application #B9-639! sponsored by Hennepin County For dredaing of 20 channels over a Four year period. City Manager, Ed Shukle, commented that he did not find any problems with the proposed dredges. However, he informed the Commission that he has written a letter to Hennepin County asking why Lost Lake Channel was not included in the dredge. The Com- mission confirmed that the City Hanager requested Lost Lake Chan- nel be dredged all the way to the post office. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Meyer to approve DNR Ap- pl icatfon #89-6391 Including the City Manager's request to have Lost Lake Channel dredged by Hennepin County. Motion carr i ed unan i mous ! y. DNR Application #89-6397 sponsored by Chapman Place For i) installation of docks~ Z) removal of wooden sea wa11~ and 3) riprap. The Commission had no objections to the application. MOTION made by Smtth, seconded by Andersen,.to approve DNR Application #89-6797. Motion carried unanimously. g. City CoUncil Representative Report. jensen reviewed the outcome of the City Council meetings of June 13th and' June 27th. Sohns raised some topics For discussion. He reported that City Code Section 245.40 which relates to the Planning Commission - Procedure for Changes is not being up-held. Jensen confirmed that the City Council will discuss this Section. Sohns questioned the Building OFFicial regarding Toro's trailer parking. He reported that he counted 20 trailers in the lot, stacked Four trailers deep. The Building Official commented on the problems she has had with the owners of the building, and said she would investigate. Sohns also questioned if something could be written in the City's quarterly newsletter regarding the Housing Maintenance issue. The City Manager confirmed that this could be done. Park Con~ntsston Minutes April 13, i989 Page Three Merrttt Geyen, owner oF Al & Alma's, spoke on the issue oF the park, stattng they do a lot of maintenance. She claimed the weeds were so bad last year that they could not keep up with them and had trouble disposing of them. She is willing to work with the neighbors, and iF they want a fence she will install one. She wants to work with the neighDors. Chair Byrnes suggested forming a study group involving neighbors and representatives from the City, the Park Commission, and Al & Alma's. A sign-up sheet was passed around for those interested to take part in a study group. 4. Recreation Section - Con~3rehensive Plan Updatr City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that this draft of the Recreation Section does not include the school sites, he has not been able to touch base with the school principal Yet. He asked For any questions or comments from the Commission. He also ex- plained that the Park Director is going to update the status oF all the parks showing what park equipment each park has. The Park Director added that he and the City Clerk are compiling sec- tion maps highlighting all the city owned parcels. Commons were discussed and how they relate to parks. Weber suggested that on page R-32 an item 8 be added stating, "Establish and implement a recreational plan For the wetlands." This is encouraged to develop waikways through the wetlands. 5. Park Dedication Fees City Planner, Mark Koegler, submitted a recommendation to the Park Commission stating that they recommend the City Council adopt.a resolution identifying a $500.00 per unit park charge. Along with this recommendation, the City Planner Included a list- ing .o~ the surrounding cities and their park charges. These charges average around $500,00 per unit. MOTION ~de by Clough, seconded by Bailey, a rec~nclatlon to the City Council to adopt a resolution IdentiFying a $500.00 .per unit park charge. Motion carried with seven in Favor (Clough, Byrnes, Asleson, Casey, Burke, Bailey, and Jessen), and one abstained (Weber). MEMORANDUM TO: Park and Recreation Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Park Dedication Fees Section 330:120 of the Mound City Code outlines requirements and procedures pertaining to park land dedication. Subdivision 3 of the section establishes the alternative of accepting cash in lieu of land. It states, "at the City's option, the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount in cash, in lieu of all Or a portion of the land which the City may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to Subd. 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule to be set by resolution of the Council." At the present time, the City Council has not adopted a resolution outlining required park fees. Currently, park dedication fees are charged at the rate of $300.00 per unit. This charge is collected at the time of building permit issuance when a new lot is created through either a minor or major subdivision. In the case of large developments, the City has the option to collect up to 10% of the land to satisfy park needs. Park fees charged for new development are intended to cover the corresponding cost of required recreation facilities. Hi.storically, the courts have upheld the 10% dedication requirement that is used by Mound and many other communities throughout the country. Application of the 10% requirement for lot splits and minor subdivisions can, however, lead to inflated park dedication charges. According to the Hennepin County assessors office, the average lot sale in Mound involves a cost of approximately $15,000 to $17,000. Use of lot prices to determine park dedication fees results in an average park charge of approximately $~500 per lot. This amount seems excessive in light of the fees charged by other communities. 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 In order to gain a better idea of park charges in other cities, several communities were contacted. Their park charge fees are as follows: Shorewood - $500.00 per lot Tonka BaS - $500.00 per lot Victoria - $400 per lot Wayzata - Single Family $450.00 minimum, 7% of determined land value up to a maximum of $2,000 per unit Two Family $850.00 or 7% of determined land value up to $2,000 per unit Multi Family 7% of determined land minimum value, $300.00 Chanhassen - $667.00 per unit - includes park charge and trail fee Eden Prairie - $650.00 per unit Plymouth - $725 per unit Minnetrista - 11% of the market value of the parcel - park charges in Minnetrista for a new lake lot created from a simple lot split have run as high as $15,000 As the above information indicates, park dedication fees in communities around Lake Minnetonka average around $500.00 per unit. It is recommended that the Mound Park and Recreation Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution identifying a $500.00 per unit park charge. March 8, 1989 Curt Pearson WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ ii00 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: I have been d.iscussing the deF.tcient sewer, water, an street unit charges with John Cameron, Delores Schwalbe, and John Norman. As 'the Inspection/Planning Department has been responsible For col- lecting all of. the Fees related to development of property, I would like to simplify the process. We will continue to require deficient street unit charges to be paid at the time a parcel is subdivided or by a simple tax parcel split (without the subdivision process).For lots of record. I have attached Resolution 76-177 which explained the assessment criteria. It is my understanding that the attached waiver of hearing Form may be signed and the deficient street unit charges may be assessed unto the propert~.j The sewer and water deficient unit charges are another matter. We would, like tO discoTTt-J-~ue a~l~Ci~h~-i~§-[ W~'would- ~en in- crease-the present city sewer and water availability charges From $125.00 each to $300.000 each. This Fee, when developing property, ~ould be paid with a building permit and be calculated at'the same number cE units as required For the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission calculations (copy attached). Because the bonds are' paid o¢¢ and the owners would have to put out a cash sum, raising the S.A.C. and W.A.C. city charge would be easier For the owner and our record keeping. .The availability ~unds could be used For maintenance of our present system as well as upgrading From increased demand. /737 · Curt ~earson March 8, 1989 Page Two Hark and I have previously discussed establishing a' fixed fee for minor subdivision park dedication. I am recommending a fixed fee of $300 be established for park dedication of three lots or less. Hark and I discussed the lakeshore verses non-lakeshore lots being set at different rates. However, a lot riparian to ]akeshore with commons between it would not be considered a "]akeshore" property. Possibly a fee of $500 could be set up for a "private lakeshore" property, and a fee of $400 for "come,ons lakeshore." Park dedication is only required when a new building site is established. Plats would still require a 10%^ of land value cash deposit or 10% of the land be dedicated For park use. Chapter 5 of the City Code would need to be revised to set the fees for park dedication. I feel that justifying the fixed rate is conducive to development rather than 10% of land value cash deposit on minor subdivisions. The demand created by three or less lots to the park system is very minimal. ,With the new subdivision ordinance the fee must be paid up-front' before filing the subdivision resolution with the County. The City is no longer delaying these fee payments until the lot is 'built upon. Please let me know tf ! am misinformed as to my understanding of the process. Also, please make any ordinance changes deemed necessary by the suggested process. Yours truly, Building Official 89/28 cc: John Cameron, City Engineer Ed Shukle, City Manager John Norman, Finance Director Dee Schwalbe, Assessing Greg Skinner, Public Works Director Jim Fackler (~-29-89) /75? A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. ~IA~4E$ D. I_ARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. ~'V~ERI'Z ROGER J. ~LLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IIOO FIRST BANK ~LACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 TgLIr I=~NON Ir (612) 33S -,4200 F'AX NUMBER (612) 3'48-2625 March 10, 1989 Ms. Jan Bertrand Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re- Your letter of March 8, 1989 Dear Jan, I am not fully aware of all the reasons for your letter of March 8, 1989. I do want to point out to you at the present time that there are provisions in the C~ty Code for handling lots which have not paid sewer or water charges.~U~-to-Section '600:45, Subdivision 2, that provides for an availability charge to any property where sewer is available and where the property has not been hooked to the municipal system. I further refer you to Section 600:50, which is the system that I explained to you on the telephone where everytime a building permit is issued or a land division takes place, the building card should be checked to ascertain that the special assessments have been paid for that property. The procedure is spelled out in detail in Section 600:50 and the sum to be collected would be the amount charged for the original assessment and I assume that a reasonable interest could be added to that so that the City Council could set whatever a fair fee might be. I also call your attention in the water section to Section 610:45, Subdivision 3, which has an availability charge and Section 610:15 which has the same procedure for water as we have for sewer. If~it is your desire to establish an assessment or a charge as a part of the subdivision process then we should be able to handle that under the subdiviSion ordinance. The major thing is for the Council to establish a rate for these connections and this should be updated to take into account the time, interest, inflation, and other factors. As to park dedication I recommend that the Planning Commission review Section 330:120, Subdivision 2, specifically, and the entire section generally as it relates to park dedication. I believe that the amendments to the ordinance will have to be in that section and not in Chapter 5 of the City Code. Certainly arguments can be made both ways and another community that I'm aware of charges a flat $500.00 fee for the division of property for each lot if the WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Ms. Jan Bertrand March 10, 1989 Page 2 subdivision is four lots or less. These of course are all items that the Council will have to decide after receiving the recommendation of the Planning Commission and its staff. [~ery t r u~l~ ~ours, City Attorney CAP:lkg cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager, City of Mound Park Commission Minutes May I ], 1989 Page Two Maintenance Permit: Rodney Beystrom, 4466 Denbi~h Road, buildin~ 88' x 15' dock on city owned shoreline/channel. dim Fackler, Park Director, explained that Mr. Beystrom has revised his ortglnal plan to build a dock from 38' x IS', to a 38' x 6' dock. City Code Section 437:1S states "No dock . . . shall be less than 24 Inches wide or more than 45 Inches in width, and the dock shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where .necessary to reach a minimum water depth oF 36 Inches." Fackler added that even though this Oock is on a channel and parallel to the land, tt Is classified as a straight dock. Applicant, Rodney Beystrom, spoke on his behalf. He stated that' he was not aware of the 4 foot wide rule. The existing dock posts were rotting, so he replaced them. The previous Oock was 48' x approx. 5.5'. Beystrom also stressed the amount of labor that was Involved to install the dock and the cost.of materials, he added that the posts were embedded 42" into the ground. It ts a permanent dock, one that is not removed each year. The Park Commission confirmed that this area is not accessible For any other docks. The Commission.discussed the minimum width and length and how this pertains to a "channel" dock. Weber sug- gested changing the ordinance to Include a description for "channel" docks. The Commission directed staff to create wordage for a description on channel docks stating the size 1imitations for this type of dock. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Jessen to rec~,,,~nded that the dock at 4466 Denbigh Road be maintained temporarily through the end oF 1989 at 38' x 6'. Motion carried ? to 2. (Those In Favor: Andersen, Weber, Jessen, Byrnes, Burke, As- !eson, and Bailey; Those opposed: Clough and Casey.) / ,Tf Park Commission Minutes May 11, 1989 Page Two Maintenance Permit: Rodney Beys. trom, 4466 DenbiQh Road~ building 38' x 15' dock on city owned shoreline/channel. Jim Fackler, Park Director, explained that M~.'~Beyst~ro has revised his original plan to build a dock fro~8' x 15', ~o a 38' x 6' dock. City Code Section 437:15 states~do~ . . shall be less than 24 inches wide or more than 48 inches in width, and the dock shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth of 36 inches." Fackler added that even though this dock is on a channel and parallel to the land, it is classified as a straight dock. Applicant, Rodney Beystrom, spoke on his behalf. He stated that' he was not aware of the 4 foot wide rule. The existing dock posts were rotting, so he replaced them. The previous dock was 48'. x approx. 5.5'. Beystrom also stressed the amount of labor that was involved to install the dock and the cost.of materials, he added that the posts were embedded ~2" into the ground. It is a permanent dock, one that is not removed each year. The Park Commission confirmed that this area is not accessible for any other docks. The Commission discussed the minimum width and length and how this pertains to a "channel" dock. Weber sug- gested changing the ordinance to include a description for "channel" docks. The Commission directed staff to create wordage for a description on channel docks stating the size limitations for this type of dock. MOTION made by Neber, seconded by Jessen to recommended that the dock at 4466 Denbigh Road be maintained temporarily through the end of 1989 at 38' x 6'. Motion carrted 7 to 2. (Those in favor: Andersen, Weber, Jessen, Byrnes, Burke, As- leson, and Bailey; Those opposed= Clough and Casey.) Gather citizen input reqardinQ Pembroke Park winter motorized vehicle access. Jane Chiesl, an abutting neighbor to the park, was present to speak on behai{ of the neighborhood. She state two requests, [) that the vehicle access at Pembroke Park be closed, and 2) that the park area be improved by leveling the grade and seeding. She added that their is City land across the street that the neigh- borhood kids also play in, and they would like a back-stop in- stalled there. Park Commission Htnutes May 11, 1989 Page Three Rod Plaza, another abutting neighbor, commented on the large amount of debris left by fishermen, reckless drlving, loud parties, and disturbances created by persons using the access. Mr. Plaza uses the access, however, would rather find another access anO have Pembroke access closed. The neighbors complained about the police department and their lack of support with controlling disturbances at the park. The Commission explained that the police do not have jurisdiction on the water, therefore violations in a park can be difficult to en- force. However, the Commission addeO that they will be working with the police on the issue of motorizeO vehicles in City parks. Weber questioned the boat access. He stated that the LMCD does not recognize this as an official boat access. The Park Director stated that the City Code lists this access as a "seasona] watercraft launch area." The residents present all commented on the poor condition of the launch and stated that it Is rarely used, on)y small fishing boats use the )aunch. Bill Kuliberg, a member of the Mlnnetrtsta Park Commission Spoke against the closing of the Pembroke access. He stated that this would cause an overflow to the Minnetrista access Further down on the Island. The Co.mission reviewed the seasonal water craft launch areas listed In City Code Section 1015:20 and concluded that Pembroke was the only access area adjoining a park. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Weber, to approve the closing of the vehicle access at Pembroke Park. Motion carried unanimously. There was discussion regarding snown~btle access, will this be allowed~ Weber confirmed that a snowmobile is a motorized vehicle, therefore they are not allowed on park property. Dick Me~edith of the Westonka Snoblazers snowmobile club spoke in op- position to the closing of this access for snowmobiles. The Com- mission stressed that they would like to work with the area snow- mobile clubs to develop access areas For them. In addition, this topic will be part dE the discussion when meeting with the police department regarding the enforcement dE vehicles in public parks, The Commission directed staff to inform 'the Westonka Snoblazers of this meeting which will be scheduled sometime in August 1989. Park Commission Minutes May il, ]989 Page Four There was discussion regarding Improvements needed In Pembroke Park such as grading and fill. Chair Byrnes suggested forming a study group Including Interested residents, the Park Director, and some Park Commissioners. Casey and Asleson agreed to repre- sent the Park Commission for the Pembroke Park Study Group. It was agreed that Asleson would chair the meeting. Jane Chiesi will send addresses of the interested neighbors to City Hall. When a meeting date is scheduled, everyone will be notified. Discussion regarding letter from Rodrigo Plaza re~ardfnq commons and docks. The Commission listened to Mr. Plaza's concerns regarding commons maintenance. The Commission directed staff to notify commons dock users of their responsibilities to maintain their area by their docks, it was suggested that a article be printed in "The Laker" or in the City's quarterly newsletter reminding commons dock holders of their responsibilities. DNR Dredge Application #89-639] for maintenance dredging of 2.0 channels In Lake Minnetonka, MOTION made by Clough, seconded by Bailey to approve DNR Ap- plication #89-6391. Motion carrlecl unanimously. DNR Application #89-6397 for Chapman Place Marina: I) Installa- tion of docks~ 2). removal of wooden sea wall? and 3) installation of rtprap. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Casey to approve DNR Ap- plication #89-6397. Motion carrlecl unanimously. County Road 15 (Shoreline Blvd.) Beautification up-date. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the plans for the Shoreline Blvd. improvements. He explained the color scheme and the plant- ings. which are being suggested. City Council Representative's Report Jessen reviewed the Issues pertaining to the Park Commission from the April 25th and May 9th City Council meetings. # Mound City Code Section 1015:00 Section 1015 - ~oatinE Regulations - Fish House £esulat~ns - Sw~mmtuE Regulations Section 1015:00. Provisions of State Law Adopted. The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 361, with reference to the definition of terms, conditions'of opera=ion, res=fictions, and provisions relating to the use and operation of water craft and the use of public waters are adopted and made a par: of :his Section as if se: out im full. Section 1015:05. Provisions of LMCD Regulations Adopted. The regulations of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District with reference to the definition of terms, conditions of operation, restrictions, and provisions relating to the use and operation of water craft and the use of public waters are adopted as if set out in full. Section 1015:10. Limitation of Fish Houses. No person shall place or allow any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure to remain on any frozen public waters within the harbor limits of this City unless there is legibly painted thereon in letters 3 inches in height the following information: (a) Name of owner. (b) Address of owner. (c) Telephone number of owner or, if the owner bas no telephone, the words "No Phone". and unless the door of such structure can be opened from the outside at all times when the same is in use. Section 1015:15. Seasonal Removal of Fish Houses. No person shall allow any fish house~ warming house, or other similar structure to remain upon any frozen public waters within the harbor limits of the City, or upon private land within the City, without the owner's written consent, after the 1st day of March of any year. Section 1015:20. Seasonal Water Craft Launch Areas. There shall be no launching, mooring, or docking of water craft from June 1st through September 15th of any year in the beach areas of .......... Pembroket Wychwood, ~--'-- ~a-.k- ~--a-..~, Three Points Beach, and Centerview Beach.. These beach areas shall be posted as follows: "Swimming Beach Only, No Launching of Boats from June 1 through September 15." The City Council, by resolution, may designate additional public beaches at which the launching, mooring, and docking of water craft will be prohibited, and may by re~solution provide for the posting of appropriate signs. Section 1015:25. Public Bathin$ Beach. It shall be unlawful to swim, wade, or bathe from any City public lands, public parks, public commons, or other public property, except where such property has been designated as a "Public Bathing Beach" by the City Council, by resolution, and is designated as such by ap- propriate signs, buoys, and markers. Section 1015:30. Public Bathin~ Beaches~ Hours. Public bathing beaches within the City shall be closed at 10:00 p.m., and any person found sw{mming, wading, bathing, or loitering on any such beach between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. PARK COMMISSION TO DISCUSS PEMBROKE PARK ACCESS The Mound Advisory Park Commission will be discussing the Pembroke Park winter motorized vehicle access at their meeting on Thursday, May 11th at 7:30 p.m. Anyone wishing to be heard regarding this issue is welcome. Published in ','The Laker" 5-1-89 & 5-8-89. (mai led to the abutting neighbors) LA~E M I N NE. TON KA , lq.q5 DIS(:HARGr- '1'o LAt~ LIFT ~TATIO MANHOLE KEY-. ~TORM .sEwER SANITARY .SEWER by~ WA,,' REG'DGNZZED WINTER LAKE ACCESS $IT~$ FOR CAR / TRUCK. 1. Twin Park, ~riest Bay 2. Moun~bay Park, Cooks Bay 3.. Witchwoo~Beach, Cooks Bay 4. Sunrise Landing, West Ar~ 5. Sunset 'Landingw Harrison$ Bay 6. Canary Bea=h, Harriso~s Bay'. 7. 9. Pembrook Beach, Phelps / Spring Park Bay Waterbury Road West, Cooks Bay Cen=erview Beach, Harrisons Bay NO CA~ / TRUCK WINTER LAKE ACCESS SITES, A. R/dgewoo~ Park ~ B. Chester Park C. Avalon Park * NOTE ATTACHED MAP F~bruary 1959 Ed Shukle, City Manager ~ -~ers of the Mound Parks Board: ley Anderson Cathy Bailey n Asleson Marilyn Byrnes Stephen Burke Thomas Casey Nancy Clough Nell Weber Phyllis Jessen The following residents of the Pembroke Park area request that Pembroke Park close to motorized vehicle access effective the summer of 1989. Since this area of the.lake has excellent access off of County Road 15 to the northeast and direct access off of Tuxedo Boulevard to the southwest, lake access b~ cars is not inhibited and is not necessary through Pembroke Park. Mound Police are in support of this closing since they have been called out several times in response to reckless speeders in the park. The park grounds and equipment are damaged by these motorized vehicles and children's lives are put in danger. There have been at least two close calls this winter. Let us provide a safe park facility before'one of our children is injured or killed. Mayor Steve Smith supports safe park facilities as do we. Thank ~ou. February 1989 Ed Shukle, City Manager M,-'bers of.the Mound Parks Board: S~._rley Anderson Cathy Bailey Brian Asleson Marilyn Byrnes Stephen Burke Thomas Casey Nancy Clough Nell Weber Phyllis Jess~__ The following residents of the Pembroke Park area request that Pembroke Park close to motorized vehicle access effective the summer of 1989. Since this area of the lake has excellent access off of County Road 15 to the northeast and direct access off of Tuxedo Boulevard to the southwest, lake access by cars is not inhibited and is not necessary through Pembroke Park. Mound Police are in support of this closing since they have been called out several times in response to reckless speeders in the park. The park grounds and equipment are damaged by these motorized vehicles and children's lives are put in danger. There have been a: leas: ~wo close calls this winter. Let us provide a safe park facility before one of our children is injured or killed. Mayor Steve Smith supports safe park facilities as do we. Thank you. i' 6o SUBJECT: Denbigh Road Project ~ Dear Mound City Council Member: )' 5/12/89 I am writing today to discuss my view of the proposed Denbigh Road' I~ovement Project recently discussed at a city council meeting. I live o~ot 90, across from Freda Olson on Black Lake in ~his proposed project. On Monday, May 2, a meeting of area residents was held to inform all residents and a~emp: to gain ~heir acceptance of this project. Attending were residents Hal Larson, John Morgan, Kathy Kluth, Jack Wang, Paul Withers, Freda Olson, Freda's son, Clay Olson, City Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, and City Engineer John Cameron. At this meeting, Freda appeared not to be against the road project in priciple, but she had three concerns: 1) Tree to be removed on Northeast corner of her lot. 2) Paying assessments for no aDparent benefit to her property. 3) Decrease in her property value caused by taking some lot area for the road. Regarding the tree: This is a soft maple tree, about 20 years old, of the same type that grows just about anywhere in the Mound area. We discussed Freda's concern with this tree, and the residents present had no problem paying for its replacement. Freda appeared to agree on this, and John Cameron agreed to investigate the costs associated with replacing this approx. 24" soft maple with a suitable replacement. We discussed paying for Freda's assessments: Cannot be done as a part of the project, due to setting a Precedent that Peter Zubert (owner of record of vacant lots) could use to avoid paying the assessment on the vacant lots. The city flat out will not do it. ..s doubtful Hennepin County would allow any access to Wilshire from · }e vacant lots, as long as there is another alternative. The county will force the entrance onto these lots from Denbigh (Cardiff possibly for the corner lot). So, in my view, the lots need to pay the assessments. Jan noted that every time a street has been improved the vacant lots on the street have been sold. Peter Zubert has had these lots for sale for years, and they have not sold. Adding the road will alloW the sale of these lots as "lakeview lots", and with proper landscaping to shield Wilshire at their back, probably will allow these lots to be sold, adding tax revenue base to the city treasury. If the county does close off any possible access to Wilshire from these lots, they probably would also close off Freda's access also, forcing Freda to gain access to.her property on the proposed improved Denbigh Road. Then will not she gain from this road improvement? By her own words at the council meeting, she has "almost been rear-ended numerous times pulling into her driveway".. Isn't there also a SAFETY issue linked to this road project? John C. said that when the rest of Mound was paved, senior citizens could postpone payment of the assessments until the property was sold. The senior would have to qualify, based on income, but that precident is set, and perhaps the city council could grant it in this case. Regarding paying for Freda's land: Very little actual land will be taken that is not now a road. I don't like' paying for something that is already mine to use. At this resident meeting, we aid John C. to move the road toward my and Jack Wang's property to take as ll~le property as possible. John C. had "Alternate B" drawn up that moves the road as far as possible toward the other residents. This is acceptable to the other residents. By moving the road, there is a VERY SMALL portion of her. portion of her lot (right by the tree) that would be given up for this project that is not NOW A ROAD. There are existing easements on the existing road, t'7 ~nich means 90% or better of the land that would need to be given to the city for this project CANNOT be used by the landowner for any other purpose. I would strongly encourage you to visit the proposed project area. At Freda's (and John C's) we staked out where ~he road would go so that. Fredacould try to assess this land's value. We would like to know what value this land given it is now a road, really has if given to the city for an improved road I do not believe this will lower ANYONE's value, given the land in question is already a gravel road. I feel it will only ADD VALUE to ALL properties, increase the tax revenue to the city, and allow the residents of this proposed project to gain access to city services (snowplowing, water control) that we are now being taxed for but are not receiving. I have not complained of my tax valuation up to this point, but needless to say, not granting this project will probably cause me to show up at every valuation meeting held in the future. John Morgan and myself met with Ozzie to bring him up to date and assure him we were not trying to go around himby neglecting to assure he was invited to the resident meeting. Ozzie stated that he is neither "for or against" the project; he would side with whatever the majority of the residents decided. He also stated ~hat~he personnally would like to continue as a private street to avoid parking problems and city interferance. As far as how he really feels, 'I'm not sure. Everytime I talk to him he changes his mind. If Freda goes along with the road, I don't think Ozzie will side against it, but who knows? I found out that he also opposed the water main for Denbigh some ?-8 years ago, as he gets his water from Cardiff (he owned both lots at that time). Sounds like the same story could happen with this road, after all, he lives almost on top of a paved road AND he will have limited parking if the road goes in. Jan said every time a road is placed on.vacant lots the lots sell. If the lots sell, Ozzie may have a problem parking.his'personal and'businessvehicles in the neighborhood. t think a very important aspect of this road project is the increase in safety that all residents of Mound will enjoy when the private road entering the intersection on Lot 98 is closed off. Closing off this entrance will allow the county to redesign and relayout the Tuxedo/Wilshire intersection. The county tried to block off the end by John Morgan (lot 98) to improve the intersection but John M. stopped them as this is his/mine/Jack's/Hal's only LEGAL access to our properties (unless a title search by all sheds new light on this). The county WANTS to do this intersection as it IS unsafe. There was a lady killed there before I moved in, and two accidents average per year with .injuries since. Basically, if we get a road then the work to improvethe SAFETY of this intersection for AT.?. Mound residents can precede. In closing, I'feel the local residents deserve what we are paying for. We have comprimised with Freda as much as possible. Voting for this project will allow the safety of the Tuxedo/Wilshire intersection to be dramatically improved, possibly saving someone's life. Voting for this project will allow this issue to become a non-issue, rather than taking much of the council's valuable time every year or two. I will be calling you next week to discuss any questions.that you may have and hopefully gain some insight into what needs to be done to get this project moving toward completion. .~~;ds, Paul Withers/Lee Ann Sanna Active Registered Voter 4416 Denbigh Road Mound, MN. 55364 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55447 April 20, 1989 Telephone 612~76-6010 Facsimile 612~76-8532 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Mound, MN Denbigh Road Proposed Street Improvements MFRA #7064 Dear Ed: Enclosed, as you requested, are the revised preliminary cost estimate and proposed assessments for the above mentioned project. These should be included with the new petition and all previous information from 1984 for the Council's review. I wish to reiterate again that the enclosed cost estimates and proposed assessments do not include any expense which may be incurred in acquiring the right-of-way necessary for construction. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:aju Enblosures An Equal Oppor'tunity Employer Mound, Minnesota Preliminary Cost Estimate Denbi§h Road - Alternate A MFRA #7064 Item Quantity Unit Price Total Common excavation 3-1/2" bituminous base Mn/DOT 2331 Bituminous tack coat 1-1/2" bituminous wear, Mn/DOT 2341 Driveway aprons Concrete curb and gutter Tree removal 12" RCP storm sewer Catch basins Manhole Concrete apron Rip rap Black dirt and sod Relocate curb stop Adjust gate valve Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost 220 C.Y. 9o TON 20 GAL 40 TON 510 S.F. 530 L.F. 2 EACH 200 L.F. 2 EACH 1 EACH 1 EACH 2 C.Y. 400 S.Y. 2 EACH 1 EACH $ 7 oo/cY 33 00/TN 1 50/GA 36 00/TN 3 50/SF 7 00/LF 400 00/EA 25 00/LF 900.00/EA 1,000.O0/EA 400.00/EA 60.00/CY 3.00/SY 35o.oo/EA 200.O0/F~N $ 1,54o.oo 2,97o.00 3o.oo 1,44o.oo 1,785.00 3,71o.oo 800.00 5,000.00 1,8oo.oo 1,000.00 400.OO 120.00 1,200.00 700.00 200.00 2,305.00 $ 25,000.00 Engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs 8,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - Alternate A ............................ $ 33,000.00 Revised 4-20-89 © u) (D C 0 0 0 0 m 0 .~1 4J 00©000 I ~MO OOOO00 I O00©O0 1000 0000000000~0 0 0 I r-4r~ I 4-) O~ 0 {D cf' PETITION FOR LOCAL I~OVEWENT MOUND, MINNESOTA day of , TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: We, the undersigned, owners of not less than 35 percent of the real property described as L.~ ~ 'l'~_~ ~ ~-~L.-~ ~S~.~ and abutting on ~l,~/~_~----"~ 1Z~E'~'~iC~-~ -~ hereby petition that improvements be made by the construction of pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the required number of owners of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned for City Clerk ANNON '~ ,,, KINGS K E RRY';'~,L A;,? ... /7~'7 .MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 1985 187 September 10, 1985 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on September 10, 1985, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Steve Smith and Russ Peterson. Also present were: William McCombs, Oswin Pflug, Audrey Evans, Freda J. Olson, Paul Skjervold Ted Linn, Gordon Swanson, Roger Rager, John Monyan, Jack Wang, Lee Ann Sand, Paul Withers, Halden W. Lars, Ed Waldroff, Bruce Charon, Bud Stannard, Kaye Westerlund, W. John'Bill, Warren Shaffer, Stephen Kakos, Greg Gustafson, Jeff Gustafson. The Ma~or opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The miuntes of the August 27, 1985, regular meeting were presented for consideration. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN, SECONDED BY COUN~ILMEMBER SMITH TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 27, 1985, REGULAR MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 23.412.2 (5), STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE. Mayor Pols.ton opened the hearing. closed the hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor Motion by Councilmember Paulsen, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, to adopt the following ordinance: ORDINANCE #482 ORDINANCE TO DIRECT THE PREPARATION OF AMEND- MENT TO SECTION 23.412.2 (5), STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE. The vote. was: Ayes; Councilmembers Peterson, Paulsen, Jessen, and Mayor Pplston. Nayes; Councilmember Smith. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF A NOW PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST TO CARDIFF LANE. It was noted that the notice of hearin should read" .... that runs east from Cardiff Lane". The City Attorney stated that if the Council decided that if they take .action on the proposed improvement, the City will have to re- advertise and hold the hearing according to the amended notice. The City Engineer reviewed the proposed improvement of Denbigh Road. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing.. Paul Withers, 4416 Denbigh, stated he is in favor of the improvement, because now he pays high taxes and doesn't receive all of the City services. 188 September 10, 1985 He would prefer to pay an assessment and receive the services such as snow removal, etc. John Morgan, 4400 Wilshire, expressed he is in favor of the project, Oswin Pflug, 4440 Denbigh, stated he has been living there for many years. The previous requests for improvement were denied because it was felt there iS not enough room there for a decent street. He signed the petition for improvement a year ago because he was told it was only to explore costs. He feels now that the improvement would be dangerous and there is no room for emergency vehicles and no roam for snow removal. Freda Olson, 4414 Wilshire, objects strongly to the improvement ns she stated she will receive absolutely no benefit, but the improvement would lower the value of her home. Jack Wang, 4408 Denbigh, stated the improvement was previously denied when it wasn't as expensive. Now he disagrees with the assessment. Mayor Polston closed the hearing. The Council then discussed the utilities and drainage in that area, as well as safety factors. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER.JESSEN, SECONDED BY MAYOR POLSTON TO RE- ADVERTISE THE CORRECTED NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF DENBIGH. AYES: COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN AND MAYOR POLSTON. NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS SMITH, PETERSON AND PAULSEN. MOTION DEFEATED. RESOLUTION #85-101 MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN, NOT TO IMPROVE DENBIGH ROAD AS PROPOSED. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS PETERSON, PAULSEN AND SMITH. NAYES: COUNCIL- MEMBER JESSEN AND MAYOR POLSTON. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING: ~ONSlDER ZONING AMENDMENT FOR CONDITIONAL USE PROVISION OF SECTION 23.6'35~3 TO ALLOW CONSIGNMENT/GIFT BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Jan Bertrand informed the Council that the Planning Commission recommend- ed that the zoning ordinance be amended to allow consignment/gift shops as conditional uses in a B3 zone. Mayor Poslton.opened the public hearing. As there were no comments, the hearing was closed. Coun¢ilmember Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the adoption of the follow- ordinance: ORDINANCE #483. ORDINANCE TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION · RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE AMENDED TO ALLOW CONSIGNMENT/GIFT SHOPS BY CONDITIONAL USE IN A B3 ZONE. The motion passed. Motion by Councilmember Jessen, seconded by Councilmember Peterson to set October 8, 1985, at 7:30 PM, as the date and time for consideration of a conditional use permit application submitted by Roger and Gall Rager.to allow a consignment shop in a B3 Zone. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. March 13, 1984 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on March 13, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood-,Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Pinky Charon was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the'following interested citizens: Frieda Olson, Paul Withers, Oswig Pflug, John Morgan, Peter Zubert, Chris Gerold representing Frieda Olson, Bill Magrand and Larry Connolly. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minute~ of the February 28, 1~84, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Councilmember Peterson noted a correction on Page 37, Resolution #84-38 should not have read "to concur with the Planning Commission recommendation". _ Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the February 28, 198~, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. C HEARING;, PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF DENBIGH ROAD The City Engineer explained that the p~oposed improvement of the now private portion of Denbigh Road would make this road 18 feet wide from the back of the curb to back of the curb. Putting in a cul-de-sac was impossible due to the limited space available. The road would be 22 feet from the nearest garage with an estimated cost of $23,900.00. He then explained the City of Mound's assessment policy to the public. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments for or against the proposed improvement of Denbigh Road. FREDA OLSON - 4414 Wilshire Blvd. ~tated that she would not benefit from' this road because her driveway is on Wilshire Blvd. and she never uses Denbigh. Also that the road would be within 22 feet of her house and would depreciate her value. March 13, 1984 PAUL WITHERS - 4416 Denbigh Road, asked what the engineer had planned for the end of this road. The City Engineer answ%red that a dead end road is planned because it would .be a safety hazard to bring this road onto Wilshire Blvd. and being a dead end would proba%ly keep the traffic down. OSWIN PFLUG - 4440 Denbigh Road, stated that he is completely against the improvement of this road as it is proposed because it would only be 16 feet wide and' would not leave enough room for 2 cars to pass during the winter when there is snow on the sides of the road. Parking would also become a problem if the street were a public street instead of a private road. If it were left a dead end street people would have to turn around in screeches driveway which would cause a problem. As it is now all the properties on that stretch of Denbigh have easements to cross property to get to Wilshire Blvd. JOHN MORGAN - 4400 Wilshire Blv~, stated that he is for the Alternate A improvement because as it stands now people are going out to Wilshire on his property. He has checked his deed and has no private easements recorded on it for people to use his property. The City Attorney-explained that the subject of those easements is a private matter which does not concern the City. They are private easements. PAUL WITHERS, stated he would like to see the road Put in and be able to see what he is paying taxes for, i.e. snow plowing, garbage service, etc.. PETER ZUBERT, 8238 Oregon Rd., Bloomington, MN., stated he owns Lots 94, 95 and 96 and is against the road and the assessment because his lots front on Wilshire Blvd. and . · do not benefit from the road. The road may also have a negative impact on the buildability of the lots with · streets on both sides of the lots. He is al~o against the City taking 15 feet of his property while taking less o'n the other side of Denbigh. The City Engineer explained that the reason they would be taking more property on Zubert's side of the street is that they are trying to keep the proper setbacks for the garages on the other side of the street. The City Manager stated that Mr. Zubert may not be able to get permission from the County to have a driveway access on Wilshire because of the safety aspect. /7<nf 45 March 13, 1984 CHRIS GEROLD - attorney representing Freda 01son, stated that it was his understanding that in order for the City to assess someone for an improvement they had to benefit. The City Attorney explained that we are here tonight only to consider if we should have an improvement. FREDA OLSON - stated that the City would be taking more than 15 feet of her property on the curve for the road. The Mayor closed the public hearing.. Councilmember Peterson thanked everyone for their comments and the points brought out. He further stated that he felt when equal amounts of land are not being taken from both sides of the road, the people who have to give more should be compensated. Councilmember Paulsen agreed. Councilmember Jessen asked if there would be any on street parking ~fter the new street is installed. The City Engineer answered no, Councilmember Jessen questioned how many of the ~people who originally signed the petition for the improvement wer'e still in favor of the road because there only appeared to be two people present for the road, three against and the remainder on the petition did not show up or comment either way. Peterson moved and .Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~84-31 RESOLUTION TO DENY MAKING IMPROVEMENTS'TO A NOW PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST TO CARDIFF LANE The vote was 3 in favor with Mayor Polston voting nay. Motion carried. Mayor Polston sta'ted that the City has spent $1,500 of taxpayers mone~ to get this far with this proposed improvement and he feels before anymore of these petitions are presented,' the citizens should ha. ye mote of a consensus for a project so this work is not ~d°ne for nothing at a cost to the general taxpayers. PUBLIC HEARING; ARVIN SENNE, MARK JOHNSON, STEVE TESSMER, LOT AUDITOR'S SUBD, #170,'5558 AUDITOR'S ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIi FOR WHOLESALE AND ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS - CASE #84-BOB The City Manager explained that this request is for a Conditional Use Permit for the rear portion of the building that houses the House of Moy fronting on Auditor's Road. It is the space that Watson was going to use for the arcade. The'area is proposed'for sailboard storage and sales center marketing area and an area for McCOMBS-KNUT$ON A550CIATFS, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ! LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS 3anua~y ~1~ 1~04 Reply -ro: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Mound, Minnesota Denbigh Road Proposed Street Improvements #7064 Dear Mayor & Councilmembers: As requested by the City Council we have completed a feasibility study for upgrading to City standards the section of private road which is the extension of Denbigh Road east of Cardiff Lane. The existing driven road loops back to Nilshire Boulevard and is located on private property with easements to the various parcels in this-area for access. The city constructed a watermain in this private road in 1974 but it appears the easements obtained at that time were strickly for utility purposes. The City would have to obtain the right-of-way necessary for any street construction. After a preliminary survey was completed, we do not feel that there is enough land available to construct a cul-de-sac, therefore our cost estimate is for construction of a thru street from Cardiff Lane to Nilshire Boulevard. Be- cause of the tight conditions and to be consistant with the 1978 construction of Denbigh Road to the southwest, we are recommending an 18 foot wide street including concrete curb and gutter. This construction would require a minimum 20 feet right-of-way with temporary construction easements along both sides. Due to the grades and the nearness of the existing garages, storm sewer is also.a .necessity. Ne are proposing two catch basins with an outfall line run- ning to the lake on the lot line between Lots 89 and 90. The concrete curb and gutter proposed would be the standard design used on previous projects with 3 foot aprons at all driveways. The estimated construction cost for these improvements is $23,200.00 with the overall cost of the project estimated at $29,000.00. These estimates do not include expense which may be incurred in acquiring the right-of-way neces- sary for construction. Enclosed is break-down of our cost estimates. City of Mound 3anuary 31, 1984 Page Two There are a number of methods that could be used to access the cost of this project. For discussion purposes we have calculated the proposed assessment for each property using the City's current assessment policy which combines area, footage and unit charges. Attached is a breakdown of this proposed as- sessment and a copy of Mound's assessment policy. We have included this policy mainly because it gives the properties abutting the County Road a deduction which of course is paid by the remaining properties. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed improvement is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. Sincerely, MoCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. William H. McCombs, P.E. WHM:j Enclosure Preliminary Cost Estimate Denbigh Road Item Quantity Unit Price Total Common excavation 3-1/2" bituminous base Mn/DOT 2331 Bituminous tack coat 1-1/2" bituminous wear, Mn/DOT 2341 Driveway aprons Concrete curb and gutter Tree removal 12" PCP storm sewer Catch basins Manhole Concrete apron Rip rap Black dirt and sod Relocate curb stop Adjust gate valve Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost 300 C.Y. $ 5.00/CY $ 1,500.00 120 TON 28.00/TN 3,360.00 50 GAL 1.50/GA 45.00 50 TON 30.O0/TN 1,500.00 510 S.F. 3.00/SF 1,530.00 720 L.F. 6.50/LF 4,680.00 5 EACH 200.O0/EA 1,O00.O0 200 L.F. iS.00/LF 3,000.00 2 EACH 800.O0/EA 1,600.00 I EACH 900. O0/EA 900.00 1 EACH 300.O0/EA 300.00 2 C.Y. 50.O0/CY 100.00 500 S.Y. 2.00/SY 1,O00.O0 2 EACH 200.O0/EA 400.00 i EACH 150.O0/EA 150.00 . 2~135.00 $23,200.00 Engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs 5~800.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ........................................ $29,000.00 4~ 0 C~ 0 b- 0 000000 I ~ 0000000000~0 0008880000 000 0000 I I I 000 000 II II 0 0 ..4 > 0 .,~ COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 February 14, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Mound, Minnesota Denbigh Road Proposed Street Improvements #7064 Dear Mayor and Council Members: For your consideration, we are submitting an alternate plan for the pro- posed improvements to Denbigh Road. This alternate would be similar to the original proposed construction except the street would be a dead-end instead of looping back to Wilshire Boulevard. Due to the limited space available, a full cul-de-sac is virtually impossible. In order to turn around, vehicles would have to back into the pri- vate driveways. This plan would eliminate the traffic hazard which would exist at Wilshire Boulevard if Denbigh Road were extended through. We do not like to see another dead-end street without a cul-de-sac, but his may be a better al- ternative than the traffic problems at Wilshire Boulevard. Attached is a cost estimate and the proposed assessments for Alternate A. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 3o~~h~Came~c~~~~ OC:sj Enclosure Mound, Minnesota Preliminary Cost Estimate Denbigh Road - Alternate A #?064 Item Quantity Unit Price Total Common excavation 3-1/2" bituminous base Mn/DOT 2331 Bituminous tack coat 1-1/2" bituminous wear, Mn/DOT 2341 Driveway aprons Concrete curb and gutter Tree removal 12" RCP storm sewer Catch basins Manhole Concrete apron Rip rap Black dirt and sod Relocate curb stop Adjust gate valve Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost 220 C.Y. $ 5.00/CY $ 1,100.00 90 TON 28.00/TN 2,520.00 20 GAL 1.50/GA 30.00 37 TON 30. O0/TN 1,110.O0 510 S.F. 3.00/SF 1,~30.00 530 L.F. ~.50/LF 3,445.00 2 EACH 200.O0/EA 400.00 200 L.F. 15.00/LF 3,000.00 2 EACH 800.O0/EA 1,600.00 i EACH 900.O0/EA 900.00 i EACH 300.O0/EA 300.00 2 C.Y. 50.O0/CY 100.00 400 S.Y. 2.00/SY 800.00 2 EACH 200. O0/EA 400.00 i EACH 150.O0/EA 150.00 1~735.00 $19,120.00 Engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs 4~780.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - Alternate A .......................... $23,900.00 o~ ~0 0 000000 1000 8888880000 o 0000 0 II Il II (D 0 .,~ 0 0 > 0 In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Res' olution No. 76-77. The assessment criteria is as follows: 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed based on front footage. Corner lots shall be calculated to include all front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. Ce 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. Since 1976, the City Council has added the following refinements to this policy. Triangle Lots - lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be as- sessed for footage on the long side only. Multiple units other than duplexes are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (Example: a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area). Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement viii be as- sessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage will be reduced by 50 percent. Area of land formerly commons and now under private ownership, to be assessed as part of the private property. Large parcels (a number of combined lots) to be assessed one unit, plus area and footage. Two separate parcels under the same ownership will be assessed two units, plus area and footage if they both have enough area to qualify as buildable sites under the present zoning. Single lots under separate ownership from adjacent property that do not meet the area requirements for a buildable site will be assessed .only area and footage. Properties abutting alleys that are bituminous surface only, with no curb and gutter, to be assessed the same as any other property except the front footage will be reduced by 50% with a minimum of 40 lineal feet. Properties which have the garage located across the street from the house will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except the par- cel in which the garage is located will not receive a unit charge. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which previously paid a full assessment on another street improvement project will be assessed for the footage only with no minimum. 10. Parcels which do not abut a street improvement project but received benefits from the construction will be assessed for the project. 11. Lots that are adjacent to a 12' wide bituminous street installed for City purposes which front on another street in the project will not be assessed for footage on the side street. 12. Triangular lots that are combined with a rectangular lot are to be as- sessed for footage on the long side of the triangular lot plus the footage o£ the remaining lot or lots. 13. D~plexes are to be assessed on the basis of two units plus area and footage, with a minimum on the footage of 80 feet. 14. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the long side and the average length of the other two sides. 15. The cost of driveway entrances over 12 feet wide are assessed directly to the property owner. 16. Commercial or industrial property get 1-1/2 units. 17. Credit is given for past storm sewer assessments except that when credits exceed the assessment no assessment will be levied and no sessment paid. 18. There is a maximum of 250 feet and 25,000 square feet per residential parcel. 19. Storm sewers are assessed as part of the street improvements aud these assessments are included in the unit, square footage and frontage charges. L. AW OF'F'ICES A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. ~.JAHE$ D. I--~R$ON, THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG H. HERTZ ROGER ~J. FELLOWS WURST~ PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ MINNEAI~OLIS, MINNESOTA S5~O2 May 2, 1989 T£LEI~HONE (Sl;~) 33S- 4~'00 MAY :5 1989 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Unclaimed, Lost or Abandoned Property Dear Ed: Pursuant to your letter of April 26 and my communication to you on April 18, I have prepared an ordinance relating to unclaimed, lost, or abandoned property. This adds four sections to our existing code and takes into account money and other materials found. The balance of our ordinance pretty much goes to junk cars or vehicles which are possessed. This proposed ordinance addition covers a blind spot whicb currently exists i.n our-code. Per your request and our telephone conservation, we have addressed the question as to City employees finding items in Section 170:25. Those items found by employees on duty are to be turned in and either will be sold or claimed by one of the departments and tbe money transferred to the general fund. If you find this ordinance in order, please present it to the City Council for their consideration. V~r~ truly yours, !.C.{_jt~ Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosure ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 170 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 170:15, 170:20, 170:25 AND 170:30 RELATING TO UNCLAIMED, LOST OR ABANDONED PROPERTY The City of Mound Does Ordain: Section 170 of the City Code shall be entitled as follows: Section 170 - Unclaimed, Lost and Abandoned Property Sections 170:15, 170:20, 170:25 and 170:30 are hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 170:15. Custody of Found Property Other Than Bicycles ~nd Animals. The City Manager shall make provisions for receiving and safekeeping found property and money delivered to him and coming into his possession in the course of municipal operations. A receipt shall be issued to the person delivering such property or money to the City. Such property shall be stored in a safe place and such money deposited with the City Treasurer in a special account for found money for a period of six (6) months unless claimed by the true owner. It shall then be subject to disposal as unclaimed property or money. Section 170:2~laims by Owner. During such six (6) month period, the City Manager ~a%~'eliver Suc-~-~perty or order such money paid to the true owner upon pr~Q~of ownership satisfactory to the City Manager after ten (10) days notice by mail to any person who has asserted aclaim of ownership. No order for the disbursement of such money shall be made without the written order of the City Manager. If ownership cannot be determined to his satisfaction, the City Manager may refuse to deliver such property or order the payment of such money to anyone until ordered to do so by a court. Section 170:25. Claim by Finder. If the true owner does not claim~ property or money-~-r~-ng th-~x (6) month period, the City Manager deliver the property or order the money to be paid to the person delivered it to the City Manager if at the time of delivery such person indicated in writing that he wished to assert a claim to the property or money as a finder. Unclaimed, lost and abandoned property found by City employees during the time that they are working their normal work hours or being paid by the City shall be turned over to the City Manager. If said property is not claimed by the owner, said property shall be disposed of in accordance with Section 170:05, Subd. 4 or Section 170:30 of the City Code. Section 170:30. Transfer to General Fund. If any such money is not claimed by the true owner or finder within the six (6) month period, the City Manager shall then notify the Clerk and the money shall then be transferred to the general fund of the City. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Passed on First Reading Published in Official Newspaper A. THOiVlAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. ,..lANES D. I_ARSON. P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG M. HERTZ ROGER ,J. FELLOWS LAW OF'rICES WURST, F3EARSON, I_ARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 April 18, 1989 APR 1 195g (,E,I:~) 338.-a200 FAX N UM I~IER (~,1==) 33,B-:=625 Re: Lost Property - City Employee Dear Ed: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 17, 1989. It is my understanding that you and your children found a $100 bill which was turned over to the Police Department. It is my further understanding that at that time you conferred with Sgt. Brad Roy who indicated to you that if no one claimed.the $100 bill, it would then be yours. We have had a very similar situation which occurred back in 1981, and I asked the Attorney General for an opinion. I am enclosing herewith'a copy of my letter to Jon Elam under date of December 30, 1981, and the Attorney General's opinion dated December 28, 1981. The general rule of law is that every person who finds lost property and appropriates it for use by themselves or another without making a reasonable effort to find the owner and surrender the property to him commits theft. Lost property basically becomes the property of the finder against everyone except the true owner. It is my opinion that based upon the Attorney General's opinion 'of December 28, 1981, and the facts in this case, that you and/or your children are the finders and that you have made a reasonable effort to return the lost property to the true owner. Since those people have not come forward, the money should revert to you and/or your children and not to the general fund of the City of Mound. I might recommend that our ordinance could be improved by the addition of essentially the type of language which I have enclosed on a separate sheet. If you agree, we can go forward to work this into our ordinance. If we have City employees, park employees, and others who in the normal course of events find I?75 WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Page 2 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager April 18, 1989 lost property, and if that is going to go to the general fund rather than being reurned to the finder if the true owner does not appear, it would seem to me that we would encourage employees not to report the property, and therefore the true owner would really lose in the end. I therefore suggest that we consider adding in essence the type of wording enclosed into our ordinance. If you agree, please notify me and I will rework Section 170 of our City Code, and it should be entitled "Unclaimed and Abandoned Property." It would then take into account money which our ordinance currently does not do. Ve~ ~ truly yourS, c~rt~ff A. Pe'arson City Attorney CAP:lb Enclosures LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINN£$OTA December 30 , 1981 T£LEPMON~: Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Lost Property - City Employees Dear Jon: Last spring Bill Hudson contacted me concerning some rings which had been found by a Park Department employee. At that time, we were uncertain as to whether a city employee could make claim for these rings. I am enclosing herewith a copy of my letter of May 21, 1981, to the Attorney General. I am also enclosing herewith a copy of the Attorney General's opinion dated December 28, 1981. In essence, the opinion indicates there was no reason why the City employee cannot make a claim for these rings. On page 3 the Attorney General indicates that they are not determining questions of fact or law beyond the scope of their opinion and that depending upon the value of the items, the City may want to have the employee sue before turning over the lost property. I am not recommending such a procedure and would recommend that on the basis of this opinion, the lost rings be turned over to the city employee. The second part of my request asked whether we could include specifically in the ordinance that city employees be included or specifically excluded as claimants under the ordinance. The Attocney General has in effect indicated that if we want to amend the ordinance to include such provisions, we can do so as long as they are "non-discriminatory and consistent with employment contracts." Under the circumstances, it probably is just as well that we do nothing and leave the ordinance in its current status. I do recommend at this time that the lost items be turned over to the employee who found them and who has filed a claim with the City. CAP:Ih Enclosures cc: Chief William Hudson Vcr7. . truly yours, ) Curt±s A. Pearson, City Attorney /773 V;ARREN SPANN AU.q ATTO{~NEY GENI{ k'AI STATE (')F ,¥1INNI-:S(')I'A OFf:ICE OF THE ATTOPNE",' GENERAL ,.q'l I'AI;i. h:,l December 28, 1981 TI.:LEPHONE Mr. Curtis A. Pearson Mound City Attorney 1512 First Bank Place West .Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Pearson: This is in reply to your letter concerning the assertion of a finder's claim by an employee of the City of Mound. You state that the employee, while working in the park department and doing his normal duties, found, in one of the city parks, a bag containing several diamond rings. The employee then turned this property over to the city manager and indicated that he wished to assert a claim to the property as a finder. Six months have elapsed and the true owner has not come forward to make any claim for the property. You indicate that there are no provisions in the city administrative code or employment contracts purporting to determine the rights and obligations of a city employee in this situation. The city does, however, have an ordinance, adopted pursuant to Minn. Stat. $ 471.195,~/ which requires the city manager to make 1_/ Minn. Stat. ~ 471.195 (1980) provides in part: (1) Any city may by ordinance provide for the custody and disposal of property lawfully coming into its possession in the course of municipal operations and remaining unclaimed by the owner. Such ordinance may provide for the sale of such property to the highest bidder at public auction or sale following reasonable published notice after the property has been in the possession of the municipality for a period of at least 60 days. Consistent with other applicable statutory or charter provision, the ordinance shall designate the fund into which the proceeds of any such sale shall be placed, subject to the right of the (footnote continued) AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER . Mr. Curtis A. Pearson )age 2 December 28, 1981 provisions for receiving "found property" delivered to him in the course of municipal operations. If the true owner does not claim the property after six months, it may be delivered to 'the person asserting a claim as a finder. Your first question is whether the city employee is prohibited from making a claim to the found property. I can find no legal basis, on these facts alone, for such a prohibition. The common law rule is that lost property becomes the property of the finder as against everyone except the true owner. Erickson v. Sinykin, 223 Minn. 232, 26 N.W.2d 172 (1947); 1 Am. Jur. 2d Abandoned, Lost, Etc., Property ~ 19 (1962). No state statute purports to suspend application of this rule insofar as municipal employees are concerned nor does there appear to be any city code or employment contract provision which purports to do so. The city ordinance relating to lost property does not appear to make any distinction between finders based upon whether or not they are employed by the city. Moreover, no facts are presented concerning the employee's specific duties or the circumstances of the finding which would suggest that the ordinary law of finders of lost or abandoned property does not apply. See, e.g., Dennis v. Northwestern National Bank, 249 Minn. 130, 8] N.W.2d 254 (1957), where an unmarked envelope containing money, which was found by an attendant employee of a bank in an area set apart as the safety deposit vault, was deemed properly held by the bank as custodian for the true owner and entitled to be so held as against the claim of the employee-finder; on the other hand,__cf' Erickson v. Sinykin, supra, where plaintff's discovery of money under a rug while employed to decorate a room in defendant's hotel afforded him a valid basis for maintaining an action to recover possession thereof. The court noted that the work of a decorator is not comparable to that of, for example, a chambermaid whose duty is ordinarily to report and deliver to the employer any articles found by her in order that restoration may be made to the owner. Finally, prohibitions against the gratuitous award of public property or funds to public employees would not seem to be contravened by recognizing an employee's valid common law finder's claim to property where the city would have no entitlement thereto (footnote continued) former owner to payment of the sale price from the fund upon application and satisfactory proof of ownership within six months, of the sale or such longer period as provided by ordinance. Mr. Curtis A. Pearson Page 3 December 28, 1981 · as against the finder. This conclusion is consistent with Op. Atty. Gen. 359-A-17, June 23, 1924, which concluded that the University of Minnesota had no interest, either as owner or otherwise, in money found by its workmen while tearing down a house on land owned by it. Although there is a split of authority, it has been held in some jurisdictions that a police officer who finds lost property is not entitled thereto as against the city or other governmental agency employing him; see 36A C.J.S. Finding Lost Goods S 5d (1961). However, the two cases cited appear to reach this conclusion primarily upon an analysis of the police officer's duties in the particular employment relationship. No attempt is, of course, made herein to determine whether the employee in question has a valid common law finder's claim as against the city inasmuch as this involves questions of fact and law beyond the s~gpe of opinions of our office. Op. Atty. Gen. 629-a, May 9, 1975.~/ Your second question is whether the city's lost property ordinance may be amended to either specifically include or exclude city employees as claimants thereunder. In my view this subject may be addressed by a reasonable, non-disriminatory ordinance amendment which is consistent with any employment contract provisions which may be applicable. However, no attempt is made herein to speculate upon the specific form such an amendment should take in order to satisfy these criteria in your particular situation. Very truly yours, Special Assistant Attorney General MRG:dml Depending upo.n the value of the lost or abandoned items, the city may wish to have these issues judicially determined. CITY of MOUND 53.,.tl MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 April 17, 1989 Mr. Curt Pearson 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: In early January of this year I was out enjoying the winter weather with my children. We were walking along the lake by Halstead Bay. We came across a $100 bill. Upon finding it I took it to the Police Department and presented it to Sgt. Brad Roy, who handles abandoned property. He indicated that if no one was to claim the $100 bill over a certain period of time, the41 the $100 would be mine. At that time I thought he told me it took 90 days. Last week I asked .C. hief Len Harrell. He 'contacted B'rad, who reviewed the Section of the City Code on abandoned proper'ty; This is Section 170. It appears that the unclaimed $100 will be retained by the City. Is this true? It appears in Section 170:05, Subd. 4, that if the property is unclaimed after 60 days, it shall be sold to the highest bidder. This becomes difficult when you have a $100 bill. As I read subdivision 5 of the same section, it appears that the money will be disposed of in the General Fund. Thus, anyone who turns in abandoned property, only has the opportunity to claim it if he/she receives it at an auction. Please 'understand that I am not out to get $100 out of the City. If I had been able to receive it, I would have divided it between my son and daughter, who suggested we walk on the lake. Had I not .listened to them, I would have not found the money. It appears that this money should be placed in the General Fund. · ' Is that correct? Please advise at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager ES:ls A'. ecua og:.ort~rnty Employer that does no', d~$cr*mmat¢~ on the bas~s of race. color ,~a!~oraI O',,_~m. dr r, ar,~ ca~oe.J status ir~ the adrr,~$$10h or actress to, er treatm~r,t or employment m, A. T~OMA$ WURST, P.A. Ct,J~'l'~$ A. ~£AR$ON, THOMAS F". UND£1~WOOD, P.A. C~AIG ~. ROG~'R O. F£L'OW$ LAW OF'F'ICES WURST, PEARSON, L.AR$ON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST NIINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540=. May 2, 1989 EC'O $ lgBg Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Knives in School Ordinance Dear Ed: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 26, 1989, requesting we prepare this ordinance. I have reviewed the existing code, and we do have an ordinance against deadly weapons, but Len Harrell indicates that does not cover the ordinary pocket knife. Apparently in this case that is the problem the school is trying to address. We have prepared the ordinance in the same form as submitted by Mr. Harrell. Very~rul y yours, City Attorney LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 April 24, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle ~ Len Harrell~ Knives in the school ordinance I have received a request from Mary Alexander of Grandview Middle School requesting that the citY assist them by enacting an or- dinance restricting knives on school property. Ms. Alexander re- lated that more and more youngsters are being found to be carry- ing knives to school and there is a concern for children's safety. There have been a couple of incidents that have raised concern over serious injuries occurring. I have attached a copy of Minneapolis' ordinance (393.51) regulating knives in schools as an example of what is requested. The ordinance could be added to Section 905:00 Weapons of the city ordinances under subdivision 5.5. To'~ Le'n .aarrel! FROH: Hary Alexander As per-our.conversation,. I am'-'-'"-- enclosing a copy of the Hinneapolis. Code. as to Weapons ~ ...,., .-:- · ~:~; -...., .,. , '- .,.-.. - .,,,: .. -~; ,.':-,~-.-.~'. ..... ~ ! . i,:.:;;:][L.:;.'ii:li..~i:,..:t ~..--..::.-:t.-.~:; .'.. _i :.: :..:;~:'.' ..- .:.. "' not apply to [::~".';':.':'"~:"- '--..~':-':;:>~ '.- ~-'.:;[---?"-- :' . ' le engaged :': ;':/:"~"':':"-":~! '.:%./h' '.~ t-: :(:.'.. .! end., § 8 · :- "-'-";'"] ' '. :~ '".:- ' ':~' --: ': J ".'~"'Y: :":.-.' ' ..... 393.$1. Possession of l~nlves in schools. It shall be '. '...e!~.-~:~. ful for any person to be in possession of, car~, trauspor~ ~.:,~..:~ .- control any knife in any school building, on the grounds ~ school building, in any school parking area or on public streets, sidewalks a~acent thereto except where such knives are used or as a par~ of any instructional activi~ carried on in the used in the preparation or consumption of food in an~ lun~-";~:.[.' ".~.:'..:'~?_- cafeteria, snack bar, or other place where food ~s custo~,,fll.~,t: prepared or served, or when ~ed ~s a tool b~ a person authori~i~?[.'-~;~;~'-"' to perform construction, repair or maintenance ser~dces on s:h~li-~i. property. ($3.0r.241, § 1, 9.30-83) :[~[~:.".i ~-'.~_ · · · ' ar~ ~93.60. Sale, g~ or delivery of weapons ---munition. It shall be unlawful £or any person within city to sell, give or deliver to any person: . (a)Any weapon. ,prohibited under section 393.50, ~ml ;.:;'":' the weapon t~ be received is a military-type assault weapon and the person to receive the weaP°l/~i'-'::':':,~'-:'.'''~ -:-. ........ ~:.-,¥'. has secured the perrmt provided m section 393.90. · ...,;I?.;2~';; (b) Any ~rearm or ammun/tion for such firearm 1i person is:.'. .;. :' '~?,.'.:.._: ::'-~-i'-;~. -.--'~ ~----...~,?:,:. - ..~.~. (1) Under the age of eighteen (18) 2ears if the ~-e~'~?~C'~.:-~.~i:ii'. is a long gun or under the age of twenty-one (211; ~.-_-.:.?~1~,-:~ -.: years if the firearm is a handgun, except legitimate firearm activities set forth in 393.40(d) or unless the recipient shall qu ; ' :'"i::':':i:- under section 393.$0(a). ...,~,::~-.. ~! A, THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P.A. CRAIG H. HERTZ LAW OFFICES ~,~~' WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ HINNEAPOLI$, MINNESOTA 55'~02 .~/ TEL£~'HONE (612) 338-2625 May 8, 1989 Ms. Jan Bertrand City Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jan: With respect to Section 1000:05, we recommend the following changes: (a) Repeal. This is covered in Code 490:05 which mandates the precollection confinement of this type of material. (b) Repeal. Ail animals are prohibited from running at large in.Code 456:10, and the confinement of diseased animals is covered in Code 456:20. (c) Repeal. Accumulations of stagnant water are covered in 1000:05(1). (d) This section is being retained because the 24 hour limit is not in the refuse section. (e) Repeal. This is covered in Code 490:05 (refuse) and Code 23.703 (exterior storage). (f) Repeal. This is covered in the refuse regulations, Code 490:05 Subdivision 2 and 3. -(g) Repeal. This is covered by Code 23.708.3. (h) Repeal. This is covered in Code 1000:15 (n). (i) Repeal. This is covered in Code 23.708.2. (j) Revise. M.S. 144.4172 defines communicable disease. We recommend a change from "contagious disease" to "communicable disease as defined in M.S. 144.4172." and combine with (n). (k) Repeal. This is covered in Code 23.708.1. (1) Retain. WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Ms. Jan Bertrand May 8, 1989 Page 2 (m) Repeal. Covered by Code 23.708.1. (n) Combined with (j). (o) Repeal. Covered by Code 240.00. (p) Revise to include city property. We have added a paragraph in the revised Section 1000:05 which is intended to prevent the keeping of wild animals within the city. With respect to Section 1000:10, we recommend that the section be retained as is. Some of the activities covered, such as gambling, are covered by state statute, and the county attorney and/or the attorney general have jurisdiction to prosecute violations. We have found that it is beneficial to retain this type of back-up ordinance for those cases where the city wants to act but the county or state are reluctant to prosecute. With respect to Section 1000:15, we would have the following comments and recommendations: (a) Retain. (b) Repeal. Well covered by Code 23.714. (c) Retain. (d) Repeal. Covered by Code 23.708.1. (e) Retain. There is some overlap with the Building Code where the activity is one requiring a permit. There may be some activities which do not require a building permit which we may wish to regulate. (f) Revise to include radio and television towers and satellite dishes. (g) Retain. (h) Retain. This may overlap slightly with the sign ordinance but we recommend no change. (i) Retain. (j) Repeal. Repeal. Prohibited by Code 23.415(2). Covered by Code 1000:15(2). WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & HERTZ Ms. Jan Bertrand May 8, 1989 Page 3 (1) Retain. (m) Retain. Overlaps with the exterior storage ordinance, Code 23.702 but this addresses health concerns which may or may not be eliminated by screening required under 23.702. (n) Retain. (o) Retain. (p) Repeal. Covered by the sign ordinance, Code 365. (q) Retain. Motive is always difficult to prove, but we recommend retaining this provision. (r) Retain. We believe that this is a bit broader than the building code and the hazardous building code and therefore may fill in any gaps between the two. (s) Repeal. We believe that the building and zoning code cover these matters. (t) Repeal. (u) Repeal. (v) Repeal. (w) Repeal. (x) Retain. (y) Repeal. (z) Retain. (aa) Repeal. Covered by the fire code. Covered by the building and fire codes. Covered by the fire code. Covered by Code 23.708.1. Covers dead trees of all varieties. Covered by the hazardous building provisions. We believe this section is too vague to be enforceable. (bb) Retain. (cc) Retain. Mound does have waters which are outside LMCD jurisdiction. (dd) Repeal. Since violations of 1015:10 and 1015:15 are misdemeanors, we see no need to declare the violation a nuisance. (ee) Retain. /7~ WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ Ms. Jan Bertrand May 8, 1989 Page 4 (ff) Retain. (gg) Retain. (hh) Retain. (ii) Retain. (j j) Retain. (kk) Repeal. We believe this provision is too vague and therefore, unenforceable. We have prepared and attached an ordinance which repeals the existing Section 1000 in its entirety and replaces it with a revised Section 1000 which retains the concepts discussed above. Please circulate the proposed ordinance among the department heads, together with this letter so that we may have the benefit of everyone's thoughts on the revision. Very truly yours, ( James D. Larson JDL:lkg cc: Mr. Curtis A. Pearson Mr. Ed Shukle #131/Larson AN ORDINANCE REPEALING SECTIONS 1000:05, 1000:10, AND 1000:15 RELATING TO NUISANCES AND ABATEMENT IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND REPLACING THEM WITH REVISED SECTIONS 1000:05, 1000:10, 1000:15 RELATING TO NUISANCES AND ABATEMENT. The City of Mound does ordain: 1. Sections 1000:05, 1000:10, 1000:15 relating to nuisances and abatement are hereby repealed in their entirety. 2. The following Sections 1000:05, 1000:10, relating to nuisances and abatement are hereby adopted: 1000:15 Section 1000:05. Public Nuisances Af.fectin~ Health. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting health: (a) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death; (b) The keeping of any animal over six months of age which has not been vaccinated against rabies with an approved vaccine as determined by the official Comprehendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the Conference of State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center for Disease Control of the Department of Health and Human Services. (c) Ail public exposure of persons having a communicable disease as defined in Minn. Stat. Section 144.4172, and any building, conveyance, or place where contagion, infection, filth or other source or cause of communicable disease exists; (d) Accumulations of stagnant water, manure, or rubish whiCh are likely to become breeding places for flies, mosquitoes or vermin; '(e) Depositing manure upon any city street, city sidewalk, or city property. Section 1000:10. Public Nuisances Affectinq Morals and ~S~S~- The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (a) Ail gambling devices, slot machines, and punch boards; (b) Betting, bookmaking, and al'l apparatus used in such occupations; (c) Ail houses kept for the purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse, gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy houses; (d) Ail places where controlled substances, narcotics, or intoxicating liquor is manufactured or disposed of in violation of law or where, in violation of law, persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor or use of controlled substances or narcotics, or where intoxicating liquor, controlled substances, or narcotics are kept for sale or other disposition in violation of law, and all liquor, controlled substances, and narcotics and other property used for maintaining such a place; (e) Any vehicle used for the transportation of intoxicating liquor, or for promiscuous sexual intercourse, or any other immoral or illegal purpose; (f) The use of any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure for any activity listed in (a) through (d) above. Section 1000:15. Public Nuisances Affecting Peace and Safety. The following are declared to be public nuisances affecting public peace and safety: (a) Ail snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; (b) Ail wires and limbs of trees which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles, and all limbs of trees closer to the street surface than 15 feet and all limbs of trees closer to the surface of a sidewalk than 8 feet; (c) Obstructions and excavations affecting the orginary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks, or public grounds except under such conditions as are permitted by this Section or other applicable law; (d) Radio aerials, radio towers, television antennae, television towers or satellite dishes erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (e) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free uses of the streets or sidewalks; (f) Ail hanging signs, awnings, and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks, so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained as provided by this Section; (g) The allowing of rain water, ice, or snow to fall from any building or structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (h) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (i) Accumulations in the open of discarded or disused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies, or other material, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin, or to fire, health, or safety hazards from such accumulation or from the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated; (j) Noxious weeds, as that term is defined in Section 18.171 of Minnesota Statutes, and any excessive growth of other weeds; excessive growth of weeds means weeds or grass which are 12 inches or more in height; (k) Any wire, except clothes line wire, which is~strung less than 15 feet above the surface of the ground; (1) Any fence or other structure maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property; (m) Ail buildings, walls, and other structures which have been damaged by fire, decay, or otherwise, and which are so situated as to endanger the safety of the public; (n) Ail dead standing trees which present a hazard to life or property, all elm or other trees found harboring the Dutch elm beetle, all dead standing elm wood, and all cut elm or other wood found harboring Dutch elm beetle; (o) Ail dangerous, unguarded machinery, including derelict · autos, derelict boats, and derelict refrigerators and freezers, in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; (P) Swimming in a channel or jumping or diving from a channel bridge; (q) Operating any water craft, motor vehicle, or powered device, or propelled device, on the open water, or upon the ice of a body of water, in such a manner as to endanger life, limb, or property; (r) Standing upon any street bridge or railroad bridge for purposes of fishing therefrom; (s) Causing to be made any fire on any public beach area or park except in fireplaces designated for that purpose; /7~ (t) (u) (v) (w) Any well, hole, or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in such other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child coming on the premises where it is located; Obstruction to the free flow of water in a natural waterway or a public street drain, gutter, or ditch with trash or other materials; The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk, or other public property of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles, or other substance which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over such substance; The depositing of garbage or refuse on a public right- of-way or on adjacent private property. ~ayor Attest: City Cl'erk' ..... ~d~opt~ed .... PubliS'~ed {~{ Offic'i~l Newspa'p-er For May 23, 1989 Council Meeting May 12, 1989 Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following Permits for the June 10, 1989 Fish Fry. Please waive the fee on two of them as indicated. Approval contingent upon all required form, insurance etc. being turned in. Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Set-Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Mound City Days -- June 8,9,10,11, 1989 requests the following Permits along with Waiving the Fees. Merchant Sales Concessions Craft Shows Carnival Fireworks BILLS ~MAY 23,.1989 BATCH 9052 BATCH 9053 80,798.83 I00,511.80 SuPerAmerica ICBO ICBO gasoline certificate manual renewal 870.85 32.50 I0.40 Total Bills 182,224.38 AB~ ABDO & EICK A0060 5/18/89 5/18/89, ~ESR TOTAL ACRO-N'~ B0540 5118/89 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL BATHK~ COMPANY BO~J)O BILL CLARK. OIL COM2ANY B0600 5/18/~ 5118/89 VEN[~TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 '¢ENDOR TOTAL BLACKOWI~ Ahq) ~ B0601 BLACK'S PHOTOGRAPHY 5/18/89 5/18/~ VIE)4DOR TDT~ 5/18/89 5/18/89 VI&~DOR TOTAl_ C0960 PURC. HASE' AMOUNT 1,024. oo ~1.00 ~'0.00 330,00 2,075.00 ~75,00 17.83 9.03 33,36 9.03 9.03 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 131 ,~ ~.11 13.59 269.57 269.57 7.50 7.50 12.50 27.50 89.65 89.65 89.65 50.00 34.50 40,00 124.50 124.50 42.50 42.50 42.50 54.86 14.59 24.89 7.58 .89 44.79 35.00 I8.81 F_,ESu-'RIPTION 88 AUDIT ~8 Ab~IT 88 AUDIT 88 AUDIT dR, hq.-CD OFFI~ SUPPI. IES DFFICE SL~:N:N_ I ES OFFICE SUPPLIES DFFICE SUF'"PL IES OFFICE SUPFN. IES DFFI~ SUPFi_IES DF)ri(DE St~D~IES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES CDMJ:N. ITER PAPER BINDERS, INDEXES ~S APR OXYGEN ~ OXYGEn4 APR OXYGEN ~-CD GREASE-OIL JR)~-CD APR GARBAGE APR GARBAGE APR GARBAGE JRNL-CD BOOKING FILM dRIP-CD ~R HOWE S~FN. APR ~WE' SbT4M. APR HDWE APR ~WE Sb?PL APR ~ St~F4. CLEAR CONTACT CLE~ CONTACT APR HD~JE SUPPL JOURNAL Ol-4.09o-313o 91-71C()-3130 73-7300-31.80 78-7erYJ-~.1~ 1010 01-4~0-21F~ 01-4-0~,~-21 O0 01-41~-2100 01-41~-2100 01-4340-2100 01-42~K)-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7~¢-21~ 78-7800-2100 01-4095-2100 01-~-2100 81-4350-2100 1010 73-7300-22(~) 78-78(X)-~00 01-4290-~00 1010 01-42~-2250 1010 71-7100-3750 22-4170-3753 01-4290-3750 1010 01-41~-~:~)0 I010 01-43A9-~00 01-434YJ-2300 01-4~0-~00 01-4290-2310 01-4280-22(~ 01-41~-~ 01-4090-2I~ 73-7~';.9-2300 PRE-PAID AMOUNT P~ 2 VB~DOR INVOICE DLE HOLD ND. IN'VOIC£ NMBR DATE DATE STATUS .'t COAST TO COAST C0990 ~OSERVICE INC CIOIO COMMUNICATION AUDITOR CI079 5/18/89 5/18/E~ VENDOR TOTAL 5118189 5118189 VENDO~ TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 VENI)OR TOTAL 5/18/~ 5/18/89 CO~INENTALTELEgHONE VE)~DORTDTAL Cl100 5118189 5/18t89 COPY I)UPLICATING PRDI)UCTS V1E]IDORTDTAL DAKOTA RAIL INC S/18/89 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL D1212 5/18/89 5/18/89 DE[DA KNOSALLA Flexo VENDOR TOTAL 5/18!89 5!18/89 VENDOR TOTAL .PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY DF I~D~-~ AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 144.35 APR HI1WE SUPPL ~5,76 JRNL-CD 345,76 2,6~J.00 APR COMPUTER MINT 907.00 APR COMPUTER LEASE 3.91.00 JRNL-CD 162.88 PAGER REPAIR 162.88 JR.-CD 162.88 62.63 TELEPHONE 118.56 TELEPHONE 31.32 TELEPHOi~E 63.38 TELEPHONE ~1.20 TB.EPHa~ 1.03 TELEPHONE. 1.02 TELEPHOt(E 8.65 TELEPHONE 13.26 TELEPHONE 142.84 TELEPHONE. 67.70 TELEPHONE-COMPUTER 63.$? T PHONE 220.34 TELEPHONE 1,115.80 dRi4L-CI) II15.80 21.00 APR COPIER MINT 21.00 JR~-CO 21.00 408.65 RR LEASE TD 6/15 ,')04.35 RR LEASE TO 6/15 613.00 JRNL-CD 613.00 12.98 MILEAGE TO MTG 12.98 JRNL-CI) 12.9~ ~7.98 HYBRDFLUDRIDE 2C~.36 SOLENOID-BOLTS b-77.34 JRNL-CI) 577.34 76.~ DISKETTES, RIBBONS ~COUNT NU~ER ~-4170-~(Q 1010 01-40~-3800 01-4095-5000 1010 1010 0I-4~0-3o~',0 73-7300-S~Z20 78-7800-3220 01-4340-2220 01-4320-3'~ 01-41~-3220 01-4040-~ 01-4090-3-220 01-4095o3220 71-7100-3~--~'t). 22-4170-2220 22-4170-3220 01-41~-3220 1010 73-7300-39~ I010 40-6000-2~10 01-4220-~10 I010 71-7100-~'00 1010 73-730<)-2260 73-7300-~00 1010 22-4170-S'S'20 PRE-PAID A~£UNT CHE~[ ) .) VENDOR ~"'~ ~- H~ NO. INVOICE ~R DA~ [~TE STAI~JS 5/18/89 5/18/89 FENN INFO~ATION SYSTEM£ G1890 TOTAL GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD G1930 5/18/89 5/18t89 ~OR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 GOVT T~INING SEt, VICES ~R TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP ',ENDOR TOTAL I~02 IAJ'FO d2421 d & S CLEANI~ ~. do~ BREIT~ER d2600 dOYLE NELSON ¥,2720 k'ROMER CO. F2730 KUSTDM ELECTRONICS 5/18/89 5/18/~ ~ TOTAJ. 5/18/8~ 5/18189 VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 '~E)U~ORTOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 '~END(]~ TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/,S9 ~OR TOTAL A~OUNT 76,50 76.50 21.15 35.10 6.~ 2.~ 2.84 68.85 520.00 340.00 505.4~ 1 ,?v~5.46 13&5.46 33.00 590.00 590.00 5~.00 389.30 389,30 389.30 15.02 21.~ 21.40 83.48 ~.48 83.48 1.605.00 1 1605. O0 DES~IPTICN JR~-CD APR WATER COOLER ~R WATER APR WAll~ ~ APR WATER ~R WATER ~ ACHIEV EXCEL-BOSTR.HLELSN PISTOL-htK]{E'TT CONSULT-PLAN SE~ION 1/89 dR~.-CD TUBING JRNL-CD PI. MB RE~_ARCH DIRECTLY . MAY JANITOR SERVC oI~XL-CD PLMB INSP dRNL-CD RECYCLE MTG EXP RECYCLE MTG ~P dR~.-CD AIR, OIL FILTERS ~DAR UNIT dRNL-CD ACCOUNT I010 F?~-PAID AMOU)~ 01-4140-4100 01-4090-~00 01-42~0-~ 73-7300-~00 78-7800-22C~ 1010 01-4140-4110 01-4140-4110 01-4020-4110 I010 01-4280-~10 1010 01-4190-4170 1010 01-4320-4210 1010 01-4190-3100 1010 01-4270-4110 01-4270-41~ 1010 01-4140-2210 I010 01-4140-5~00 1010 CHEC' · .) PAGE AP-C02-01 VDIDDR INVOICE DUE HOLD ND. INVOICE N~iBR DATE I)A~ STATUS L2747 GAS E~IPMENT L..~IO LANO EOUIHiENT I~ 5/18/89 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL 5118189 5118189 VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/15/89 LEAO~ ~ ~ CITIES I~ T* VEND(~I TOTAL !.2851 5/18/89 5/18/89 LEAGUE ~ MN CITIES I~ T* VENDOR TOTAL LEONAP, I) HARRELL L2921. LDREN KO~ L=X730 5/18/89 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/8~ 5/18/89 VIENI)OR TOTAL 5/18/8~ 5/18/89 LDWqE'U.'S ALITDHDTI~/ZITCO* VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 LUTZ TREE SERVI~ VE),LI~]R TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY DF MOL~4D AMOUNT 20.52 20.52 20.52 1,200.00 1,200.00 1200.00 664.17 664.17 96.77 3,~4.45 ~64.t7 3,905.83 371.67 147,35 991,85 3,767.27 1,396.48 2,749.03 2,749.03 21,~92.24 2199'2.24 774.00 2,474.00 3,248.00 40.00 ~.~ 40,00 240.00 240.00 240.00 19.74 461 21.80 502.94 502.94 1 ,~5.00 200.00 300.00 1,705. O0 DESCRIPTION 20~ LP TANK JPO'~-CD AUGER JR,iL-CD 2.Nl) INSTALLMT-INS ~D INST~-I~ 2ND INSTALLMT-INS 2ND INSTAJ_LMT-I~ 2ND INSTALLMT-I~ 2ND IN~TALLMT-IN8 90 INSTALLMT-INS 2ND INSTALLMT-I~ 2ND INSTALLMT-I~ ~ INSTALLMT-I~ 2ND I~TALLMT-I~ 2~ INSTALl. MT-INS 7.ND INSTALLMT-INS dF, OiL-CD ~ WC AUDIT ~ WC AUDIT JRii.-CI) EXP-1ST RESPDND-HARRPl I JR,-CD 2-3-4 INSPECTIONS dF~tL-CI) APR PARTS APR PARTS APR PARTS JRI~.-L'I) TREE FEMOVAL-CO~ I'REE F~'~'AL-CDMMONS-F INCH TREE REMOVAL-TO BE ASSESSED JRNL-CD 1705.00 ACCOUNT 73-7300-230~ 1010 81-4350-53C,0 1010 01-4040-3610 01-4~)90-~10 01-4110-3610 01-4140-~10 01-4190-3610 01-4280-~10 01-4290-3610 01-4~Z0-3610 01-4340-3610 22-4170-3610 71-7100-~10 73-7300-~10 78-7800-3610 1010 01-4140-3600 78-7800-3600 1010 O1-4140-4110 I010 01-4190-3100 1010 22-4170-2200 01-4290-2310 01-4290-2310 1010 81-4350-5110 $1-4-~0-5110 01-1190-0000 I010 PRE-PAID ~OUNT C~CK ) P~SE 5 AP-D02-O! V6NDOR I~¢VOICE Db~ HOLD Nq]. INVOICE ~&MBR DATE DA~ STA?dS L2~50 LYMAN LUHBEtR CO ~010 MARINA AUTO SbI~PLY M3040 MASYS CORPORATION M3060 MARTIN'S NAVA~E 66 M3080 5/18/89 5/18!~ VE],IDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 ~ TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 VENDDRTOTAL 5/18/8~ 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 RODS ASSSCI* VEltOO(~ TOTAL MID-C~(TRAL iNC M3250 5/18/~ 5/18/~ VEIqI~3R TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY~MD~5 AMOU)~F [ESCRIPTION 130.42 LUMBER 130.42 JRNL-CD 130.42 10.75 APR ~E 49.76 GAS CANS-~ ~4.75 APR HI)WE 355.26 _J~NL-CD 255.26 1~.00 E)~ORS ~INT-~ 1~.00 JRNL-CD 135.00 2,072.66 TOW & STORAGE-AUCTI~ 2,072.66 JRNL-CO 2072.66 440.00 ~ ENK~R-CO 110 STRT 212.00 ~R ENGR-DE)4~I~ ~.00 APR Ellb"R- 210.00 ~R EI~3R-CBD 90.00 APR ~-WTR I)Et~T 120.00 APR ENGR-CODDON 150.00 APR ENG,-LOST 76.00 APR ENGR-89 SEAL COAT 8~8.50 APR ENGR-79 ST EASE)lENT l,O&S.O0 APR ENGR-C ~ ADI)ll~ ~0.00 ~ ENGR-CD 15 & CROSS:WALK 136.00 APR ENGR-CATALyST ESCR 60.00 APR E]~GR-SETDN PLC 30.00 ~ E)~-SHAW~IELSDN ESCR 4~.00 APR ENGR-~ Bt. DO 5,060.50 JRNL-CI) 5060.50 2,447.~ FIRE CABINE'TS-~ 2,447.56 ~NL-CD 2447.56 ~.21 APR GAS ' 273.01 APR 113.5'/ APR GAS 133.61 APR GAS 86.85 APR GAS ~1.~ APR ~S 54.$~ APR GAS ACCB. INT NU.~ER 01-4340-~00 1010 01-4290-~10 60-6000-~--"'~ ,~-4170-~00 1010 01-4095-3800 1010 01-3842-0000 I010 01-4280-3100 01-4280-3100 60-6000-3100 4~7-60(K)-3100 73-7300-3100 01-41~0-3100 01-4190-3100 01-4190-3100 27-5800-3100 26-5700-3100 01-~320-3100 66-6000-3100 01-2300-0905 01-2300-0961 01-2300-0971 01-2300-0970 1010 60-6000-50(0) 1010 01-4340-3720 01-4~"'20-37~ 01-4~0-3720 73-7300 -3720 78-7800-37~ .'~-4170-37~ 71-7100-2720 Fi:E-PAID A~HOUNT /2'o/ '.) .D iD .) .) PAGE 6 AF'-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL C!TY~ ~6J VENDOR INVOICE [~ HOLD ND. Ih¥OICE NMBR [aTE CATE STA?dS ~IOUNT 5/18/89 5115189 ~.36 MIr8(EGASCD VENDD~ TOTAL 892..36 M3289 112.40 5/18189 5115/89 112.40 MN CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY VENI~]R TOTAL ~70 5/18/89 5/18/89 MN VALLEY' TESTING LABORATD VENDOR TOTAL M3510 5/I0/89 5/18/89 MDUND MEDICAL CLINIC VENDOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 N C E VENDOR TOTAL N3710 NAVARRE HARDWARE N3740 5/18/~ 5/18/89 VENDOR TOTAL 5118189 5/18/89 VE]'4DOR TOTAL 5/18/~ 5/18/89 NEWMAN SIGNS N3770 NORTH STAR WATERWORKS FI~I]* VENDOR TOTAL 112,40 44.00 44.00 44.00 497.00 4?7. O0 497.00 74.47 74.47 74.47 8.49 5.49 11 25.06 25.06 62.~ 62.88 ~2.88 196.48 196.48 196.48 ~ 210.~ 107.78 324.64 303.60 184.13 2,399.56 1,540.70 5/18/89 5/18/89 5,070.75 NORTHEI:Ut STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL 5070.75 N3:'~2 4,74-0.07 5/18/89 5/18/89 4.7~0.07 NORT~4 STATES POWDER VEh~DOR TOTAL 47~0.07 DESCRIPTIGN ~,NL-C)'I VALVE I~T,KNEE BDDT JRNL-CD WATER TESTS dRNL-CD PHYSICALS-PALM, PALIL,FISK ~NL-CI) BATTERIES aU'(.-CD ~OVES VALVE JRNL-CD NO TRESSP SI{~, JRNL-CI) APR ELECTRICITY APR ELECTRICITY APR ELECTRICITY APR ELECTRICITY APR ELECTRICITY ~ ELECTRICITY APR ELECTRICITY ~Y ELEC JRNL-CD ACCOL~FF NUMBER 1010 22-4170-2270 1010 73-7300-3100 1010 22-4170-3140 1010 22-4170-~00 1010 01-4280-~40 01-4280-2200 78-7800-2200 I010 01-4280-2360 1010 73-7300-~00 1010 01-4280-3710 01-4340-3710 01-4320-3710 71-7100-3710 22-4170-3710 73-7300-3710 78-7800-3710 1010 01-4280-3710 1010 PRE-PAID AFfLiCT PAGE 7 AP-C02-O1 II~]ICE DLE HOLD NO. INVOICE I~,R DATE DATE STATUS PURCiHASE' CITY OF ~b?EI AMOUNT [E~RIPTION JOURN'AL ACCOU~ NUM-~ PRE-PAID AMOUNT .) ..) P4031 PHYSICIANS DF ~ R4244 RIGS AND SQUADS S4430 SOS MINTING S44~ SPIAA S4600 STREIO4ER'S S4610 SLE)UP, BAN TIRE CO $4640 SUF~ CYCLE T4742 TECHNIFLOW, INC. T4770 5/18/89. 5/18/89 VEND~ TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/89 VE]hi]~]R TOTAL 5/18/89, 5/18189 VENIK]R TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18189 VENI)ORTOTAL 5/18/89 '5/18/89 VENIX]R TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18/~ VENI'~TOTAL 5118189 5118189 VENBORTDTAL 5/18/89 5/18/8~ VEKDDRTDTAL 5/18/89 5/t8/8~ THURK BROS CHEVROLET T4840 TO~ ROCKV~ T4890 VENBOR TOTAL 5/18/89 5/18!G9 VEND08 TOTAL 5/18/~ 5/18/,~ 129.00 6-7-8 HOSP-W~TS 129.00 6-7-8 HOSP-R THARAL 1~.65 dlJ)E HDSP--M IltARAL 441.65 dI~4L-CD 441 39.75 FF._PLACE RELAY ~844 89.~ dRNL-CD 89.75 48.7~ MEDICAL FDP~ 25.30 STAM2 74,05 JRNL-CD 74.05 150.00 RETRAIN CDNF-SPIAA 150.00 JRNL-CD 150.00 44.30 BULBS 44.30 JRNL-cD 44.30 33.73 TIRE 33.73 JRNL-CI) 33.73 3,687,80 APR RECYCLE SF_RV 3,687.8O JRNL-CD ~.,87.80 225.00 TELEVISE IS ~ ~'~5. O0 dRNL-CI] 11.74 SWITCH 11.74 JRNL-CD I1.74 ~5.00 INSTALL DOC]( 225.00 dRNL-CB 22'5.00 22.56 BAL OF FRT-PD 8121 ~.56 dRNL-CD 71-7100-1510 01-4140-1510 01-4140-1510 1010 01-4140-?~10 I010 22-4170-3140 22-4170-2100 1010 01-41~-4110 1010 01-4140-~) 1010 01-4340-2310 1010 01-4270-4200 1010 78-7800-4290 1010 01-4290-2310 1010 01-4340-3~00 1010 01-43~-~O0 1010 ~ ~ MUELLER ~ SONS VENDOR TOTAL ' 0 /~0~ ~RST-~-LARSON VE]'$1:]~, TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF ""'' AMOUNT DES~iPTI~N 22.56 179.62 CHAIR MAT 179.62 JRNL-CD 179.62 77,95 42" LIVE. TRAP 77.95 ,JRNL-CD 7'/.95 23.17 JP, M.-CD ~.17 1,241.00 WAFTA DUES 1,241.00 JRNL-CO 1241.00 570.00 5'EBVI~-~ TA~9 570.00 JRNL-CD 570.00 69.13 ~IL MTG ~ 53.37 COFFEE 33.52 SOFTSOAP 15~.02 ,.I~-CD 156.02 157.50 2193 CANARY 8':Y2.50 ~ STOPS 1,0~.00 ,JRb~-CI) 1~0.00 5,37.94 ~IFO{~M-NICQJM 53%94 JRNL-CD 537.94 5,0%.77 660,2 T EtICK,~OT 5,096.77 JRhl.-CD 50%.77 2,057.00 APR F~13SECLSIDN 2,057.00 dRNL-CI) 2057.00 01-4090-~.;0 1010 01-4140-2200 1010 22-4170-~00 01-42~0-2310 1010 22-4170-41.30 1010 73-7300-4200 1010 01-4-020-::~'~X} 01-4280-2200 01-4320-2200 1010 73-7300-3800 73-7300-3800 1010 01-4140-~ I010 27-5800-~40 1010 01-4110-3120 1010 PRE-pAID AMOL~fT PAGE .9 P U R C AP-C02-01 CITY VENOOR I~VOICE DLE HOLD PR~-PAID NO. INVOICE NM, BR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT [ESCRIPTtON ACCOUNT NUMB~ A~DUNT CHEC~ X5-750 5.~.8~ APR MAINT-5600 01-4~0-3800 5/I8/87 5/15/¢q? 535,8~ dF,~L-CD 1010 XEROX COP~:~]RATION VENDOR TOTAL Z5850 142.00 CHAIN.HAMMER 01-4~0-27~ 5/18/8~ 5/18/~ 142.00 ~-CB 1010 Z~'S I~ ,~ TOT~ 142.00 TOTAL ~ VENL'~ORS 80,7~.83 ' F'~ 1 AP-C02-01 VENDOR Ib~OICE DUE HOLD NO. IN~q3iCE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A0360 PRE-PAID ..) 5/17/89 5/17/89 APACHE PAPER CO VENDO~ TOTAL B0549 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17189 BELLBOY CDRPDRATIDN VENDDR TOTAL B0580 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 BIU. (3.ARK OIL CD~P~Y VENDDR TOTAL C0888 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 CITY CDUNTY CREDIT UNIDN VENDDR TDTAL C0920 PRE-PAID CIl') OF MOUND C1001 CD~MISSIONER OF ~t-VENUE 5/17/~9 5/17/89 PRE-PAID 5117189 5117189 VENDOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 PRE-PAID 5/17/B9 5/17/89 VENDOR TDTAL PURCHASE CITY DF ~UNT 42.31 42.31 42.30 42.30 42.30 21.15 21.15 21.15 21.15 296.12 296.12 599.16 599.16 599.1& 1,240.38 1,240.38 1240.38 2,925.00 .25 .25 4.30 4.66 12.60 2.63 5.00 3.61 13.25 1.06 2.10 40.00 1.00 90.71 38.06 38.06 12B.77 2,072.16 2,0':'-'/2.16 64,27 5,225.~ 5,291.82 7~.~ [ESCRIPTION PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TOWELS PAPER TO~..LS LIQ JRNL-CD GASOLI~ JP, NL-CD CR UNION 4/29 PR JRNL-CD STAMP-P/C STAI~-P/C POSTG-P/C SPLIT RAIL-P/C MAILBOX PDST-P/C BATl~IES-P/C BLUEPRINTS-P/C POSTG-P/C BAKERY-P/C CARI)-P/C INFDRMANT-P/C SHDRT-PETTY CASH REPLEN P/C-P/I. ICE SIT 4/29 PR JRNL-CI) APRIL SALES TAX APRIL SALES TAX JUt-CD JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4040-2200 01-4090-C~00 01-4140-2200 01-4190-~%200 01-4340-~00 01-4280-2200 71-7100-~00 73-7300-~00 78-7800-2200 1010 PRE-PAID AMOt.~T 296.12 71-7100-~510 1010 599.18 01-1250-0000 1010 1240.38 2941( 01-2040-000/) 1010 2941{ 01-4190-3210 81-4350-3210 01-4280-3210 01-4280-2300 01-4280-2300 01-4i~0-4100 0i-4190-2120 73-7300-3210 01-4040-4100 01-4040-4100 01-4280-4100 01-4140-4100 01-40~0-41~ 1010 01-41~0-2200 1010 90.71 2943 01-2~)40-0000 I010 73-3592-0000 71-3592-0000 1010 5291.82 .') .) .) .Y AP-C02-O! VE~;~R I?~JOICE [~JE HD~ NO. INVOICE t~MB~ DATE DATE ~TATUS D1219 DELBERT RUt]OLPH D1225 PRE-PAID 5/17189 5117189 RE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17189 %~E~]R TOTAL PRE-PAID DE].TA DE]~[TAL 5/17189 5/17/89 VEN[~]R TOTAL PRE-PAID 5117189 5117189 PR~-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 F4RE-PAID ED ~III I~.& ~NS oi o GAME TIME G1840 C-lINE PA~TS CO G19~ 5/17/89 5/17/89 PRE-PAID 5117189 5117189 VENIX]RTOTAL PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 VENDOR TOT~ PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 VENDOR TOTAL PRE-PAID 5/17/~ 5/17/~ GREAT ~ST LIFE ~L'E '/E?E~R TOTAL G1971 F~E-PAID PURC.HASE' JOURNAL CITY ~ MOL~D AMDUNT [E~CRIPTION 490.00 5~ O~NTRACT HOLI~ 490.00 JRNL-CD 327.44 37 CONTRACT HOURS 9.~ MILEA[~ 347.12 ,.IR.t,I.-CO ~7.12 1,187.00 MAY DENTAL 14.40 MAY DENTAL-RETIREES 27.25 MAY OENTAL-RETIRC~-5 37.25 MAY DENTAL-RETIREES 51.65 MAY DENTAL-RETIREES 1,~7.~ JRNL-CD 1327.55 214.68 LIQ 6.71- DI~ 450.86 dRIL-CD 1,347.84 LIQ 242.40 WI~ 29.38- DISC 1,560.86 JRNL-CD 285.~ LIQ 440.51 WINE I0.10- DISC 716.07 ,JP, M.-CD 143.94 WINE 1.43- DISC 142.51 2870.30 19..355.26 DURASCAPE 19,355.26 JI~qL-CD 19355.26 55.12 HOSE 55.12 dRNL-CD 55,12 1,363.00 DEF COMP 4/29 PR 1,363.00 JRI'L-CD 1363.00 19.10 HDSP DED 4/~ PR ACCOUNT NL~ 81-4350-3100 1010 81-47~50-3100 81-43~--3340 1010 01-2040-0000 01-41~0-1510 01-4280-1510 01-4140-1510 71-7100-1510 1010 71-71OO-9510 71-7100-~20 71-7too-9560 1010 71-71OO-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 I010 71-71OO-9510 --71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 01-4340-50~ 1010 22-4170-2~1}0 1010 01-2040-OOO0 1010 01-2040.-0000 PRE-PAID AMDUNT 490,00 347.12 1327.55 450.86 1560.86 716.07 142.51 llr'J55.26 55.12 1363.00 CHECK ./ PAGE 3 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR I~I~ [~ ~OL~ ~, I~OI~ ~ DA~ ~ SI~S 5/17/89 5117189 PURCHASE CITY iL= ~O{JND AHOLI~f[ DESCRIPTION 19.10 JRNL-CD JOURNAL ~JNT NUMBER 1010 PRE-PAID A~OUNT 19.)" CHE~ ~ 2942 "] GROUP ~ALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL 01972 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/8~ PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 ~E'PAIO 5/17/89 5117189 GRI[~3~3 C{]]:qEI{ & COMPANYVE)8~O~ TOTAL H2145 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/~ ~ ~ ~T & ~* ~ TOT~ 5/17/89 5/17/89 ~ TOTAL PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 IO'IA RETIREI'E~ CORP ~ TOTAL d2571 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 JOri TAFFE J2579 PT{E-PAID) 5/17/~ 5/17/~ ~ T~ PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/B9 PRE-PAID 19.10 669.25 LIQ ~0.36 WI~ ~8.80- DISC 22.05 FRT 1.43~.86 dP~L-CD 227.75 WINE 4.56- DISC 4.(Y5 FRT 227.24 268.87 MIX 100.69 WINE 7.52- DISC 7.65 FRT 369.69 d~-CO 2029.79 171.~ DEl) 4/~ PR 171.~ 171 21,642.26 2,804.74 285.50 24,732.~0 24732.50 555.43 555.43 1Sl* 1/2 R.E. TA~ IST 1/2 R.E. TAX-CO 15 1ST I/2 R.E. TAX-5440 LYNWODD dRH.-CD 555.43 10~.00 1,018.72 LIQ 436.50 WINE 24.72- DISC 1,4~.50 ~-CD 1,~9.95 LIQ 6~.46 WI~ ~.31- DISC 71-710O-~10 71-710O-~20 71-7100-9~ 71-7100-96/a) 1010 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-710o-9b00 1010 71-7100-9540 71-710O-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-9600 I010 14~.86 227.24 369,69 01-2040-00O0 1010 171.5~ 01-4320-5310 ~-2~2-0O0O 60-6000-5310 1010 24732.50 01-2040-00(0) 1010 555.43 01-4340-3100 1010 01-4340-3100 I010 71-7100-~10 71-7100-~20 71-7100-9560 1010 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 7t-7100-9560 1430.50 PAGE 4 ~-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY ~ ~'JND NO. IIWOICE NMBR DA~ ~ STA~ ~90~ DE~IPTI~ 5/17/~ 5/17~ 2.~9. lO PRE-PAID 2,05ZI0 LI~ ~.00 WI~ 5/17/89 5t17!~ ,JOFI~SON ~ WI-{OLE~LE LI) ~EN~r'EY~ TOTAL d2580 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/,~®. JIlt'iSBN PAPER COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL L3817 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89'9 ~ EI~FC)(:~]EI1ENT LABDR SCR* VEI'iDDR TDTAL M3090 PRE-PAIl) 5/17/89 5/17/89 ~ CE]~ HEALTH PLAN VE~ TO[AL ~170 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 -5/17/89 ~ biASTE COhq'ROL Ci]'lMI* VENDDR TDTAL M3401 PRE,PAID 5/17/89 5/17/8'9 MN RETIREIiENI' SYSllEM VENI)DR ll]TAL M3455 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 ~ ~ L~ 321) VE]~ TDTAL FI~E-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 P E R A VENDER TOTAL P4030 PRE-PAID 5/17/89 5/17/89 I:q-IYSICI~ ~ ~ VEI'(DGt TOTAL ~171 Pt:UE-PAIO 5/17/~ 5/17I~ FI:UE-PAID 41.67- DISC 2,074.43 JRNL-CD 5744.03 241.94 BAGS 241.94 JRNL-CD 241.94 ~.00 ~)~.-CI) 39.00 87,~ HOSP DEl) 87.~ JRI,a.-CD 87.36 569.~ APRIL SAC 569.25 dRNL-CD 569.25 288.00 JRNL-CD 570.65 UNION DED 570,65 JRNL-CD 570.65 5,771,83 PERA 4/29 PR 5,791.83 JR~-CD 5791.83 438,90 HOSP DEl) 438.90 JRNL-CD 438.90 1,13~.3~ LIO 620,49 WI~ 29.01- DISC 95.00 BEER 1,825.87 J~NL-CD 1,~34.21 LID 4/~ PR 4/29 PR 4/29 PR 4/29 PR 4/~ PR ACCOUNT ~JBER PRE-PAID AMOUNT CHEQ: 1010 22C~9.10 2?4 71-7100-~10 71-7100-~20 71-7100-9560 ' 1010 71-7100-2200 I010 01-2040-0000 1010 01-2q34<)-0000 1010 78-2304-0000 I010 2074.43 294 241.94 '~ 39.00 01-2040-0(X)0 ..... I010 388.00 01-2040-0000 1010 01-2040-0000 ' 1010 01-~-0000 1010 71-7100-~I0 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-~10 5791 4~.90 1825.87 PA~ 5 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE CITY OF MOt~4D VENDOR INVOICE ~ HOLD NO. INVOICE NMB DATE DATE STATUS AiIOUNT 289.47 5/17/89 5/17/89 2,084.08 PRE-PAIl) 4,201.16 144.20 85,48- 5/17/89 5/17/89 4,259.88 QUALITY WINE & ~IRII*S VENDOR TOTAL 8169.~ R4200 PRE-PAIl) 100.00 5/17/~ 5/17/8') 100.00 R L YOUNGDAHL & AgSOCIATE$ VENDOR TDTAL 100.00 R41x'.'J8 PIUE-PAII) 50.00 5/17/89 5/17/89 50.000 ROTA-RF_SE)U~ OFFICER lPuqlNI VENI)DR TOTAL 50.00 R4259 PR~E-PAII) ~.25 5/17/89 5/17/89 6,38.25 PRE-PAID &45.88 5/17/89 5/17/89 ~45.88 ~BERT E ~ VENI)OR TOTAL 1284.13 $4500 PRE-PAIl) 9,694.20 5/17/89 5/17/89 9,694.20 STATE BAJ~( ~ MOUNI) VEIk~)OR TDTAL 9694.20 84511 PRE-PAID 418.~ 5/17/89 5/17/89 418.60 STATE FJ~Ill]L C~EI)IT ~I~ VE)4IE)R TDTAL 418.~ ~ PRE-PAIl) 14.97 5/17/89 5/17/89 14.97 ~ ~ TOTAL 14.97 Z6145 PR~E-PAII) 80.00 5/17/89 5/17/~ 80.00 LEE Pt4N 03~PIN VE]~I)OR TDTAL 80.00 l*OT~ ALI. ~ 100,511.80 I)ESCRIPTI~ WINE ~'NL -CD LIQ WINE l)ISC dl~NL-Cl) LIQ LIAB-FIS~ ~Y ~ -~OTA 69 co~rll~T ~ ~NL-CI) 67 CDNll~ACT HOL~U3 dRIi,-CO FIT 4/29 PR dRNL-CI) CR UNIDN 4/29 PR dRNL-CD I.~:~J-TDDLS UM. IMI'D REIMB-PU'~B REPAIR ~-CI) JOURNAL F'FUE~PAID ACCOUNT NUPL~E~ ~MOUNT CHED', i 71-7100-~20 71-7100-95~ 1010 ~)84.08 2~43~ 71-7100-~10 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 4259.88 29441 22-4170-3610 1010 100.00 2944t 01-2300-0220 i010 50.00 2943(, 01-4340-3100 1010 638.25 294~ 01-4340-3100 1010. '&45.$ 2943! 01-2040-0000 I010 %94,20 29411 01-2040-0000 1010 418,60 2941'. 01-4340-:)210 1010 14,9~ 2942 78-7800-3800 1010 00,00 2943 GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licences Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue REVENUE BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1989 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT APRIL 1989 APRIL YTD REVENUE 33.33% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 984315 66186 69513 914802 7.06% 965800 4000 23317 942483 2.41% 9410 455 1449 7961 15.40% 86700 6187 16584 70116 19.13% 38800 1260 5021 33779 12.94% 100000 6012 15036 84964 15.04% 16500 1590 6802 9698 41.22% 51850 392 598 51252 1.15% 2253375 86082 138320 2115055 6.14% LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND CEMETARY FUND 880000 61922 234949 645051 26.70% 330000 28200 100321 229679 30.40% 580000 45433 191352 388648 32.99% 65300 1440 58501 6799 89.59% 3050 800 800 2250 26.23% I?1/ CITY OF MOUND 1989 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES APRIL 1989 33.33% BUDGET APRIL YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 46030 3218 19970 26060 43.38% Cable TV 9980 124 8230 1750 82.46% City Manager/Clerk 143210 11271 42998 100212 30.02% Elections 650 83 185 465 28.46% Assessing 43930 38 384 43546 0.87% Finance 152760 11537 46830 105930 30.66% Computer 20000 1557 6961 13039 34.81% Legal 97100 6937 17930 79170 18.47% Police 677770 52703 222229 455541 32.79% Civil Defense 1880 0 0 1880 0.00% Planning/Inspections 128400 8362 31659 96741 24.66% Recycling 67400 2976 39352 28048 58.39% Streets 391140 96035 200306 190834 51.21% Shop & Stores 57760 5440 23928 33832 41.43% City Property 81860 7167 22837 59023 27.90% Parks 149320 12098 32738 116582 21.92% Summer Recreation 11090 0 0 11090 0.00% Contingencies 30000 559 1066 28934 Transfers 126150 9858 39534 86616 31.34% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2236430 229963 757137 1479293 33.85% Area Fire Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Docks Fund Cemetary Fund 209230 9418 60239 148991 28.79% 158810 12055 54371 104439 34.~4% 322550 27030 129644 192906 40.19% 634160 43576 197447 436713 31.14% 72240 47 52545 19695 72.74% 3950 0 584 3366 14.78% MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE I~:)UND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MAY 11, 1989 Present were= Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Cathy Bally, Tom Casey, Nail Weber, Nancy Clough, Steve Burke, Shirley Ander- sen, and Brian Asleson; Council Representative Phyllis Jessen; Park Director Jim Fackler; Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph, anQ Secretary Peggy James. The following persons were also tn attendance= Michael Blunt, Jim Shelton, Doug Roske, Martha Beystrom, Rodney Beystrom, Ed Freidlund, Ron Efkas, Bill Kullberg, Dick Meredith, Dave Babler (Westonka Snoblazers), Jane Cheisl, Mike Chats1, and Rod Plaza. Chair Byrnes called the meeting to order at 7=30 p.m. Minutes The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of April 13, 1989 were presented for changes and/or additions. MOTION made .by Casey, seconded by Bailey, to approve the Park Commission Minutes of March 9, 1989 as submitted. Mo- tion carried unanimously. Hearing for late applicatfons for abutting docks. The following persons missed.the cut-off date for submitting their dock applications: 4D~ Roske Longford Road Mike Blunt 477[ Island View Drive. Ron Eikas 9704 Cavan Jim Shelton 4608 Carlow Road Ed Freidlund 4909 Island View Drive Chair Byrnes reviewed the procedure for obtaining a commons dock with the applicants. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Asleson to extend the ap- plication cut-off date for Doug Roske, Jim Shelton, Hike 81unt, Ed Freidlund, and Ron Eikas. Motion carried unanim- ously. Park Commission Minutes May Il, 1989 Page Two Maintenance Permit: Rodney Beystrom, 4466 Denbigh Road, buildin~ 38' x 15' dock on city owned shoreline/channel. Jim Fackler, Park Director, explained that Mr. Beystrom has revised his original plan to build a dock from 38' x 15', to a 38' x 6' dock. City Code Section 437:15 states "No dock . . . shall be less than 24 inches wide or more than 48 Inches in width, and the dock shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a minimum water depth oF 36 inches." Fackler added that even though this dock is on a channel and parallel to the land, it is classified as a straight dock. Applicant, Rodney Beystrom, spoke on his behalF. He stated that he was not aware oF the 4 Foot wide rule. The existing dock Posts were rotting, so he replaced them. The previous dock was 48' x approx. 5.5'. Beystrom also stressed the amount oF labor that was involved to install the dock and the cost oF materials, he added that the posts were embedded 42" into the ground. [t is a permanent dock, one that is not removed each year. The Park. Commission confirmed that this area is not accessible For any other docks. The Commission discussed the minimum width and length and how this pertains to a "channel" dock. Weber sug- gested changing the ordinance to include a description Eot "channel" docks. The Commission directed staFF to create wordage For a description on channel docks stating the size limitations Eot this type dE dock. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Jessen to reco~nended that the dock at 4466 Denbigh Road be maintained temporarily through the end of 1989 at 38' x 6'. Motion carried ? to 2. (Those in favor: Andersen, Weber, Jessen, Byrnes, Burke, As- 'leson, and Bailey; Those opposed: Clough and Casey.) Gather citizen input re~arding Pembroke Park winter motorized vehicle access. Jane Chtesl, an abutting neighbor to the park, was present to speak on behalf of the neighborhood. She state two requests, 1) that the vehicle access at Pembroke Park be closed, and 2) that the park area be improved by leveling the grade and seeding. She added that their is City land across the street that the neigh- borhood kids also play in, and they would like a back-stop in- stalled there. Park Commission Minutes May 11, 1989 Page Three Rod Plaza, another abutting neighbor, commented on the large amount of debris left by fishermen, reckless driving, loud parties, and disturbances created by persons using the access. Mr. Plaza uses the access, however, would rather find another access and have Pembroke access closed. The neighbors complained about the police department and their lack of support with controlling disturbances at the park. The Commission explained that the police do not have jurisdiction on the water, therefore violations in a park can be difficult to en- force. However, the Commission added that they will be working with the police on the issue of motorized vehicles .in City parks. Weber questioned the boat access. He stated that the LMCD does not recognize this as an official boat access~ The Park Director stated that the City Code lists this access as a "seasonal watercraft launch area." The residents present a)l commented on the poor condition of the launch and stated that tt Is rarely used, only small fishing boats use the launch. Bt'Il Kullberg, a member of the Minnetrista Park Commission spoke against the closlng of the pembroke access. He stated that this would cause an overflow to the Minnetrista access further down on the Island. The Commission reviewed the seasonal water craft launch areas listed in City Code Section 1015:20 and concluded that Pembroke was the only access area adjoining a park. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Weber, to approve the closing of the vehicle access at Pembroke Park. Motion carried unanimously. There was discussion regarding snowmobile access, will this be allowed'? Weber confirmed that a snowmobile is a motorized vehicle, therefore they are not allowed on park property. Dick Meredith of the Westonka Snoblazers snowmobile club spoke in op- position to the closing of this access for snowmobiles. The Com- mission stressed that they would like to work with the area snow- mobile clubs to develop access areas for them. In addition, this topic will be. part of the discussion when meeting with the police department regarding the enforcement o¢ vehicles in public parks. The Commission directed staCf to inform the Westonka Snoblazers of this meeting which will be scheduled sometime in August 1989. Park Commission Minutes May Il, ]989 Page Four There was discussion regarding improvements needed in Pembroke Park such as grading and fill. Chair Byrnes suggested forming a study group Including interested residents, the Park Director, and some Park Commissioners. Casey and Asleson agreed to repre- sent the Park Commission for the Pembroke Park Study Group. was agreed that Asleson would chair the meeting. Jane Chtesl will send addresses of the interested netghl~ors to City Hal1. When a meeting date is scheduled, everyone will be notified. Discussion regarding letter From Rodrfgo Plaza reqarding commons and docks. The Commission listened to Mr. Plaza's concerns regarding commons maintenance. The Commission directed staff to notify commons dock users of their responsibilities to maintain their area by their docks. It was suggested that a article be printed In "The Laker" or in the City's quarterly newsletter reminding-commons dock holders of their responsibilities. DNR Dredge Application #89-6391 for maintenance dredging of ZO channels-tn Lake Minnetonka. MOTION made by Clough, seconded by Bailey to approve DNR Ap- plication #89-639t. Motion carried unanimously. DNR Application #89-6397 for Chapman Place Marina: l) installa- tion of docks~ 2) removal of wooden sea wall? and 3) installation of rtprap. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Casey to approve DNR Ap- plication #89-6397. Motion carried unanimously. County Road I5 (Shoreline Blvd.) Beautification up-date. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the plans for the Shoreline B1Vd'. improvements. He explained the color scheme and the plant- Ings which are being suggested. City Council Representative's Report Jessen reviewed the issues pertaining to the Park Commission From the April 25th and May 9th City Councll meetings. Park Commission Minutes May II, 1989 Page Five Park Director's Report Fackler commented that the proposed budget is on its way. There was discussion regarding the elimination of= one maintenance employee f=or the current summer due to lack o~= Income t~rom the dock program. Dock Inspector Report Rudolph reviewed the status of= the dock applications. To-date $50,170 has been received, however this is $7,000 less than ex- pected. MOTION made by Bailey seconded by Burke to adjourn the meet- ing at 10~40 p.m. Hotion carried unanimously. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADV I SORY PLANN I NG COMM l SS I ON Nay 8, 1989 Present were: Chair William Meyer, Commissioners Brad Sohns, Vern Andersen, William Thal, Kenneth Smith, and GeoFF Michael, Council Representative Liz Jansen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Ko,gl,r, Building Official Jan Bertrand; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Commissioners Frank Wetland and Jerry Clapsaddle. Also present were the Following interested persons: Dave Lanz, Nancy Lanz, Mike Ruhr, Tim Dobmeter, Jim Funk, Scott Williams, Thomas Kielty, Tom Wimler, and HarolO & Bev Chrlstianson. Chair Bill Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. MINUTES: Michael noted a change on page Five, paragraph two, within the motion, Clapsaddle should be included in the ltsttng of those in Favor of the rezoning. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen, to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 24, 1989 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS= Case No. 89-815: James & Debra Funk, 3101 Paisley Road, Lot 28, 29, 30, & 31, Block 9, Pembroke; PlO #19-117-23-33-0228. VARIANCE= side and Front yard setbacks, and lot area. Building OFFicial, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request to add a one story garage addition to their home. The proposed garage addition ts 18 Feet wide and 40 Feet deep with a setback From the north side yard of 2 Feet, and a front yard setback of 28 Feet. The required side yard setback is 10 Feet and the required Front yard setback is 30 Feet. There are two existing nonconformities, 1) the lot area should be 10,000 square Feet, however only 9,933.?1 square Feet exists, and 2) the south side yard setback should be 10 Feet, however ts only 7.5 to 8.2 Feet. Staff recommended recognizing the undersized 9,933.71 square foot lot, and the existing side yard setback of 7.5 Feet to 8.2 feet. However, staff had a concern regarding the size of the proposed garage and the 2 Foot setback. Therefore, staff recommended denial of the side yard 2 Foot setback variance. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, I 989 Page Two The Butldtng Official commented that the length o~ the garage was tO allow room for a hobby of making toy cars. She added that the applicant is concerned about the usable yard space due to the topography oF the lot. The Commission discussed some alternatives to the proposed garage. They agreed that no hardship existed due to the size of the garage being requested, for approval of a Z foot setback. The Commission suggested the applicant explore a more conforming alternative. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Sohns to table the request until the applicant sulm~tts a revised plan. Motion carried unanimously. be Case No. 89-816: Triax Midwest Assoc., 2381 Wilshtre Blvd., Lot 24, 25, 26, & 27, Block 3; PID #13-117-24-34-007l. VARIANCE. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed Trfax's request for a '-variance to insta'ii a third dish antenna which will expand their programming capabilities. The 3 meter dish is proposed to be lo- cated 18.5 feet from the south property llne and 26 feet from the west property line. On the west side, a 50 ~oot setback is required due to the existence of the abutting R-4 zone, therefore a 24 foot side yard variance is required. Staff recommended approval of the requested 24 foot side yard variance. Approval is determined to be in the best interest of the community at large without negatively impacting any of the surrounding land uses. The Commission expressed a concern with the number of dishes. Will there be more in the future? How many? Where will they put. them? The Commission agreed that a third dish will not nega- tively impact the surrounding land uses. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Smith, to approve staff recommendation for approval of the 24 foot side yard variance. Hotton carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 9. 1989. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Three Case No. 89-817: David Lanz, 6230 Westwood Circle, Lot 5, Block 2, Westwood Circ]e~ PID #23-117-24-23-0016. VARIANCE: rear yard setk~ck. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicants request for a rear yard setback variance to construct an tn-ground swim- ming pool. Due to the topography of the yard, their is little room to create a level area to construct the pool. The pool in- staller suggested that the 13oo1 be setl3ack from the deck lO feet to deter persons from Jumping from the deck Into the pool. Staff recommended setting the pool no closer that l0 feet to the rear of the lot line as the plat for Westwood indicates a utility and drainage easement at the rear lot I ~ne. The applicant should re-survey the property and indicate the dedicated easements. Staff would, however, recommend a 5 foot variance to allow the pool to be constructed outside the drainage and utility easement. The Commission questioned if.a hardship existed. Thai noted that there will still be plenty of open space. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to recommend ap- · proval of staff recommendation for a 5 foot rear yard variance. Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, I989. de Case No. 89-818: Thomas Kfelty, 2033 Arbor Lane, Lot 3, Sub- division of Lots ] & 32 Skarp & Lindquist Ravenswood Addition) PID #13-ll7-24-41-0032. VARIANCE= front & side yard setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for a front and side yard setback variance to add onto the exist- ing nonconforming detached garage. The existing garage ts I foot from the side property line and 0 feet from the front property li,ne. The applicant's revised proposed addition is 9 feet wide and 12 feet deep. The addition will be within the 4 foot required setback. Staff recommended approval of the existing nonconforming setbacks to allow the addition to his detached accessory building with a conforming 4 foot side yard setback, upon the condition that a registered land survey be submitted to the City prior to building permit issuance. Staff also recommended that the existing detached accessory building have fire, resistive walls and ceil- ings constructed at the interior where the setback is within ! foot of the south property line. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Four The Commission noted that the lot is undersized, staff agreed that a lot area variance also be granted. The existing lot area Is approximately 5,280 square feet, the required lot area in the R-2 zone is 6,000 square feet. The applicant, Thomas Kieity confirmed that the addition is to provide for extra storage. He stated that he presently has an old shed on his property which he plans on removing. The Co~mission confirmed that the applicant is not intensifying the existing nonconformities since he will meet the setbacks with the addition. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Smith to recommend ap- proval of the staff recommendation for construction of a 12' x 9' addition to an accessory building, and to recognize the existing nonconformities, Including the lot area. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City.Council on May 23, .1989. Case No. 892819, Patrick & Diane Ruhr, 5133 Emerald Drive, Part of Lot 1, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit C; PID 24-13-0016. VARIANCE: existinq side yard setback. Building Official, Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for approval of an existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow construction of a three season porch and deck with conform- Ing setbacks. The existing structure is within ] foot (+/-) of the side property line. Staff recommended recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard setback to allow structural modifications for the construc- tion of. a 14' x ]4' three season porch and a ]4' x ]6' deck to afford the owner reasonable use of his property upon the 'condi- tion that the survey submitted from 1949 be re-submitted includ- ing the structure, the proposed additions, and floor elevations of the existing structure at sea level (N.G.V.O.). The applicant, Patrick Ruhr, requested the requirement for an up- dated survey' be waived due to the cost involved. He did not agree that it should be necessary since the proposed construction meets the setback requirements. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Five The Building Official explained that the survey from ]949 cer- tified by Arleigh C. Smith is no longer a valid survey due to the fact that they are no longer licensed. She explained other reasons Eot having the survey updated: there are no elevations on the current survey which would indicate if the property is in a flood hazard area, the house was sketched on the survey and has not been properly surveyed, and there is a question on the side yard setback since it could be encroaching. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen to recommend ap- proval dE the staff recommendation, however waive the requirement for a updated survey. Hotion carried 4 - 3. (Those in favor~ Andersen, Sohns, Jansen, Smlthj those opposed= Michael, Thai, Meyer.) This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. Case No. 89-820: Harold & Beverly Chrtstianson, 2933 Cambridge Lane~ Lots 7 & Bt Block 34? Wychwood~ PID #24-117- 24-42-0007. VARIANCE: side and front yard setback. Bulldtng Official~ Jan Bertrand reviewed the applicant's request for approval dE a side and front yard setback variance to allow structural modifications to raise and remodel the second floor on the existing dwelling. To afford the property owner Feasonable use of his land, staff recommended recognizing' the existing 7.5 foot nonconforming garage setback as well as the ].35 foot exist- ing nonconforming front yard (side street) setback to allow ex- pension of the second floor to the existing dwelling within the same footprint upon the condition the eaves be limited to ] foot. Scott Williams of 2149 Cambridge Lane, who is a neighbor to the applicants, co~ented on the messy appearance of their property. He stated it has gotten cleaner, however there is still room for work to'be done. The Building Official commented that she did nott.fy the applicants for having exterior storage, and they are making an effort to clean the property. The applicants also responded and stated they are working towards a cleaner yard. The Commission commented that they encourage the property be kept clean. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Thai to approve staff rec~endatlon Eot approval of the existing nonconforming side and front yard setbacks. Hotion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 23, 1989. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Six DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL: a. County Road 15 (Shoreline Blvd.) Beautification update. City Planner, Mark Koegler reviewed the plans for the Shoreline Blvd. improvements. He explained the color scheme and the plant- ings which are being suggested. The Planning Commission suggested expanding this plan through to Commerce Blvd. They also suggested that banners, such as the ones to be installed on Shoreline, be continued onto Commerce Blvd. City Council Representative, Jensen asked the Commissioner's opinions on having grass or concrete along the sidewalk on Shoreline Blvd. The Commissioners expressed that they were in favor of a concrete type surface. 1989 Commercial Dock Licenses for Lakewinds~ Minnetonka Boat Rentals/Edgewater Marina? Seahorse Condomtntums~ and Chapman Place. The Planning Commission had no concerns with the 1989 appitca- '--tions for commercial dock licenses. c. Proposal to revise park dedication fee schedule~ Section 330:120 of the City Code. City Planner, Mark Koegler, recommended that a resolution be adopted identifying a $500 per unit park dedication fee for any new minor subdivisions. Koegler reviewed a listing of the sur- rounding cities and their park charges which averaged ap- proximately $500 per unit. The Building OFFicial also recom- mended this fee be changed. MOTION made be Thal, Seconded by Smith to recommend to the City Council that a resolution be adopted identiFylng a $500.00 per unit park dedication Fee For minor subdivisions. Motion carried unanimously. Building Official, Jan Bertrand proposed to the Commission that they recommend approval to eliminate sewer and water deficient unit charges For new construction, and in lieu of, increase the sewer and water availability charges. She further explained the reason for eliminating the sewer and water deficient unit charges as being difficult to administer. She added that the City's bonds for the sewer and water installation are being paid off. Currently there is a sewer availabi'l tty charge of $125 and a water availability charge of $125 for new construction, she is suggesting that we raise these rates From $125 each to $300 each to compensate for the elimination of the sewer and water Oeficiencies. Planning Commission Minutes May 8, 1989 Page Seven MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Thai to recommend that the City Councll approve changlng the Fee schedule by eliminat- ing sewer and water deficient unit charges for new construc- tion, and increasing the sewer availability charge from $1Z5 to $300 per unit and to Increase the water availability charge from $125 to $300 per unit. Motion carrted unanim- ous I y. DNR Application #89-639l sponsored by Hennepin County For dredging oF 20 channels over a four year period. City Manager, Ed Shukle, commented that he did not find any problems with the proposed dredges. However, he inFormed the Commission that he has written a letter to Hennepin County asking why Lost Lake Channel was not included in the dredge. The Com- mission conFirmed that the City Manager recluested Lost Lake Chan- nel be dredged all the way to the post ofFice. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Meyer to approve DNR Ap- plication #89-6391 including the City Manager's request to have Lost Lake Channel dredged by Menneptn County. Motion cart i ed unan t mous I y. DNR Application #89-6397 sponsored by Chapman Place For Installation oF docks, Z) removal of wooden sea wall? and 3) rtprap. The Commission had no objections to the application. NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen, to approve DNR Application #89-6797. Motion carried unanimously. g. City Council Representative Report. Jansen reviewed the outcome oF the City Council meetings oF June 13th and June Z?th. Sohns raised some topics For discussion. He reported that City Code Section 245.40 which relates to the Planntng Commission - Procedure for Changes is not being up-held. Jansen confirmed that the City Council wtll discuss this Section. Sohns questioned the Building Official regarding Toro's trailer parking. He reported that he counted 20 trailers in the lot, stacked Four trailers deep. The Building OFFtcfal commented on the problems she has had with the owners oF the building, and said she would investigate. Sohns also questioned iF something could be written in the City's quarterly newsletter regarding the Housing Maintenance issue. The City Manager confirmed that this could be done. Planning Commission Hinutes May 8, 1989 P~ge E~ht MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Andersen, to adjourn the meettng at 10:40 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 · PHONE: 472-1600 C'D MAY 1 ? 198g Mayor Steve Smith 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Steve; Thank you so much for introducing Dr. Randall at our forum on "Open Enrollment" last eve6ing. I feel there was a good exchange of information...with some interesting developments on the horizon. She appeared to be ehthused about the Hilltop presentation and other things she heard. I hope she does come back for a closer look. Again...thanks for your assistance in making her feel welcome to our community. I'm sure ypu helped to create a facorable first impression, by your demonstrated concern for the schools. Your "open lines of communication" through cable has been appreciated by many. It was a good idea. If there are ways that Community Education can assist at any time in a forum or activity you would like to see in the community, please give me a call. Sincerely, a~nell E. Hunt Community Education Coordinator Westonka Public Schools LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL April 25, 1989 MAY 9 1989 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was called to order by Chair JoEllen Hurt at 7:55 P. M., Wednesday, April 25, 1989. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary; Minnetonka Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurt, Chair, Orono; John Lewman , Treasurer, Minnetrista; John Malinka, Victoria; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Thomas W. Reese, Vice Chair, Mound. Also present: Charles Lefevre, Counsel; Sgt. Wm. F. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; David Arndorfer, Consultant. Absent: Ron Kraemer, Spring Park; Robert Slocum, Woodland. 3. MINUTES It was moved by Boswinkel, seconded by Malinka, to approve the minctes of the March 29 1989 meeting. Motion carried, Bjorlin and Rascop abstaining, being , absent from the meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS Duane Marcus, Wayzata, stated he has submitted a request for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to the Environmental Quality Board because the Wayzata Yacht Club's expansion is in excess of 20,000 square feet. He has also submitted a petition, signed by 75 fisherpersons, to the District regarding the dredging at the Wayzata Yacht Club property. Hurt informed him the Environmental Quality Board will respond to the Board and until then the Board has no comment to make at this time. Regarding the dredging, the Board has only comment priviledges,and the understanding is the current permit expires May 1. Copies of Marcus requests are being furnished to the Board. 5. REPORTS A. Chair Hurt 1) Swearing in of new member Charles Lefevre administered the Oath of Thomas Martinson, newly appointed by the City of Wayzata as its on the Board. Mr. Martinson was seated as a member and welcomed. Office to representative LMCD Board 4/2~/B9 2) The Public Hearing requested date for the Minnetonka Yacht Club Special Density Permit was deferred to later in the meeting as part of the Dock Committee minutes. 3) Hurr reported she has been appointed to the Citizen Advisory Committee to the Minnesota Future Resources Commission. Their charge is to recommend how natural resource funds are to be spent, including any possible lottery proceeds. 4) Hurr reported Charles Lefevre has left the Lefevre and Lefler law firm to join the Holmes and Graven law firm. The Board will be entertaining proposals from attorneys for professional services sometime about May I and until that time will continue the services of Mr. Lefevre. §) Hurt read a proposed statement from the LMCD to be presented at the May 9 Public Hearing about the regional park proposed for Lake Minnetonka, a copy made part of the files. Alan Albrecht, Hayor of Greenwood, stated it is important for the LMCD to comment and support the City of Minnetrista. It was moved by Foster, seconded by Reese, to authorize the statement be presented at the May 9 Public Hearing, after some minor word changes. Motion carried, Lewman abstaining. B. Treasurer/Finance 1) Strommen submitted a financial condition report as of March 31, which was accepted and filed. Strommen stated he will consult with the account- ant to refine a quarterly report. 1: 2) checks 5364 unanimously. It was moved by Lewman, seconded by Reese, to approve payment of through 5456' as submitted, totalling $35,842.41. Motion carried 3) Strommen requested authorization to engage DuWayne L. Schibilla & Associates to prepare the annual audit at a cost not to exceed $1,000. He also requested, authorization to use that firm to assist in preparing a quarterly report. It was moved by Lewman, seconded by Grathwol, to employ DuWayne L. Schibilla" & Associates to prepare the annual audit at a cost not to exceed $1','000 and authorize the Executive Director to obtain a cost for preparation of quarterly financial reports. Motion carried unanimously. C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES Chair Cochran a) It was moved by GrathwoI, seconded by Foster to amend the minutes of 4/8/89 to indicate the Committee agreed to hold a Public Hearing on May 13, 1989 to consider the request of th~ Minnetonka Yacht Club and Lake Minnetonka Sailing School. Motion carried, Hurt voting nay and Martinson abstaining. LHCD Board 4/26/89 b) 5~ial: Densi~l Permit and new dock license applicatigpl Minnetonka Boat Works_.~ Orono, recommending approval to increase BSU from 41 to 47 on Brown's Bay, and from 25 to &7 on Tanager Lake. (Note: Minutes of 4/8/89 in error in stating 61 units rather than 67). It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Reese, to instruct the Attorney to prepare a Special Density Resolution. DISCUSSION: Strommen reported the applicant withdrew the fishing pier and parking for the fishing pier amenities following the April 8 Public Hearing. Hurt reported the City of Orono Planning Commission has forwarded the request to their Council with no recommendation, indicating concern about traffic. The following amenities were presented at Lhe April 8, 1989 Public Hearing: 1. Public Fishing Pier (Withdrawn) (Withdrawn) Limited number of Parking Spaces for the Fishing Pier. 3. One (1) Auto Look-Out 4. Provide waste containers and its disposal 5. Provide Public Restroom Facilities 6. Provide one (1) slip for public agencies or the Water Patrol use for emergency purposes. to 7. Satisfy the drainage requirements of the governing authorities 8. Provide green Screening and vegetation cover per City of Orono's Ordinance. Lomen said the amenities presented at the April 14 Public Hearing for the Wayzata location are intended to serve both locations as follows: 1. Restaurant 2. Restaurant deck overlooking the bay, open to the public. 3. Additional benches along the boardwalks 4. One (1) slip for Water Patrol purposes at Orono 5. ~ccess and use of Minnetonka Boat Works shop boat for the Wayzata Fire Department's emergency use 6. Meeting room at Sasha's Restaurant available for public use, upon reservation - continued LMCD Board 4/26/89 7. Boat for charter purposes available during the season to deserving non-profit groups on a gratuitous basis monthly, and individua! paid reservation, possibly weekly. 8. Parking spaces available on a first come, first served basis for public events held on adjacent city property. DISCUSSION: The following concerns were raised: 1. The withdrawal of the fishing pier and parking at Orono is significant, although there was consideration that the charter boat might offset the loss of that amenity. 2. Lefevre stated the code does not require the amenities be given at the site, but if one property were sold the amenities must continue at the other. Lefevre stated the Board has discretion as some amenities have more value than others. 3. E~panded facilities increase traffic on the Lake, although it was noted Very few commerical marinas have the capability to expand, since most are at their allowance limit. ACTIDN It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Foster, to refer the application back t'o the Water Structures Committee to tie the Wayzata and Orono amenities together. Motion carried unanimously. Lefevre recommended the amenities be specific to the site, although not necessarily located at the site, but kept separate and distinct in event the properties are sold. c) Special Density Permit and new dock license, St. Marina & Yacht Club, recommending approval per plan of 3/16/89 subject to four conditions per minutes of 4/8/89 Alban's Bay for 84 slips It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Grathwol, to approve the St. Alban's Bay Marina and Yacht Club variance application for overlapping DUA*s and to consider 'additional material from James Gilbert, attorney for the applicant, and Fr'ank Kelly, representing the City of Greenwood. Gilbert reviewed the history of the marina, need for modernization and agreements reached with the City of Excelsior, as detailed in his letter of April 24, 1989. Construction would not begin until the winter of '89-'90, Gilbert added, Margaret Bauer, 805 Hidden Lane, objected to the proposal because of additional traffic, lack of parking, increased noise and pollution, decrease of quality family rights on the lake. Elizabeth Hansen, Greenwood Counciimember, reiterated their opposition. - continued LMCD Board 4/26/89 Mel Colby, Windemere Apartments, objected to noise, concerned with larger boats and questioned Excelsior's approval. Grathwol responded by stating the City of Excelsior has no objection to the variances. Colby also mentioned the reduced fishing area. Rick Polk, dock user, favors the proposal because the docks improvement and parking is no problem. The lot is rarely full. need ACTION: The motion to approve the variance for overlapping dock use areas was approved with Boswinkel, Bjorlin and Pillsbury voting nay. The Board then proceeded to consider the Special Density Permit of St. Alban's Bay Marina & Yacht Club. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Reese, to approve a special density permit and new dock license for St. Alban's Bay Marina and Yacht Club as shown on the plan submitted, dated March 16, 1989, for 84 slips, based on the following considerations: 1. The varianc'e previously recommended for Board approval be considered before consideration of the special density permit and new dock license, as has been done. 2. A covenent on the residential lot be established so its dock rights are tied into the special density permit. 3. The City of Excelsior is to issue a Certificate of Occupancy for the residential lot. 4. All amenities included in the 4/5/89 letter from Meshbesser, Singer & Spence, Ltd., on behalf of the St. Alban's Bay Marina are to be met. DISCUSSION At the request of Lynn Allar, Greenwood, nine residents of the Excelsior area stood to express their opposition. James Gilbert and Gerald Tobermann presented the amenities noting the DUA is less under this proposal: 1. Allow the existing ramp to be used for emergency purposes, will be open year-round. Owner will plow out for winter access with a road leading away from the channel. Also, parking lot will be plowed. 2. Establish and maintain a boat pump out service, located near the gas pump. 3. Install public telephones, located near the ramp. 4. Install public restrooms, upgraded, in the office building, open 8 A.M. to 9 P. M. during the boating season. - continued 5 LMCD Board 4/26/8~ 5. Allow the police and sheriff to use the marina's docks at two designated tie-on places, appropriately equipped and marked for police use only. This space could also be available for public agency use. 6. Provide 6 to 8 (later amended to 8) aluminum fishing boats, half of them motorized, if the City of Excelsior will so consent, or else provide an alternative location for .public fishing boat and motor rentals at the applicant's Maxwell Bay Marina. Currently there are BO slips on the commercial property and 4 on the residential property. At the request ofthe City of Excelsior the four docks from the residential property will be assigned to the commercial property, with any future owner of the residential property to be assured a free slip at the marina. It was noted the commercial property has BIO feet of frontage and under the code can support 81 slips. The addition of leased shoreline from the City of Excelsior on Minnetonka .Boulevard allows the expansion of the DUA to accommodate a longer dock. There was discussion regarding the zoning of the shoreline with Gilbert contending it is public property and Kelly stating it is park property. Frank Kelly, speaking for the City of Greenwood, discussed the configuration of the dock, stating the current dock is a pier dock while the proposed dock will be wider and longer, thus using more of the public'waters of 'St. Al'ban's Bay. Hi indicated no'objection to rebuilding of the current dock in the same location to correct any safety matters. He feels that by allowing the lease of shoreline to create dock use area will create a problem for the District in the future. Tobermann offered to amend his application to 81 slips to meet the 1:10 requirement. Alan Albrecht, Mayor, City of Greenwood, compared the dock size of current dock (50' x 440' = 22000 sq. ft.) with the proposed dock (80' x 550' 44000 sq. ft.) thus doubling the size of the dock. the The LMCD Code as cited by the Executive Director, identifying the dock use area in 'Bec. 2.01, 8ubd. 2(al. as .... the area for sites bordering on the lake, Wkt~nds into the lake a distance equal to the site Lake frontage to be measured at right angles to the side site lines .... not extending into the Lake distance greater than 100. feet .... which means the dock use area includes the distance" from the ~29.4' shoreline to 100' into the Lake. Before voting the following comments were made: Rascop: The Shorewood City Attorney said LMCD cannot have a commercial dock on public land, and he has been directed to vote against the proposal. Grathwol: Excelsior will comment when it comes before them, but this pla~ is agreeable to them. - continued LMCD 8oard 4/2&lag Lefevre: Unless it can be shown Excelsior does not have the right to lease the property, it would be extra-ordinary to deny the requesi on that basis. Sgt. Chandler: Request the Water Patrol slips be close to the south end of the dock, and the applicant agreed. ACTION The motion was restated to indicate the request is for 81 slips and the amenities to indicate there will be 8 rental boats. Foster, Grathwol, Hurr, Lewman and Reese voted aye. Bjorlin, Cochran, Malinka, Pillsbury, Rascop and Martinson voted nay. The approve failed. Boswinkel, motion to Lefevre was directed to prepare findings to deny the application. Grathwol excused himself from the meeting. d. St. Alban°s Bay Marina & Yacht Club Environmental Assessment Work Sheet~, recommending the EAW as not required because the applicant is not expanding its dock use area. The Board declared this moot in view of the vote not to approve the Permit. e. Multiple Dock T_emporary Extension Permit requests. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Reese, to approve the following Multiple Dock Temporary Extension Permits: * Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Orono. * Roger Wikner, Wayzata * Al & Alma's Supper Club, Mound (applicant subsequently expecting to require 20' more length) * Cedarhur'st Association, Deephaven, * Methodist Lakeside Assemby, Woodland, reconsideration of table action by committee based upon re-submission of mooring permit and dock plan. * Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc., Shorewood, Motion carried unanimously. f. Deicinq @ermit deposit refunds as detailed in vouchers-to-be paid summary. It was deposit refunds unanimously. moved by Cochran, seconded by F'i]Isbury, to as detailed in vouchers-to-be-paid summary. approve permit Motion carried LMCD Board 4/26/89 g. It was moved by Hurt, seconded by Reese, to call a Public Hearing for 7:00 P. M. on May 24, 1989 at the Tonka Bay City Hall to consider the request of the Minnetonka Yacht Club and Lake Minnetonka Sailing School for a Special Density Permit and new dock license. Motion carried unanimously. C. ENVIRONMENT, EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese. for contract Atlas Marine, bidder. Contract service bid award, Eurasian Water Milfoil harvesting service was presented per the attached Resolution recommending a division of Atlas Foundation, Inc., as the most competitive Reese recommended Atlas Marine and submitted alternate work plans based on three and/or five harvesters. Funds available should permit harvesting through mid-August. This would permit harvesting up to 1700 acres out of approximately 3000 acres expected to be infested. Strommen elaborated that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will issue its initial . permit for harvesting 500 acres two times a year. Individuals can harvest up to 2,500 square feet without a permit. It was moved by Reese, seconded by Rascop, to adopt a proposed Resolution in support of the recommendation to engage Atlas Marine, a Division of Atlas Foundation Co.', as the most competitive bidder to conduct the cutting of aquatic weeds in Lake Minnetonka for the 1989 Boat Season, copy attached. Motion carried unanimously. Reese recommended purchasing a 52' conveyor for shallow areas and for increasing the number.of off-loading points. It was moved by Reese, seconded by Rascop, to authorize the Executive Director to advertise for bids for a 52' conveyor, estimating the cost less thab $25,000. Motion carried unanimously. b) Financial summary, fund raising Strommen reported all.cities have contributed for a total of $84,~38. There is $14,000 outstanding in pledges. The Wayzata Banks will sponsor a half- marathon 'with estimated receipts of $12,000 - $15,000. This will' total $240,000 -'$250,000 from smaller private and city sources. A Public Information program as to how, when and where weed will be cut this summer was suggested. c) Task Force'informational highlights Reese reported that Lake Minnetonka will be a test site for fungus which has the possibility of disabling Eurasian Water Milfoil. estimated any practical use would be at least five years away. a neH It is LMCD ~o~rd 4/2&/89 Strommen reported, laboratory tests indicate a herbicide, SONAR~ has a selectivity for the weed. The producer has donated thirty quarts to be used in four select bays on Lake Minnetonka. Reese showed a proposal for thirty-second TV spots, prepared by Carmichael Lynch, at outside expense reimbursement of $5,800. The amount already in the Public Relations Budget approved for E.W.M. will be shared 50% with the Mn DNR. A show date of late May is anticipated. LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) The minutes of 4/17/89 were approved as presented. b) Water Patrol report 1. Sgt. Chandler reported two more deputies have been added to the Water Patrol giving them four full time deputies. 2. The Wayzata Lions have donated $6,500 to the Water Patrol which will be used for water rescue equipment. The first BWI arrest of the year was made April 28. 4. The Water Patrol has two new boats. 5. Buoys will be all in by May 15. 6. The Water Patrol has received a $15,000 grant from the MN DNR for over-time service. That amount will allow seven day a week coverage. 7. Charter boat inspection has started 8. The court case on the assault of a deputy will begin May 17. One deputy has not been able to return to work. 9. The Water Patrol will have the capability to monitor Channel 16 this year, giving them better contact with on-shore activity. The Board directed the Executive Director to send a letter Hennepin County Sheriff's Department thanking them for the additional on the Lake. to the presence c) Temporary multiple dock extension, Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, recommending approval for extension of 9 slips to 258' utilizing permanent piling construction due to deep and turbulent waters for designated time of five years. It was moved by Pillsbury, seconded by Cochran to approve a temporary multiple dock extension for Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, to permit an additional 9 slips to 25B', utilizing permanent piling construction, with instruction to the Minnetonka Boat Works that they are to identify the nine docks they will not use and how they will be closed off. - continued LMCD Board 4126189 Rascop suggested the Board make a determination that a permanent dock is temporary i-f removed after five years. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Pillsbury, to table the current motion temporarily. Discussion proceeded on the definition of the subject docks, i.e. pile driven docks vs. non-pile driven docks if of a seasonal nature. It was agreed that in this case they could be called non-seasonal docks. It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Bjorlin, to bring back the Resolution approving a temporary multiple dock extensi, on of nine slips to 258' using a non-seasonal construction, due to water conditions in Wayzata Bay, for a designated time of five years or if the water does not return to 928.6, for a longer period until it does Motion carried unanimously. d) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District proposed dredging amendments and new Rule K requiring licensing of dredging contractors, recommending support for the dredging amendments, and new Rule E {dredging) It was reported the MCWSD has approved the changes. e) Special Event Permit It was moved by Rascop, seconded by Bjorlin, to approve the DOn Shelby U.- S. Invitational'Bass Tournament, September 29 to October 1, 1989. Motion carried unanimously. f) Boat lift Relocation It was moved by Foster, seconded by Bjorlin, to approve lakeward extension of boat lifts, subject to Water Patrol criteria for buoys, with reflective markings on all sides and not a hazard to navigation. Motion carried unanimously. g) Liquor License Renewals It was moved by Pillsbury, seconded by Bjorlin, to approve temporary liquor ]iEenses of John Lambin.°s Queen of Excelsior, Executive Charters and A1 & "Al~a's, pending review of renewal applications by Hennep~n County Sheriff and municipal law enforcement agencies. Motion carried unanimously. 4. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer a) Subcommittee progress Arndorfer reported the Public Safety Plan draft has come out of sub- committee. It is the third sub-committe plan to be drafted. Wetlands has had two meetings, the final one April 28. The =first meeting of the Lake Use and Lake Access was combined April 20, but in the future they will be separate. On- shore has been re-scheduled, waiting for members to respond. - continued LHCD Boacd 4/26/89 Summer monitoring is about to begin, A boat count to determine how low water affects the lake use will be analysed. There are five new sub-committee starts plus the summer monitoring program presently being prepared. May is the third quarterly report due to the Metropolitan Council, scheduled for the May 16. 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Administrative Progress Strommen proposed activating an officers' review meeting, between board meetings, to discuss the ramifications of public service and administrative issues the District is dealing with. He suggested the meeting be open to all Board members, held on a pre-scheduled basis. Hurt will work with Strommen to set up a date with notice to all members and the public. b) The Executive Diretor's priority meetings and exchanges report will be mailed to the 8oard. 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Upper Minnetonka Yacht C]ub/RDP Partners It was moved by Pillsbury,seconded by Cochran, to approve the Findings of Fact in the matter of the application of the Upper Minnetonka Yacht C]ub/RDP Partners for a new dock license, special density permit and variance as determined at a Public Hearing on December 17, 1988, as prepared by Attorneyt Lefevre. Motion carried, Rascop abstaining. 7. NEW BUSINESS a) 1989 Dock'License Renewals It was moved by Rascop, seconded by Cochran, to approve 32 applications for renewal of dock licenses, including Orders and stipulations, certificates having been received from the Villages. Motion carried unanimously. b) Temporary Extension Requests It was moved by Pillsbury, seconded by Lewman, to approve the following temporary dock extensions: Ly]e Berman, Area 29, City of Wayzata from 100' to 200' subject to review by the possible navigation hazard'condition Water Patrol for Chimo Association, Area 34, City of Deephaven from 97' to 147' LMCD Board 4/26/89 The Harborage, Area 6, City of Victoria from lO0'to 120', subject to non-interference traffic on the south side (revaluation of WSU should take place regular inspection) with channe. at time of Wmodend Shore Beach Association, Area 4, Minnetrista From 80' to 964' Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMEN~ There being no further business, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 11:20 P. M. Submitted by: .... Jan Boswinkel, Secretary Approved by: ...................... ~oEllen L. Hurr, Chair RECYCLEAMERICA Minnesota Office P.O. Box 9 Circle Pines, MN 612/784-8349 55O14 Ms. Joyce Nelson City of Mound 5341Maywood Drive Mound, MN 55364 May 23, 1989 Dear Joyce: Thank you for your interest in recycling services. Waste Management and our curbside Confirming our discussion, we would be happy to provide curbside residential recycling services to the City of Mound. We will collect glass containers, newspapers, and aluminum, tin bi-metal and steel food and beverage containers every other Friday beginning Friday, July 7, 1989. The minimum contract period for our services is 18 months. Based on Mound's 3,200 households, the cost for our service will be $2.05 per household per month. That charge includes 26 collections per year. We fully expect that all newspaper generated from this program can be recycled. Currently, we are able to market newspaper at zero net cost (no revenue received, no cost paid out). Consequently, to ensure continued success for your program, we request a contract term allowing for a justified rate increase if we incur charges in excess of $10 a ton to market or dispose of newspaper. For every $5/ton cost over $10/ton, for instance, the rate would increase 7.5 cents per home to a maximum of $40/ton or 45 cents per home. Ms. Joyce Nelson May 23, 1989 Page Two Thank you for your time and consideration, Joyce, and especially for your patience in waiting for a response to your inquiry. I am sorry about your current predicament, but I am also excited about the opportunity to work with the City of Mound. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Program Development Manager Enclosure co: Edward J. Shukle Mike Berkopec I am Dick Wagner, Chairman of "Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake". Our organization grew out of our concern for the spread of Eurasian Milfoil to Dutch Lake. I'm sure you are familiar with the costly problem of Eurasian Milfoil, which can ruin the use of lakes, reduce property values and erode our tax base. I believe this council has pledged thousands of dollars to Lake Minnetonka to combat Eurasian Milfoil. I thought I'd be asking this council tonight for a fairly sizeable sum of money for a similar program for Dutch Lake. Fortunately, I have good news. The Department of Natural Resources has sampled Dutch Lake and their samples contain n-o Milfoil. I'm submitting a copy of their report. This does not guarantee that Milfoil is not in Dutch Lake, but it is a hopeful sign. So why am I here? For several reasons; first of all, we Dutch Lake area citizens, want to be sure that Milfoil never enters the lake so we never have to ask for the money. Secondly, we want you to be aware of our organization and our concern. Thirdly, we are requesting of you to place signs at the public accesses, warning of Milfoil spread . To briefly elaborate on these points, as evidence of our concern, I'm submitting petitions signed by over TO residents of the Dutch Lake area. Our organziation, "Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake", has had 4 meetings in the last 4 months. We are committed, concerned, and involved. -2- Ail area owners have had their property values raised significantly during this last year. One reason, of course, is the value of Dutch Lake. If Milfoil gets into the lake, these values will surely fall, eroding some of our city's tax base. The enormous cost of fighting Milfoil once it is in the lake, is reflected in this letter from Lake Restorations, a private firm which is currently working with LMCD (See attached letter). The potential cost is I would like to propose the following: For our part, "Citizens Concerned for Dutch Lake" will continue its efforts at public education and awareness. We will find ways to identify Eurasian Milfoil and wil~ volunteer our time to obtain samples. For your part, we would like you to post signs at our public accesses. We would like you to remember our organization should we return to this council for financial support in the future, should it be needed. Thank you for your attention. $~:-00006-05 DEPARTMENT : STATE OF MINNESOTA ~ NATURAL RESOURC~-$ DATE : May 12, 1989 Steve Colvin Office Memorandum FROM : Wayne Barstad.~- PHONE : SUBJECT, : 6-2923 INSPECTIONS OF DUTCH LAKE, LANGDON LAKE, AND LONG LAKE On May 11, 1989, I inspected Dutch Lake, Langdon Lake, and Long Lake in Hennepin County for Eurasian water milfoil. On Dutch Lake and Long Lake I was able to launch a boat and sample using a standard weed hook. I sampled about eight stations on each lake. Dutch Lake has a dense growth of coontail 'and a small amount of RObbin's pondweed. A large cattail marsh along the northern edge of the lake is heavily infested with purple loosestrife. Long Lake exhibited little plant growth. No Eurasian water milfoil was found in either lake. I informed John Gerhardson, Long Lake Public Works Director, of the Long Lake findings. Langdon Lake is not accessable by boa~t and about 60% of the Lake is ringed by cattail marsh infested with purple loosestrife. I waded the southeast shoreline, visually inspecting and sampling with the plant hook. I found no Eurasian water milfoil and few other plants, but am not satisfied that a thorough inspection has been made. LAKE RESTORATION, INC. Professional Lake Weed Control Date: March 22, 1989 To: Mr. Dick Wagner From: Kevin Kretsch Subject: Program for control of eurasian water milfoil on Dutch lake. A thorough inspection will be made of your lake to determine if eurasian exists. Samples will be taken at the launch and around all of the docks. All species and relative abundance will be documented. If eurasian exists, the extent of the weed bed and the number of plants will be documented. All residents should assist Lake Restoration in this process. In the event that eurasian water milfoil is present on the lake in a limited area, a treatment program will be implemented to control it completely. The aquatic herbicide 2,4-D will be applied. This product is able to control the entire plant including the roots. In larger areas sonar will be considered. Several weeks after the treatment, Lake Restoration will again L' '. . inspect the area. where ~the eurasian was present to verify control. In the event that eurasian plants are still growing a second treatment will be made in thab~ area for contro~of~~- eurasian. The eradication of eurasian can not be guaranteed. HoWever the chance of success of this program is very good should eurasian exist in small areas only. If eurasian is present on a large scale similar to Lake Minnetonka, then a program which emphasizes using safe aquatic herbicides in close to shore and harvesting in center areas is recommended. The value of these services is as follows: 1.' Survey of lake $390 2. Treatment of shoreline areas with aquatic herbicides $1.40 per shoreline foot per treatment for control of eurasian and other lake weeds. 3. Treatment of center (non shoreline) areas with aquatic herbicides $3?5 per acre per treatment. 4. Harvesting prices dependant upon size of area, distance to off loading site, and density of lake weeds. Sincerely, 620 Hamel Road Hamel, Minnesota 55340 (612) 4 78-9421 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, property owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. NAME ADDRESS PHONE // L/ ~72. 2o,~ y_ i0 11 12 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, proper%y owners and users of Du%ch Lake, reques% {he financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 10 11 12 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, proper~y owners and users of Dutch Lake, reques% the financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. 1 NAME ADDRESS PHONE q z - z T?y DUTCH LAKE HOi~iEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, property owners and users of Dutch Lake, request ~he financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake NA~ 'ADDRESS PHONE # 11 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, property owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the financial suppor% of %he Ci%y Council %0 combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 10 11 12 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, Droper%y owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake N~E ADDRESS PHONE # DUT~ LAKE HOMEOWNER~ ASSOCIATION We, Droperty owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the financial support of the City Council to coF~bat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake, NAME 3 ADDRESS PHONE 7 8 10 11 12 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION We, proper%y owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the financial support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Milfoil in Dutch Lake. NAME ADDRESS PHONE # 5 6 !0 11 12 DUTCH LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION W~, property owners and users of Dutch Lake, request the f~nanciat support of the City Council to combat Eurasian Water Mi!foii in Dutch Lake NAME ADDRESS PHONE 1 4 · 7 8 9 10 11 12 BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE A-2307 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0237 Phone (612) 348-4077 May 18, 1989 Mr. Edward 3. mhukle, Jr. Manager, City of Mound 5541 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Several resolutions regarding the County's recycling funding policy are under consideration by the County Board. I have attached the resolutions introduced by Commissioners Andrew, Johnson, and Keefe which will be discussed at the Public Service Committee on May 25,' 1989, following the Ways and Means Committee which begins at lO:O0 a.m. I have also enclosed the minutes of the Recycling Task Force meeting at which the Task Force endorsed the concepts contained in the resolution adopted by the Minneapolis City Council on May '~2. ~ ...... Please keep in mind that changes to the Recycling Funding Policy will likely be recommended by the Task Force for implementation in since Hennepin County plans to open a Recyclables Processing Center by the end of 1989. This will allow cities to contract for collection only of recyclables, rather than contracting for collection, processing and marketing. Therefore, you may want to be in a position to renegotiate your collection contract for ie~O. My staff and I want to continue working with you on this important program.' Sincerely, Vern Genzlinger Associate County Administrator Enclosures HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer HENNEPIN COUNTY MINUTE~ OF RECYCLING TA~K FORCE MEETING May 8, 1989 Chairman Mark Andrew reviewed and commented on last year's activities by the Task Force and said we must now address and analyze the changes that the growth of the municipal recycling programs has spurred in the metro area. Vern Genzlinger, Associate County Administrator, Bureau of Public Service, reviewed the RFP the County issued May 1, 1989 for an operator of a 2~ ton/day (possibly 7~ ton/day) recyclables processing center. The center would provtde processing and marketing capabilities for recyclables collected by municipal programs. Profits would be shared by the vendor and Hennepin County. Responses are due June 16, and a vendor would be selected in July. Target date for the opening of the center would be Oecember 1, 1989. Kathy O'Brien, Council Member, Minneapolis, presented a Resolution passed by the City's Transportation and Public Works Committee requesting that the Hennepln County Recycling Task Force urge Henneptn County to complete the RFP process for the Processing Center by July 1; open the Recyclables Processing Center by January 1, 1990; and that the County take ftrst step measures to resolve the tssue of designation of reeyclables to determine the capacity and operation polietes of the Center. The motton was seconded by Mayor Don Mtlbert, Ctty,of Hopktns. The motion carried. Counctlmember O'Brten, Minneapolis, made a second motion that the Hennepin County Recycling Task Force endorse the concepts of the resolution passed by the Transportation and Public Works Committee of the City of Minneapolis. The motion was seconded by Jerry Stsk, Council Member, City of Plymouth. The motion carried. Tom Abeles, a paper broker in the Twin Cities, discussed possible overseas buyers for newsprint which may be able to purchase paper from Hennepin County. Chairman Andrew closed by saying that the Task Force should meet again toward the end of May. RECYCLING TASK FORCE MEETING MAY, 8, 1989 LIST OF ATTENDEES *Commissioner Mark Andrew Commissioner John Keefe Commissioner Tad gude Nick Duff, Woodland *Gary O. Peterson, Eden Prairie*Nell Peterson, Bloomington*Don Milbert, Hopkins Commissioner Tad gude, Dist 5 *Martlyn Corcoran, Oayton/Brooklyn Park gulte Mulltn, Golden Valley Dick Pouliot, Plymouth *gerry W. Stsk, Plymouth Heather Wagner, Robbtnsdale Marjorte Vtgoren, West Henneptn Recycling Commission Patrtcia Higus, Spring Park Patrteta Osmonson, Spring Park Rtehard O. Ragan, Ramsey County Wendy Anderson, Oeephaven Oana OonaTueei, University of Minnesota Steve Peaslee, Hassan ganet Chandler, Edtna gim Smith, Osseo Bob Larson, St. Louis Park Tom Meersman, MN Public Radio Andy Erickson, Commissioner Andrew's Office Charlotte Paterson, Mtnnetrtsta Carolyn Smith, Anoka County Oeborah Loon, SuperCyele Lowell Day, M1nnetonka Beach goyce Nelson, Mound Larry Whittaker, Shorewood Ed Shukle, Mound Ctty Manager Tom Bublitz, Henneptn Recycling Group Roger Cormter, KARE - TV/ MN Oatly Joy Robb, Robbinsdale *Betty Herbes, Crystal *Oon Fraser, Minneapolis *Kathy O'Brten, Minneapolis Kathte Ooty, Hennepin County Carl Mtchaud, Henneptn County garter Letck, Henneptn County Vern Genzllnger, Henneptn County Oebra Butler, Hennepin County Paul Kroening, Henneptn County 348-3080 348-3087 348-3084 473-9189 ' 937-2262 881-8210 938-5545 348-3084 560-0446 593-8119 559-2800 559-2800 537-4534 479-2540 471-9051 471-9055 633-0316 474-4755 624-8507 428-4100 927-8861 425-2624 924-2554 290-1474 348-5469 446-1660 421-4760 X1701~ .~:;~- 224-8118 471-8878 472-1251 474-3236 472-1155 561-5440 721-2181 588-1232 537-8891 348-5120 348-3054 348-6445 348-4306 348-8075 348-6358 *Task Force Member RESOLUTION NO. 8g-5-434 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Keefe: WHEREAS, A number of cities in Hennepin County mre n~gotiating new contracts ?or collection o? recyclables Following the announcement o? termination of services by Super Cycle; and WHEREAS, The amount paid by the cities under such new contracts may be for more than under previous contracts; and WHEREAS, It is unlikely that in the near Future a market for additional collected old newspapers will develop that is comparable to the market that existed previously. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That Henneptn County staff is directed immediately to advise cities negotiating new collection contracts that the County Board is contemplating the possibility of making adjustments in the Funding Assistance Policy (that currently reimburses a city for up up to 80% of its recycling costs) and amending the County's source separation ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That cities be advised that such adjustments and amendments might include such issues as a per ton or per household maximum amount that would be eligible for County reimbursement; reimbursement only on a per household rather than a per ton basis; reduction in the percentage of County reimbursement; limitations on types of eligible reimburseable expenses; and temporarily suspending mandatory inclusion of certain materials in a collection program if the County determines there is no economically feasible market for that material; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the County suggests that cities negotiating new collection contracts limit those contracts to not more than sixty days in view of the possibility of these adjustments and amendments. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were YEAS and NAYS as follows: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COHHISSIONERS Randy Johnson John Keefe John E. Derus Tad Jude Sam S. Sivanich Mark Andrew 3elf Spartz,. Chairman ATTEST' Clerk of the County Board YEA NAY OTHER RESOLUTION NO. 89-5-435 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Keefe, seconded by Commissioner Derus: WHEREAS, Several cities in Hennepin County are in the process of negotiating new contracts for the collection and marketing of source separated recyclable materials; and WHEREAS, The cost of the entire solid waste disposal system in Hennepin County is funded by user fees in the form of a tip fee establ.tshed by the County Board; and WHEREAS, 'The Henneptn County Funding Assistance Policy for Source-Separated Recyclables and Yard Waste" effective January ~, 1989, states that the Henneptn County Board of Commissioners will provide financial assistance to municipalities for programs that source separate recyclables and yard waste, and provides a sliding scale of reimbursement ranging from 50-80% of program expenditures, BE IT RESOLVED, That Hennepin County continue to pay 50-B0% of recycling program expenditures for the remainder of 1989, provtded'%hat collection contract requirements are reasonable; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That staff be directed to prepare a revised .funding assistance policy for ~990, for consideration by the Recycling Task Force, which would consider a flat rate of reimbursement per household for collecting source separated materials; and ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That staff be directed to move with all due haste to open a Recycling Processing Center before the end of 198~. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were YEAS and NAYS as follows: COUNTY.OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Randy Johnson John Keefe John E. Oerus Tad Jude Sam S. Stvantch Mark Andrew Jeff Spartz, Chairman YEA NAY OTHER ATTEST' Clerk of the County Board RESOLUTION NO. The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Andrew: WHEREAS, The Hennepin County Board appreciates and supports the efforts of the Recycling Task Force, particularly as these efforts relate to newsprint market conditions in the metropolitan area and the commitment to continue and enhance curbside recycling programs; and WHEREAS, The Board agrees with the need for the County to take a leadership position in promoting the development of markets for recyclable materials; and WHEREAS, The County is presently in the process of requesting proposals for the operation of a recycling processing center which should allow for a higher quality and more stable supply of recyclables, and thereby assist in the ongoing marketing of recyclables; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County continues to reimburse municipalities for 50-80% of the allowable costs of local recycling programs. BE IT RESOLVED, That the County Board, consistent -with the. recommendation of the Hennepin County Recycling Task Force, will continue to pursue the development of a recycling processing center, and directs staff to prepare a recommendation for a vendor selection by July, 1989, with the objective of having the center open no later than January, 1990. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board commit County staff to work with municipalities and metro counties to assist with interim measures to facilitate the continuation of curbside recycling programs during the next 6 months. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board encourage the reconvening of the Recycling Task Force within the next 15 days to discuss the incorporation of problem wastes (such as household batteries and plastics) into curbside recycling programs. By RESOLUTION of the Date CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS H~nn~inCg~ty PLb)ic$£rviceAdmJn. Whereas the State of Minnesota, the Metropolitan Council, the' County of Hennepin and the municipalities within Hennepin County are committed to residential recycling as a primary means of landfill abatement; Whereas newspaper composes approximately 70% of the residential recyclable waste stream; Whereas the market value of newspaper has collapsed to the extent that it has rendered residential recycling programs financially unviable under current contractual arrangements between municipalities and recycling contractors; Whereas it is imperative that the County of Hennepin make extraordinary provisions to ensure that residential recycling programs which provide for the collection of newspaper as well as other'recyclable materials be sustained unless/until it is determined that newspaper should be included in the mixed residential waste stream for central processing, · Therefore Be'It Resolved by The City Council of The City of Minneapolis: That The City of Minneapolis recommends that the County of Hennepin and the municipalities of Hennepin County support the following actions: That Hennepin County clarify its municipal recycling program grant funding guidelines to explicitly provide that the costs to dispose of unmarketable recyclable materials are eligible program expenditures. That Hennepin County amend its municipal recycling program grant funding guidelines as follows: The current funding provisions shall remain intact, but, in addition, the County shall adopt the following interim funding provision: 1) The County shall establish a base value of mixed residential recyclable materials. 2) The County shall determine monthly the actual market value per ton for mixed residential recyclable materials. 3) The County shall recon~end to ~ll municipalities that they amend contracts with residential recycling contractors to pay to the contractors, in addition to the fees required under the original contract terms, the amount that the base value of mixed residential recyclable materials exceeds (he actual market value determined and announced by the County each month for all tons of mixed residential recyclable materials collected. 4) The County shall reimburse the municipalities for 10D% of the cost of the excess payments made to the recycling contractors. 5) This provision shall be in effect until the actual market value of mixed residential recyclables exceeds the base value of mixed residential recyclable materials for three consecutive months or until the County .designates the destination of all mixed residential recyclable material~t0~:~ County recyclables processing center. That the County of Hennepin explore with other metropolitan counties the option of entering into joint powers agreements for the construction and operation of a central processing facility and the marketing of recyclable materials delivered to such facility. That the County of Hennepin construct a central recyclables processing center alone or in cooperation with other metropolitan counties as soon as possible. That the County of Hennepin explore with Ramsey COunty and other interested municipalities the acquisition of recycling equipment for possible publicly sponsored collection efforts. That the County of Hennepin recommend to the State Legislature that the State expend funds to encourage development of new markets for recyclable materials and to construct and operate Cactllttes and transportation systems to re~e~ve and del~ver to markets recyclable materials. That the County of Hennep~n recon~end to the State Legislature that the State provide the ~ncent~ves and/or grants to manufacturing companies that use recycled materials ~nstead of v~rg~n materials ~n their manufacturing processes. That the County of Hennep~n monitor the market conditions for newspaper and deten'n~ne by January 1, 1991 whether newspaper shou]d be collected separately for recycling or ~ncluded ~n the mixed residential ~aste stream.- ~.~rtsor~ ,~4v,es ~e~On RECORD OF COUNCIL, VOTE I / I / X INDICATES VOTE -- N.V. - NOt Voting 19__ PASSED.',,I t APPROVED NOT APPROVED VETOED ATTEST AI:)I. ~ ADSe/'~! Ovra. - Vote to Overrtae I I S~eT. - Vote tO SuSTain PROGRAM ~GESDA 12:00~12:30 p.m. Registration 12:30-12:40 Welcome and Intr~ducti0n 12_:40- 1:40 Role of Commissions/Co, mitt,es O Defining the mission o Realistic impac.t of co~ssion o Expectations, goals ahd inter- relationships o Interaction between different commissions -.1:40- 3:00 How to Conduct a Meeting/Public ~earing --,---: .... o Definition of each ~,,: ..... ' o A look at decision-making process and · skills ' .'- o Effective use of Roberts Rules of Order :'::95:'?~ '~'"': "--" o R~nts on how to manage an unruly group 3.-00- 3:]5 Break 3:]5- 5:00- 'T~am Building .~.-..-,,.~:~-...:~-,;~:._ ,~. . O -Dealing with hidden agendas, conflicts of ..~b....:~:~a a Pr0fessxonal planner/who has 20 years of experience helping boards and o~m,dssions become more Tn, $45 per person registration fee includes a break and workshop materials. Register 5 or more people together fr~ y~ur jurisSiction and pay a reduced fee of $40 per person. ¥o~ mu~t register iff advance by ushlg ~he attached fo~m. The deadline for registration is 7 working ~ays before the workshop ~ate. ~eglstrations received after that date will be charged a late fee of $5 per pers0~. Fees for the worksbo~ %~ill be fully refunded only if cancellations are received 5 working days before workshop. Alternatives wi// be accepted at any time. You will not receive confirmation of your registration. ~ursday, June 15., 1989 2301 Pokeg~ma Avenue South. ,. :.~ Thursday, June 22, 1989 . Sheraton Northwest Brooklyn Park, MN 55428' ~...: .:~..~.?<. Contact L/sa McMann )for reglstratt~ - ~:~ assistance) o~.Vivian Sart (wi~h'-~:. program questions) at Government- Training Service, 46 g.: 4th ~cree~,-~c. Paul, MN 55101 or ca1/ 612/222-7409 or Kar .enj:Ray?f Karen Ray .Associates-provides'" training,-'consult~ ~bl.i¢,-joi~.t ~ers om.a.i~..ti~{ 'and' facilitation seMcesTM--- -~o-~o '~=,,o ~,.,,-~,,~L.~ ,..~+.~,~ :::. ~L~o, ~ ro ~e~ the c~ng~ <:.; state.cl..e~rtments ~ various non-profit agencies and :'3'-' '-':::::'~¢::~::;~ poUcyn',akers, S-~aff an~ a~pointed associations.. '.-".]'~::~::t:::?':'.-~' %: .... . ..... ,~:~ i-.~,<~'~.. ~?,-~t,---~ ..... '-~'~:: ~:--'~ '":!:~ of~cials by ~rovtdin~ innovative,".": t ---,,~ ..................... ~ . - ..... ~ .... , .............. . .,....._~ .... omprehensxve, practical t£ainin~ and -'..,'~:,-~.':--~:':-:.,?:-t:. ',-".~:'~.--:~:.:..-';:'-~:::~ ":~! ..... :.'~'W-~T~':'-::"~-::.'.:]'~-~": ..... .Z?,-.~?=;?;:~<-~.. .c~multing to I~311clF'~unded-.-..: '~-' -- =:~..*~:: ': :'. :::C-~~'- · :'~:---"-:*:"~,~ .: ': '-'. - - ..... "-"7~ ' Y:~C':'~f:"".:"."/~f2,'~i?.~:,:~:'. Or~rl~tlo~lS' 'ill ~ ..- .: _...:~... _ :-. : ..... ..:,-. .., ..~....~: ....... :~:, · :- '< ':':'"~'<3y<--- -,'.~-::::-::~ ...... ::.7'~:,~.:~:~'--..-~%~ .-,.-, ,~.~/E~ ~'~.-~ .ak,,.--,. .... .-, .... '-. '<- · ': - ,' -"'."..~'~-~' -'.~ ,"t%: '"'.~ .';: ~<'% - L-~: " : ~-'- ,~'O~~-,:"'. -.:.:":.-- -.- ..... . ~ ............... . : ..... ~'~ .:.~ ~ ........ .-et:e- - .... ,_~,,- :. --~-.:~*.n~.v~a~ ,~.:~.. ~ ..... ~...,,.. ......... ,~,., ............ . . g OUR AGE~A -:%-~ . ~...,. ..... ;, ..... :.,-.-:..: .... .:-.~.:.~.,:~_, ::. ,---.-, ~une. ~, - 1989..-, .: ~,::.': ...... ':~..',~ ..... -::~:,:<,:-[~:-~,,~-~-~::~.;.~ ~u-~.-.~ ~,;~, -.--.~_ , - - __ · 7~ ~ ". q '- :'..:~":~'.~ '_'- '--?~-~ ; ~s:~ ~2,'*"~- - ---- , ........ ~ -. ..... . - : --. j _.~.-, -..~. ,.~. ,.~_,. ~.~ .... ~ .... -... -'E,~:: ..... Jurisdiction Add:ess · · · . :: , . . ::.-: .:.-..~: --.: _ :~,.;, ..:- -.., - .- .:;.~ ~. .... :.~ ,,~ _, ,.' t <.: . , ' ' ' ' ~ "" ...... ' · "': ''' :::::.- ::--": (Street) · - .... ' .....:' · '(C=t- · ..... - ....... ,-.-.-.-.' ..... . ::..: ........ -.-- -. .... . '-.::--: - z., .-,'- -/" . . ~nc~osed ~s my check -($45' per registration)~ayable-to GoVernment :~..~.~ ~:' Training Service· ($40 per person if 5 or"more register-) '-.~' ':':'--',::'::::.'-.";:"'1 -' ~ 202 ! ' (*3 billing charge. wl]'i~:'~e::~dded"~:0:";egi~'t'ra~i~'~ -~ ' .' :~' .', - '::: - ~vernment"Training service" Minnesota Building, 46'East Fourth street ' ' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~D~gg NW ONnOW OAqG OOO~AVH L~£g sJeqtuelq eell!mtuoo ~ sJeUm.~lmmoo ~ :ol eino~ LOLgg eloseuu!iN 'lned leeJ1S q~Jno:! ise:l /- §ulplina e~oseuu!lN ~0~ e?!~des BmUle~£ Tuetutue~o~) ' · ACCOMPLISHING YOUR AGENDA ... JUNE._15_.; GRAND RAPIDS JUNE 22. . BROOKLYN PARK '. - ~!!.!?.-,.:-.-" ..- . A WORKSHOP FOR MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARDS, COMMISSION &' COMMITTIES' . GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE " ~Memb'er-s o~' Advisory Boar~s, Commissions and Committees can p~ovide /valuab%~ input on local issues and concerns. Unfortunately, members · <are no~ always sure what is expected of them. Roles are not clear, 1 s~tructures and processes are not well outlined. ~his workshop will present practical information that will help you, as a member of a commission or committee, better understand: o Roles and relationships o The decision-making process o HOw to build confidence and trust' within your committee/team After this session you will know the answers to: WHAT ARE WE HERE TO DO and HOW CAN WE WORK TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSION MOUND MN MAYOR STEVE SMITH 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 HOME 472-7664 ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LEN HARRELL, POLICE CHIEF DON BRYCE, FIRE CHIEF May 19, 1989 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Placement of "Watch For Children" Street Signs on Dorchester Road Dear Ed: Please place on the council agenda as an item for discussion my request for placement of two "Watch for Children" street signs on Dorchester. I am making this request on behalf of Peggy Jones on Dorchester and other citizens as well. Thank you. /Steven C. Smith SCS:kr Ee Ge LMCD Minutes of April 26, 1989 Pg. 1827-1838 REMINDER: Reconvened Board of Review - Wednesday, May 24, 1989, 7:00 PM REMINDER: Joint Meeting with Public Facilities Task Force, Thursday, June 1, 1989, 7 PM, Clty Council Chambers. Task Force will review formal report with City Council. Please mark your calendars. Page 1634 RECYCLEAMERICA ® Minnesota Office P.O. Box 9 Circle Pines, MN 612/784-8349 55014 Ms. Joyce Nelson City of Mound 5341Maywood Drive Mound, MN 55364 May 23, 1989 Dear Joyce: Thank you for your interest in Waste Management and our curbside reoycling servioes. Confirming our discussion, we would be happy to provide curbside residential recycling services to the City of Mound. We will collect glass containers, newspapers, and aluminum, tin bi-metal and steel food and beverage containers every other Friday beginning Friday, July 7, 1989. The minimum contract period for our services is 18 months. Based on Mound's 3,200 households, the cost for our service will be $2.05 per household per month. That charge includes 26 collections per year. We fully expect that all newspaper generated from this program can be recycled. Currently, we are able to market newspaper at zero net cost (no revenue received, no cost paid out). Consequently, to ensure continued success for your program, we request a contract term allowing for a justified rate increase if we incur charges in excess of $10 a ton to market or dispose of newspaper. For every $5/ton cost over $10/ton, for instance, the rate would increase 7.5 cents per home to a maximum of $40/ton or 45 cents per home. Ms. Joyce Nelson May 23, 1989 Page Two Thank you for your time and consideration, Joyce, and especially for your patience in waiting for a response to your inquiry. I am sorry about your current predicament, but I am also excited about the opportunity to work with the City of Mound. Please let me know if I can assist you in any way. Program Development Manager Enclosure Edward J. Shukle Mike Berkopec