1989-06-27CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JUNE 27, 1989
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
Approve the Minutes of he June 13, 1989, Regular
Meeting and the June 20, 1989, Committee of the
Whole Meeting.
Pg. 1967-1975
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills.
Pg. 1976
PUBLIC HEARING:
Proposed Street Improvement -
Private Portion of Denbigh Rd.
Pg. 1977-1987
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC HEARING:
CASE %89-815:
Case #89-821: Consider a
Preliminary and Final Plat for
Commerce Place.
Pg. 1988-2022
Case #89-822: Consider a
Preliminary and Final Plat for
Langdon View Located at Beachwood
Road and Commerce Blvd. Pg. 2023-2041
Scott Hill, 4984 3 Points Blvd.,
Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, Block 25,
Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 11
0105 & 0106.
Request: Minor Subdivision.
CASE %89-823:
Craig Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd.,
Lot 1, Block 7, Pembroke, PID
#19-117-23 33 0039.
Pg. 2042-2050
Request:
Recognize an Existing Nonconforming
Structure and Allow a Rear Yard
Setback Variance.
Pg. 2051-2064
CASE %89-824:
Daniel Johnson, 1766 Shorewood Lane,
Lot 4, Block 3, Shadywood Point,
PID #13-117-24 11 0135.
10.
Request: Front Yard Setback Variance.
CASE %89-825:
Percival Jacobson, 4700 Wilshire
Blvd., .Lots 1,2,3,16,17 & 18,
Block 31, Seton, PID #19-117-23
23 0112/0119.
Pg. 2065-2079
Page 1964
11.
Request: Fence Height Variance.
CASE #89-826:
Request:
Pg. 2080-2089
Melvin Zuckman, 5012 Tuxedo Blvd.,
Tract A, RLS 1150t PID $24-117-24
43 0034.
Variance to Allow Two Principal Structures
on One Zoning Lot. Pg. 2090-2116
12. CASE $89-827:
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20'.
21.
22.
23.
Daniel & Diane DeMatteo, 5145 Emerald
Drive, Lots 2, 3, & Part of Lot 1,
Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit C,
PID #24-117-24 13 0037.
Request:
Recognize an Existing Nonconforming
Accessory Structure to Allow Structural
Modifications.
Pg. 2117-2125
Application for a Sign Permit for Light of Life
Christian Center at Westonka Community Services.
Pg. 2126
Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present.
BID AWARD: Repairs to County Road 110. (City
Engineer will distribute.materialS Tuesday
evening.)
Pg. 2127
Resolution Amending Standards & Guidelines for
Deferral of Special Assessments Because of
Hardship for Senior Citizens.
Pg. 2128-2129
Resolution to Rename County Road 15.
Pg. 2130
Resolution Authorizing Mayor and City Manager to
Execute Lease Agreement with Mark Saliterman for
Municipal Liquor Store.
Pg. 2131-2132
Approval of Final Payment Request from Hardrives
on Norwood Lane/Bartlett Blvd. Storm Sewer
Improvements - Amount $9,500.00.
Pg. 2133-2134
Request for Maintenance Permit for Michael
Kraemer, 5500 Breezy Road - 8 Steps.Down to
Dock on Waterside Commons.
Pg. 2135-2137
An Ordinance Amending Section 468:10 of the
City Code Relating to Games of Skill Licenses.
Pg. 2138
An Ordinance Amending Section 800:05, Subd. 5,
of the City Code Relating to On-Sale Wine
Licenses.
Pg. 2139-2141
Resolution Releasing Certain Tax Forfeit Lands
to Hennepin County for Public Auction and
Certifying the Special Assessments.
Pg. 2142-2145
Page 1965
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Central Business District (CBD)
Parking Program.
Set Date for Receiving RFP on Curbside Recycling
Suggeste4 Date: July 20, 1989.
Bill McNamee has requested time on the Agenda to
discuss the dram shop liability insurance
requirements in Section 800:10, Subdivision 7
of the City Code.
License Renewals.
Pg. 2146-2148
Pg. 2149-2152
Pg. 2153-2154
Pg. 2155-2157
Payment of Bills
Pg. 2158-2173
INFORMATION/MISCELLaNEOUS:
ao
May 1989 Financial Report as Prepared by
John Norman, Finance Director.
Pg. 2174-2175
B. Park Commission Minutes of June 8, 1989.
Pg. 2176-2180
C. Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 1989. Pg. 2181-2188
D. LMCD Mailings.
Pg. 2189-2200
Ee
Mark July 8, 1989, 10:00 A.M. on your calendars for
the dedication of Philbrook Park at the park. John
Taffe, Jerry Henke and others are organizing it and
a sign will be ready for that day and time.
F. Hennepin County Compost Site Update.
Pg. 2201-2202
Ge
Memo from Jim Fackler regarding Eurasian
Water Milfoil.
Pg. 2203-2206
Page 1966
91
June 13, 1989
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL -- JUNE 13, 1989
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
regular session on Tuesday, June 13, 1989, at 7:30 P.M.,
Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
met in
in the
Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ah-
tens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present
were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr, City Clerk Fran Clark,
City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building
Official Jan Bertrand, Finance Director John Norman, Sewer &
Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Street Superintendent Geno
Hoff and the following interested citizens: Jack Cook, Ruth
Gray, Mr. & Mrs. Jack Mateffy, Gerald Henke, John Taffe, Mike
Mueller, Jr., Dave Feerhusen.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten-
dance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MINUTES
Councilmember Jensen made the following corrections to the May
24, 1989, Board of Review Minutes:
PID ~14-117-24 31 0024 - DUANE NORBERG, 6015 ASPEN.
The Assessor recommended no change - $85,500
MOTION made by Smith to adjust to an increase of 4.4%
over the 1988 valuation. The motion died for lack of a
second.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to accept the
Assessors recommendation as stated. The vote was 4 in
favor with Smith voting nay. Motion carried.
12.
PID ~14-117-24 34 0019 - HOWARD ORNt 6057 LYNWOOD.
The Assessor recommended no change - $102,800.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded'by Johnson to adjust to
an increase of 4.4% over 1988 valuation. Motion failed
with i in favor and Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen and Johnson
voting nay.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the
minutes of the May 23, 1989, Regular Meeting as submitted
and the May 24, 1989, Reconvened Board of Review as amended.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION - AMERICAN LEGION POST ~398
The Mayor read the following Certificate of Appreciation:
92
June 13, 1989
"The City Council of the City of Mound would like to take
this opportunity to express their sincere appreciation to
the Mound American Legion Post %398 for their generous dona-
tion of flag poles, flags and installation at the following
three city locations: Brookton Park, Chester Park and the
new Public Works Facility. Presented this 13th day of June,
1989."
Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following:
RESOLUTION %89-64
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO
THE MOUND AMERICAN LEGION POST %398
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Mayor then presented the plaque to John Taffe, member of the
post.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY - RUTH GRAY, 2640 LAKEWOOD LANE
The City Engineer explained that the purpose of this vacation is
to clarify some easement problems dating back to the 1979 Street
Improvement project. When the new storm sewer was installed from
the catch basin in Lakewood Lane to the lake, field adjustments
were ..necessary to avoid trees and the old pipe which was left in
place. As a result of the revisions, the recorded easement did
not adequately protect the needs of the City and covered property
of Mrs. Gray's which was not necessary for maintenance of the
storm sewer. These are the reasons for the request for a vaca-
tion of the easement recorded in 1980 and then Mrs. Gray can sign
the new documents and place them of record at the time the ease-
ment vacation is recorded.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jack Mateffy, 2650 Lakewood Lane, asked if the dip at the
end of the storm sewer pipe could be filled in with gravel
to stop stagnant water from accumulating. The Engineer ex-
plained that this is a problem in many areas of the City be-
cause of the low lake level and that if the dip were filled
the water from the storm sewer would create another dip
along side.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %89-65
RESOLUTION VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BELONGING TO RUTH
GRAY, 2640 LAKEWOOD LANEt PID %24-117-24
24 0029
93
June 13, 1989
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CASE ~89-809:
JACK COOK, 4452 DENBI~H ROAD, BLOCK 1, LOT 2,
AV~LONt PID ~ 19-117-23 24 O002t VARI]tNCE
The Building Official gave the background. Jack Cook, applicant,
stated he is working with his neighbor Ms. Konnad to try and pur-
chase some property. They are presently waiting for a response
from Ms. Konnad's mortgage company on the subdivision of the
piece Mr. Cook needs.
The Council discussed the previous denials for a variance and the
need for a variance to allow a continuous level deck above grade
even if the decks and walls were completely on the applicant's
property. Councilmembers Jessen and Johnson discussed variance
criteria not being met and could find no hardship to justify ap-
proval.
The applicant asked that the item be returned to the Planning
Commission for further consideration and to give him time to
finalize the purchase of the additional property.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to table this item
for 60 days and give Mr. Cook the opportunity to appear
before the Planning Commission at their July 10th meeting.
The vote was 3 in favor with Jessen and Johnson voting nay.
'Motion carried.
REQUEST FOR CITY TO REPURCHASE TWO CEMETERY LOTS
The City Clerk explained the request.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to authorize the
City to repurchase 2 cemetery lots (Division C, Lot 91,
Grave I & 2) for $100.00 each from Clarence & Lydia Splet-
tstoeszer. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PARK DEDICATION FEE SCHEDULE - SECTION
330:120 OF THE CITY CODE
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE #30-1989
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 330:120,
SUBDIVISIONS 2, 3 AND 5 RELATING TO PARK
DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
94
June 13, 1989
APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS TO CO.UNITY ENERGY COUNCIL
The City Clerk explained that each of the three cities involved
in the project and grant application will be appointing two per-
sons to serve on the council. The recommended people from Mound
are Dotty O'Brien and Cathy Bailey.
Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION APPOINTING DOTTY O'BRIEN AND
CATHY BAILEY TO THE COMMUNITY ENERGY
COUNCIL
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF CITY WATER SHUTOFF POLICY
Finance Director, John Norman, reviewed the City's policy
(Resolution #86-52) on water shutoffs and the procedures followed
for the payment of delinquent bills. No action was taken.
APPROVAL OF PERMITS
MOTION made by Smith, seconded the Jensen to authorize the
issuance of the following permits to the Northwest Tonka
Lions for June 9, 1989:
Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit - Waiving the fee
Set-Up Permit - Waiving the fee.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of $190,059.45, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADD-ON ITEMS
A. REQUEST FROM DEVELOPERS OF HARRISON SHORES ADDITION
Dave Feerhusen, representing David Morse, requested recon-
sideration of the placement of the water curb boxes and the
3 copper lines into the proposed structures (Resolution #89-
52).
The Sewer & Water Superintendent and the City Engineer ad-
vised the Council not to approve the request because of pos-
sible future problems and the city's liability.
No action was taken.
Bo
95
June 13, 1989
REQUEST FROM JEI~3tY HENKE /%/qD JOIIN T~I~FE TO ClI;tN~E THE Ni%ME
OF BROOKTON PARK (CLOVER CIRCLE P~RK) TO PHILBROOK PARK
The City Manager explained that the Park Commission has
reviewed and recommended a name change for Brookton Park to
Philbrook Park because of the civic commitment Jetty and
Mary Lou Philbrook have shown over the years. Also the land
for Brookton Park was originally donated to the City by a
member of the Philbrook family. The Park Commission will
hold a ceremony dedicating the park at a future date and
signage will be erected if this is approved.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %89-67
RESOLUTION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF BROOK-
TON PARK TO PHILBROOK PARK DEDICATED TO
MARY LOU AND JETTY PHILBROOK
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SIGNS FOR SHORELINE BLVD.
The City Manager showed 'the CounCil the different types of
signage that have been drawn by Ganzel Signs for Mound,
Spring Park and Navarre. He also showed a planter. The es-
.timated cost is $2250. The Council asked that the item be
researched and other costs obtained. They asked that the 3
cities work together for uniformity.
L.M.C.D. APPLICATION FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE ON A CHARTER BOAT
BY AL & ALMA,S SUPPER CLUB
The City Manager explained this is a renewal and if the City
has no objections it can be signed off.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
City Manager to execute the L.M.C.D. certificate regarding a
liquor license authorized port of call for A1 & Alma,s Sup-
per Club. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL AWARD
The City Manager presented the Council with the Outstanding
Achievement Award from the Minnesota Safety Council in
recognition of outstanding accident prevention performance
in traffic safety.
REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY, PORTABLE SIGNS - INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL
The City Manager explained that Our Lady of The Lake's In-
credible Festival is requesting permission to display three
outdoor signs (4' x $') in various locations and two banners
96
June 13, 1989
across city streets.'
MOTION made by &hrens, seconded by Smith to allow Our Lady
of the Lake,s Incredible Festival to display three outdoor
signs (4, x 8,) at the following locations:
County Road 110 and Three Points Blvd.
Mound Bay Park
The City parking lot across from Ben Franklin.
and two banners, one near the Seton Bridge and the other on
county Road 110 coming from St. Bonifacius. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
G. AMENDMENT TO STANDARDS & GUIDELINES FOR DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to table this
item to the next meeting when more information on low income
can be obtained. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS=
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1989.
Bo
"1988 Annual Report of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dis-
trict.
C. Report from Tom Reese, LMCD Representative.
D. Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 1989
Ee
Letter from Dr. Jim Smith, Superintendent of.Schools regard-
ing the program and budget for Community Services. Meeting
will be held Monday, July 10, 1989, 7:30 P.M., Westonka Com-
munity Center.
Fe
Letter from Senator Gen Olson summarizing 1989 Legislative
Session.
Ge
REMINDER: Committee of the.Whole Meeting, Tuesday, June 20,
1989, 6:30 P.M., city Council Chambers. Pizza will be
brought for your convenience.
H. LMCD mailings.
Letter from Jo Ellen Hurr thanking the City of Mound for
their support for her re-appointment to the Metro Waste Con-
trol Commission. She was not re-appointed.
97
June 13, 1989
Letter from Coldwell Banker Realty stating they would again
be putting up flags in people yards the evening of June 13
in recognition of Flag Day which is June 14.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at
9:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
MINUTES
MOUND CIT~ COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JUNE 20, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM, at city hall.
Members present: Smith, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Ahrens.
Absent: none. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle, City
Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Tom Maple and
Dave Schultz of Miller and Schroeder.
City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Tom Maple. He prese'nted
information regarding the Essential Function Bond Program in
reference to multi-family housing for the Lost Lake property.
Mr. Maple presented the program and what the options would be for
the City of Mound should it decide to go in this direction. It
was a Council consensus not to pursue multi-family housing for
the Lost Lake property. City Manager Ed Shukle pressed for the
Council to discuss what exactly they would like to do with the
Lost Lake property other than to clean it up. The Council
basically indicated that to clean up the ground is the most
important issue at this time.
A discussion was held with regard to alternative sites for Public
Works outdoor storage. Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent and Greg
Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent were present to discuss
the alternatives that have been looked at. City Manager Ed
Shukle reviewed the discussion from the May 16th Committee of the
Whole meeting where the Council had given some direction on what
to investigate. Essentially, he reported that all of those
options were not feasible with the possible exception of snow
storage at the Waste Control Commission Site. Discussion was
then held on the possibility of storage of material to the east
of city hall, between city hall and the fire station. It was the
consensus that the staff investigate this alternative and bring
it back to the next Committee of the Whole meeting.
Discussion was held with regard to the Public Facilities Task
Force Report on the future expansion of city hall. Discussion
was held with regard to whether the Council supported the
proposal as it was presented by the Task Force. It appeared that
at least four of the Councilmembers indicated that they supported
it. The question was should they go further and spend the
necessary dollars to prepare plans and specifications for bid
thereby knowing what the bids would be. Simultaneously they
would inform the public as to what they were doing with the
project to be paid for out of the Capital Improvements Debt
Service Fund. It was the consensus to have the Task Force
formally present the report to the City Council at its July 11th
meeting.
A brief discussion was held on what to do with the Milfoil
problem that is washing up on the Commons shoreline and where it
could be hauled. The Parks Director was directed to have a
report on this.
Upon motion by Johnson, seconded by Jensen, and carried
unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 PM.
City Manager
ES:is
22 2320 122
22 2320 242
22 2320 753
22 2380 392
22 2382 481
22 2330 151
22 2560 063
22 2592 961
22 2596 273
22 2596 841
22 2598 091
22 2598 601
22 2620 937
22 2'680 151
22 2860 543
22 2860 661
22 3010 392
22 3100 513
22 3102 961
22 3160 211
22 3730 183
22 3880 781
22 4040 213
Delinquent Water and Sewer
$289.11
263.17
87.00
118.88
134.72
141.84
147.51
114.23
208.28
338.67
86.14
99.85
255.33
85.71
68.66
234.07
83.73
51.76
100.00
105.73
198.96
122.44
lO8.00
6-21-89
$3443.79
ICi T¢
NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT: DENBIGH ROAD IMPROVEMENT
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given:that'the City Council of the City of Mound~ Minnesota,
will meet in the City Hall Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 P.M.,
on Tuesday, June 27, 1989, to consider the making of the following improvement:
"the improvement of a now private portion of. Denbigh-Road that runs
east from Cardiff Lane,"
pursuant to M.$.A. Section 429.011 to 429.111. The area proposed to be assessed
for such improvement is all the property abutting. The estimated cost of such
improvement is $41,OO0.. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to
the proposed improvement will be heard'at this meeting. ·
Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Cterk
Publish in The Laker - June 12, 1989 &
June 19, 1989
/q77
A. THOkqA$ WUR$'r, P.A.
CURTIS A. PE'AR$ON, P.A.
UAMr$
THOk4A$ F'. UNDERWOOD, P.A.
CRAIG M.
ROGER ~1. F'ELLOWS
LAW
WUR$"i', PI='AR$ON~ I.ARSON, UNDI='RWOOD & MIrR'T'Z
IIOO FIRS'r BANK PLACE: WE:ST
M IN N E:AIOOLISt MINN £$OTA
June 21, 1989
(61~)
Mr. Clarkson Lindley
Attorney at Law
807 Twelve Oaks Center
15500 Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
JUN 2 2 1.989
Re: Improvement of Denbigh Road-
Dear Clarkson:
This will confirm our telephone conversations of June 15, 1989, and
June 20, 1989. After receiving and reviewing your memorandum of June 13,
1989, I contacted you to discuss that memorandum and the possibility of
coming to a negotiated settlement. I want to indicate at the outset that I
do not have approval from the City Council or the residents in the
neighborhood for what I am proposing, but I have discussed it with the City
Engineer and the City Manager, and collectively we believe this might work.
It is my suggestion at this time that Freda Olson convey a public
easement to the City of Mound over the area designated by the City Engineer
so Denbigh Road can be improved. It is my further suggestion that the City
in effect take an option on this land for a public easement and that the
payment for the easement would be approximately the same as the estimated
cost of Freda's assessment, which I understand to be $3,772.76.
It appears to me that the proposal that I have made to you and to
your client may be saleable to the City Council and the residents in the
neighborhood. A figure of $3,000 is included in the engineer's estimate
for right-of-way acquisition. There are some other soft costs which may be
reduced if we can move quickly and efficiently to reduce the legal and
administrative expenses.
I also have pointed out that if the City Council determines to go
forward and if it becomes necessary to condemn this land, we will take the
position that Freda Olson has not been damaged because the land is already
subject to a private road easement. The Daytons truck, the postman, or any
merchant can go up and down this road calling on the various property
owners, and Freda cannot stop them from using the road. If this is the
case, how can she expect to be paid for a full fee taking? It appears to me
that the property is already subject to use by the public as invitees of any
property owner on the street. I have had several other experiences with
this kind of an arrangement, and I find that the appraiser generally wil?
give very reduced amounts for lands which are subject to private easements.
WURST,, PEAR:$ON~ LAR$ON~ UNDEI~WOOD ~
It appears to me that Mrs. Olson would probably get a very reduced amount for
the easement after condemnation. From the City's standpoint, we cannot do
any work on the land without obtaining a public easement, and we would then
do it under the auspices of a public agency and put in some storm sewer and
improve it in such a manner that it will benefit all of the property owners,
including Freda Olson.
The unfortunate thing is that when you and I work on this kind of a
project, our efforts do not produce improvements which can be seen or help
the neighborhood. The legal and administrative time that goes into these
kinds of projects should be minimized for the benefit of the property
owners, and I sincerely hope that your client and you will find my
suggestion acceptable. I would then do my level best to recommend it to the
property owners, the City Council, and the rest of the City staff. If we
can work all of these things out, Freda in effect benefits because she is
paid for land which is already subject to easements; the residents benefit
because they resolve a long-standing problem and get a decent public street
to serve their property; all the residents benefit because their properties
should increase in value in an amount at least equal to their assessments
and the public becomes responsible for the snow removal and normal
maiRtenance; and the City benefits because it resolves a long-standing
'problem and the lands increase in assessed value. The longer the
disagreement drags on, the more money you and I get but the less physical
improvements there are to benefit the property owners, whether they are
other people using the street or your client. I suggest that the time has
come to try to put this to bed and to get the matter resolved. Your
courtesy, help, and cooperation in bringing this to a conclusion will be
very much appreciated.
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
City of Mound
CAP:ih
cc-
Mr.
Ed Shukle, City Manager/
John Cameron, City Engineer
TO: Councilmember Andrea Ahrens
FROM: Clarkson Lindley
RE: The Reason Why the Property of Mrs. Freda J. Olson
Must Not be Assessed for the Improvement of Denbigh Lane
DATE: .June 13, 1989
ONE ROAD IS ENOUGH
Introductor~ Statement:
The property of Mrs. Freda J. Olson, at 4414 Wtlshire Blvd. (Lot 97 and the West
~2, front and rear of Lot 98, Phelps Island Park, First Division) must be NOT
assessed for the improvement of Denbigh Lane because the property derives all
the benefit of the kind necessary to its use and enjoyment, that is road and
utility access, from Wtlshire Blvd.
'In addition, Mrs. 01son must be fairly compensated for her property which is to
be taken by the improvement of Denbigh Lane. ~
Facts:
Mrs. Olson's property fronts on Wilshire Blvd., as indicated by her street
address, and as shown on the plan prepared by McCombs: Frank Roos & Associates
entitled:
Proposed Street Improvement
Denbigh Lane :
Alternate B
Mound, Minnesota
Date 5-3-89
However the proposed street improvement plan does not show the blacktop drive on
}irs. 01son's property coming off Wilshire Blvd. (A copy of a map is attached
showing this drive. )
The existing Denbigh Lane crosses Mrs. 01son's property to the rear, or north.
Her Deed shows that the property is already burdened with a private easement for
Danbigh Lane as it now exists.
The plan proposed by the City shows that the ten inch maple tree on the
northeast corner of Mrs. 01son's property will be taken, as will an additional
easement for more pavement, the concrete curb, plus a temporary construction
easement and a permanent seasonal easement for snow storage.
The rule governing this situation is well stated in McQ~illan on Municipal
Corporations:
Rule - Effec= of like exis=in~ improvemen=,
If property is not beneficed by an improvement by reason of the existence of a
like or similar improvement from which the property derives all the benefit of
the kind necessary to its use and enjoyment, it is not subject to assessment for
the later improvement.
This rule was cited with approval by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Independent
School District No. 709 v. City of Duluth, 117 NW2d 812 at 815 (1970)
The trial court in its memorandum cites 14 McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations (3 ed.) §§38.34 and 38.35, to the effect that should pro-
perty be hOC in fact benefited by an improvement by reason of the
existence of a like or similar improvement from which the property
derives all the benefits of the kind necessary to its use and
enjoyment, usually the property is not subject to assessment for later
improvements, and that if existing sewers are adequate, no assessment
can be mmde for the construction of a sewer.
The trial court's finding that no special benefit accrues to the 14.6
acres because of the existence of a like improvement which is available
to serve that property is sustained by the evidence.
Conclusion:
Given the facts of Mrs. OlSon's situation, i.e. her access off Wilshire Blvd.,
and the Minnesota Supreme Court's holding in the cited case, the Mound City
Council is fully justified in finding that Mrs. 01son's property will derive no
benefit from the proposed improvement of Denbigh Lane. THEREFORE HER PROPEKT~f
ffUST NOT BE A.~SESSED FOR THAT IMPROVEMENT. Rather she must be compensated for
the' property, the tree and land, to be taken for the presently proposed improve-
ment of Denbigh Lane.
Respectfully Submitted,
Clarkson Lindley,
Lawyer for Freda J. 01son
CL/sah
PROPERTY
~n£o. ~. oLso~
(Lot 97 and We
SUBJECT: Denbigh Road Project
Dear Mound City Council Member= )'
s/1 /89
I am wrltlng today to ~i$cuss my view of the proposed Denblgh Road'
Im~ovement Project recently discussed at a city council meeting. I live
o~t 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 attempt to gain their 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:
l) Tree to be removed on Northeast corner of her lot.
2) Paying assessments for no apparent 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.
Iwti~ doubtful Hennepin County would.allow any access to Wilshire from
vacant lots, as long as there is another alternative: The county
force the'entrance onto these lots from Denblgh (Cardlff 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
John C. to move the road toward my and Jack Wang's property to take as
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,
~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 the road would go so that. Freda could
try to assess this land's value.- We would like to know what value this lan~
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
as 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 him by neglecting to assure he was invited
to theresident 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 that 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 7-8 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 a11, 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 A?.?. Mound residents can procede.
In closiDg, 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
vaIuable time every year or two. I will be calling you next week to discuss
a~y questions.that you may have and hopefully gain some insight into what needs
to be done to get this project moving toward completion.
R ~/a)r d s,
Paul Withers/Lee Ann Sarma
Active Registered Voter
4416 Denbigh Road
Mound, MN. 55364
Iq q
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
Nay 24, 1989
Telephone
612/476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, .Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
Mound, Minnesota
Denbigh Road
Proposed Street Improvements
MFRA #7064
Dear Ed:
Enclosed are a revised preliminary cost estimate and proposed assessments
for the above mentioned project. These revisions are a result of the revisions
to the plan now known as Alternate B and also include estimated costs for
right-of-way acquisition and replacement of an existing maple with a 6"
transplant, The total cost of the project is now estimated to be $41,000,
which is the figure to be used in the Notice of Public Hearing.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRAhq{ ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:aju
An Eclual Oloportunity Em Dic ?er
Mound, Minnesota
P~eliminary Cost Estimate
Denbigh Road - Alte=nate B
MF~A #706~
Item Quantity Unit Price
Total
Common Excavation 220 C.Y.
3-1/2" Bituminous Base Mn~DOT 2331 100 TON
Bituminous Tack Coat 20 GAL
1-1/2" Bituminous Wear, Mn/DOT 2341 50 TON
Driveway Aprons 600 S.F.
Concrete Curb and Gutter 570 L.F.
Tree Removal 2 EACH
12" RCP Storm Sewer 200 L.F.
Catch Basins 2 EACH
Manhole 1 EACH
Concrete Apron 1 EACH
Rip Rap 2 C.Y.
Black Dirt and Sod 400 S.Y.
Relocate Curb Stop 2 EACH
Adjust Gate Valve 1 EACH
6" Maple 1 EACH
Contingencies
-.' Total Estimated Construction Cost
7.oo/cY
33.00/TN
1.50/0A
36.00/TN
3.50/SF
7.00/LF
400.00/E~
30.00/LF
900,00/EA
1,000.00/EA
400.00/E~
60.00/CY
3.oo/sY
350.00/Ea
2oo.oo/EA
1,O00.00/EA
$ 1,540.00
3~300.00
3o.oo
1,8o0.0o
2,100.00
3,990.00
800,00
6,OOO.OO
1,800.O0
1,000.O0
400.00
120.00
1,200.00
70O.00
200.00
1,000.00
2,620.00
$ 28,600.00
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs
Right-Of-Way Acquisition
9,400.00
3,000.00
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - Alternate B .... : .......... - .... ' .......... $ 41,000.00
Revised 4-20-89
Revised 5=24-89
Proposed
RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL
DATED June 27, 1989
BE IT RESOLVED that Denbigh Lane be improved according to the physical plan
entitled Denbigh Lane Alternate B prepared by McCombs, Frank, Roos and
Associates dated 5/3/89,
With costs assessed against the following benefitted parcels
P.I.D. No.
19-117-23 24 0023
19-117-23 24 0024
19-117-23 24 0025
19-117-23 24 0026
19-117-23 24 0027
19-117-23 24 0028
19-117-23 24 0029
19-117-23 24 0030
19-117-23 24 0031
19-117-23 24 0033
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that:
Description
Lot 88 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 89 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 90 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 91 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 92 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 93 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 94 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 95 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 96 Phelps Island Park, First Division
Lot 99 Phelps Island Park, First Division
a. any private property to be taken, in fee or by easement, from landowners
not petitioning for said improvement, to be paid at fair market value; and
b. that the 10" sugar maple to be taken by the project be replaced by a 6"
sugar maple; and
c. that at the same time as acceptance and dedication of Denbigh Lane as a
public road, the affected property owners provide evidence to the city that,
upon dedication as a public road, the various private easements which now permit
Denbigh Lane to exist as a private street, will be extinguished and that such
evidence is or will be recorded against the respective titles of the affected
properties.
Moved by
Seconded by
Vote: Aye
No
(Councilmember)
(Councilmember)
B
L
A
K
T.
0
P
D
R
I
' , I~,, 1 0" MAP LE
" ;~ TREE I
i9?,
441 4 WIL~ltlR£ BLVI]
FREDA J. OLSON
J
EXISTING
GARAGE
0
000 ~00000~
000,000 I ~ ~
000 O00 I ~ ~
80000~ ,I ~0
0'0 O00 I ~ ~
0~0000 I O00
0 O0 O00 I O00
000 000000 O~
JJJJJ~JJJJ~
oreo
II II 11 >
II II II
-000
000
· ~ ~0
LA~' OFFICES
BRIGGS AND MORGAN
t:}l~ Ola'l~lS $ I Olq.~l.. ~. $ $ O~I.~TI O1~I'
f~2OO FII~$T N~.T~ON.a.L ~]SA.N'K BUILDING
SAINT I~A. UL, MINNESOTA 55101
TF-.LEP]~O~ (61~) 291-1215
TET-~-COPIER (6L~) ~22'4071
LEW/TT, p*v.w[ER, BO~tSN, ]~OTl~.~ulq & $~A.~E
June 27, 1989
VIA MESSENGER
City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Jan Bertrand, City Planner
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
VIA FAX (338-2625)
Thomas Underwood
City Attorney
City of Mound
1100 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re:
JRW- Commerce Place
Our File No. 17797.5
Case No. 89-821
Members of the City Council, Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Underwood:
We represent the applicant in the above matter, JRW Properties. This letter is being
written in connection with an item on the City Council Agenda for the meeting of Tuesday, June
27, 1989, that is the preliminary and final approval of the applicant's plat for Commerce
Place.
Mr. John Bierbaum, the principal of JRW, is out of town this week and therefore unable
to attend the meeting and in Mr. Bierbaum's absence we request that the plat be approved. In
discussions with Ms. Bertrand and Mr. Underwood, is it our understanding that there are no
impediments to the approval to the final plat except:
(a) Review and approval of title which is being handled by the City Attorney's office;
(b) Review and approval of a proposed Declaration of Covenants which is being
reviewed by the City Attorney's office;
22'[0 HN WORLD TRADE CENTER
/612) 291 - 1215
2200 F~RST NATIONAL BANK BUYLDIN'O
SAINT PAL'I. ~II~qq~ESOTA 55101
(612) 291 - 1215
2400 IDS CENTEI~
M I~,q~EA~OLIS, H L'CNE SOTA
(c) Resolution of any concerns about the location of the trash compactor and signage
which can be resolved between this office and the City Attorney's office;
(d) Approval of all legal descriptions and easements on the proposed plat with any
necessary changes being made by the applicant's surveyor,
We believe all these concerns can be resolved prior to the final plat being executed by
representatives of the City, and we thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter,
DJC:sjc
cc: John Bierbaum, JRW Properties
Mary Moline, JRW Properties
Sincerely yours,
Proposed Resolution
C~e Number 89-8hl
RESOLUTION NO. 89- :
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~ FINAL PLAT OF COMMERCE PLACE
P.I.D. NO. 13-117-24 33 0074
WHEREAS, the final plat of Commerce Place has been submitted in the manner
required fo= platting of land under the City of Mound Code of Ordinances,
Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statutes and all
proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 27, 1989, held a public hearing pursuant
to Chapter 3, Section 330:30 of the City of Mound Code of Ordinances, to
consider the approval of the preliminary plat for Commerce Place located on
property described as follows:
That part of Lot 2, Block 11, lying West of a line drawn parallel with and
100 feet West from the East Line of Block 11; Lot 6, Block 11; Lot 7 and
that part of Lot 8, Block 11, lying East of the Easterly line of Linden
Street, said Easterly line of Linden Street being described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 2, "Koehler's Addition to Mound"
Lake Minnetonka; thence East along:the South line of said Lot 2 a:distance
of 2.5 feet to the point of beginning of the Easterly line being described
herein; thence Northerly, deflecting to the left 88 degrees ll minutes, a
distance of 60 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential curve to the
right, having a radius of 423.5 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 46
minutes, a distance of 153.5 feet; thence Northerly along a tangential
curve to the left, having a radius of 167 feet, to its intersection with
the Northeasterly line of said Lot 8 and there terminating; all in "Lake
Side Park: A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnetonka", according to
the recorded plat thereof.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24 described as commencing at the intersection of the
West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and the
extension West of a line drawn parallel with and 1 foot North from the
North line of Lot 1, "Koehler's Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence
East parallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 191.90 feet;
thence North parallel with the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter a distance of 53 feet to the actual point of beginning;
thence South along the last described parallel line a distance of 53 feet;
thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot 1 a distance of 72.10
feet to the West line of Lot 2, "K6ehler's Addition to Mound" Lake
Minnetonka; thence North along the West line of said Lot 2 to the North
line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along
the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter to a
point 145.30 feet East from the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter
of the Southwest Quarter; thence South parallel with the West line of
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest.Quarter, a distance of 92 feet; thence
East parallel with the North line of sa/d Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter a distance of 34 feet; thence Southeasterly to the actual
point of beginning.
Lots 2, 3, 4 end 5, "Koehler's Ad~/tion to Mou~d" Lake Minnetonka, except
the Southerly 26 feet thereof, according to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24 described as follows: Commencing on a line parallel
with the West 1/ne of said Section and distant 33 feet Easterly themefrom
measured at right angles end at a point on said line 50 feet North of the
intersection of said 1/ne with the north i/ne of Dell Street, thence South
along said line a distance of 50 feet to the north line of Dell Street,
thence East along the North line of Dell Street 108.5 feet, thence
Northwesterly 50.15 feet, more or less to the intersection with a line
drawn parallel with the North line of Dell Street from the point of:
beginning; thence West along said parallel line 105.~ feet to the point of
beginn/ng.
Tracts A end B, Registered Land Survey No. 588, Files of Registrar of
Titles, County of Hennepin.
Tract 1: Tracts C and D, Registered Land Survey No. 588, Files of the
Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tracts E, F, G, H, I, J and K, Registered Land Survey No. 588, Files of the
Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
TRACT 1: That part of Lot 32, Lafayette Park, Lake M/3metonka lying West
of Lot 8, Block 11, Lake Side Park: A.L. Crocker's lst. Division Mound,
'.Minnetonka, and South of the South line of School Street as shown on the-
plat of said Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division Mound, Minnetonka;
and that part of Lot 8, Block 11, Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st
Division Mound, MinnetOnka lying West of the Easterly 1/ne of Linden Street
as opened in the Village of Mound end described in Book 1162 of Deeds, Page
138.
Lots 11 to 15 inclusive, Block 12, LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L. CROCKER'S 1ST
DIVISION MOUND, MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota, ~except that part of
said Lots 11 to 15 which lies northerly of a line that is 40.00 feet
southerly of, measured at a right angle to, and parallel with the north
line of said Lots 11, 13, 1~ and 15 and its easterly extension.
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 11, "Lake Side Park; A.L. Crocker's 1st Division
Mound, Minnetonka" except that part of said Lot 1 lying North of a line
drawn parallel to the Southerly line of said Lot 1 from a point in the
Easterly line of said Lot, which point is distant 10 feet Southerly of the
Northeasterly corner thereof, and to a point of its intersection with the
Westerly line of said Lot or the Southerly line of Church Way; also except
that part of said Lot 2 lying West of a line parallel to the East line of
said Block 11 and beginning at a point on the South line of said Lot 2, 50
feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; also except that part of
Lots 3 and g lying Southerly of a line beginning at a point on the East
line of said Lot 3 distant 14.73 feet North of the Southeast corner
thereof; thence Southwesterly along said line to a point on the West line
of said Lot 4 to a point distant 2.90 feet South of the Northwest corner
thereof and there terminating.
Lots ~. ~ and 5. Block 11. Lske Side Park: A.L. C~ocker's 1st Division
Mound, Mlnnetonka, EXCEPT that part of Lots 3 and 4 lying Northerly of the
following described line; Beginning at a point on ~he East line of said LOt
3, dists_ut 14.73 Feet North of the Southeast corner thereof, thence
Southwesterly to a point on the West line of said Lot 4, distant 2.90 feet
South of the Northwest corner thereof, and s~id line there terminating,
according to the recorded plat thereof, 'Hennepin County, Minnesota.
That part of School Street, dedicated on the plat of LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L.
CROCKER'S 1ST DIVISION, M0UND, MINNETONKA, now known as Church Road, and
that part of vacated Essex Place, formerly known as Linden Street which
lies between the east right-of-way line of Commerce Boulevard and a line
drawn from a point on the northwesterly line of Lot 2, Block 11, of said
LAKE SIDE PARK; A.L. CR0CKER' S 1ST DIVISION MOUND, MINNETONKA, which point
is located by drawing a line parallel with and 100 feet West from the east
line of said Block ll to intersect with the northwesterly line of said Lot
2; to a point on the east line of Lot 11, Block 12 of said LAKE SIDE PARK;
A.L. CR0CKER'S 1ST DIVISION, which point is located by drawing a line
parallel with and 40 feet south from the north line of said Lot 11, Block
12.
Lot I and the southerly 26 feet of Lots 2, .3, 4 and 5, "Koehler's Addition
to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; Also 'that part Of Lot 44 and of Lynwood
Boulevard (platted as Dell Street) in "KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND" LAKE
MINNETONKA, which lies northerly of the following described line:
commencing at the southeast corner of Lot 5 of said "KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND" LAKE MINNETONKA; thence on an assumed bearing of North along the
east line of said Lot 5 a distance of 10.00 feet to the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds
West, 55.63 feet; thence southwesterly 303.53 feet along a tangential
curve, concave to the southeast, having a central angle of 15 degrees 34
minutes 35 seconds, and a radius of 1116.48 feet; thence South 73 degrees
54 minutes l0 seconds West, tangent to the. last described curve, 17.77
feet; thence southwesterly 60.51 feet along a tangential curve, concave to
the northwest, having a central angle of 5 degrees 41 minutes 28 seconds
and a radius of 609.17 feet, to the west line of Lot 44 of said "KOEHLER'S
ADDITION TO MOUND" LAKE MINNETONKA, and said line there terminating.
That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24, which lies northerlylof Lot 1 and westerly of Lot 2
of "KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND" LAKE MINNETONKA, and which lies east of
the west 33.00 feet thereof, except Registered Land Survey No. 588, except
that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13,
Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing on a line
parallel with the West line of said Section and distant 33 feet Easterly
therefrom measured at right angles .and at a point on said line 50 feet
North of the intersection of said line with the north line of Dell Street,
thence South along said line a distance of 50 feet to the north line of
Dell Street, thence East along the .North line of Dell Street 108.5 feet,
thence Northwesterly 50.15 feet, more or less to the intersection with a
line drawn parallel with the North Line of Dell Street from the point of
beginning, thence West along said parallel line 105.44 feet to the point of
beginning, and except that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter, Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 described as commencing at
the intersection of the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter and the extension West of a line drawn parallel with and
1 foot North from the North line of Lot 1, "Koehler's Add/tion to Mound"
Lake Minnetonka; thence East parallel with the North line of said Lot i a
distance of 191.90 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest .Quarter a distance of 53 feet to the
actual point of beginning; thence South along the last described parallel
line a distance of 53 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of
said Lot 1 a distance of 72.10 feet to the West line of Lot 2, "Koehler's
Addition to Mound" Lake Minnetonka; thence North along the West line of
said Lot 2 to the North line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southw. est
Quarter;thence West along the North line of sa/d Southwest Quarter' of the
Southwest Quarter to a point 145.30 feet East from the Northwest corner of
said Southwest-Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South parallel with
the West line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a
distance of 92 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said
Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 34 feet; thence
Southeasterly to the actual point of beginning.
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the
regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Hirnuesota and the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Mound.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
-A." Plat approval is granted fOr cOmmerce Place as requested by JRW
Properties, Inc., upon compliance with the following requirements:
As per final'plat, Exhibit "A", with the addition of easements as
required by the City Engineer.
City Attorney's title opinion approval and the review and
approval of:
80
Declaration of Easements;
Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements.
CityAttorney to research and prepare the necessary agreements
related to the trash enclosure encroachment and signage
continuity, as per Planning Commission recommendations of June
12, 1989. :
Be
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certifiedCopy of
this Resolution to the above named owner and subdivider after the
completion of the requirements for their use as required by M.S.A.
462.358.
That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the
certificate of approva~ on behalf of the City Council upon compliance-.
with the foregoing resolution;
Iqq
De
Upon completion of all requirements heretofore state~, the Mayor and
City Manager shall execute t~he finished plat which shall be delivered
to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall obt~iu and record any
and all hardshell$, easements and other item~ required to protect the
public interest.
Re
This final plat shall be filed and 'recorded within 60 days of the date
of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager /n
accordance with Section 330 of the City Code of Ordinances and shall
be recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this Resolution.
with one copy being filed with the City of Mound.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said
plat by..the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper
compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle
such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in
compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of 0rdinances.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
Case No. 89-821
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL
PLAT FOR COMMERCE SQUARE; FOR THE LANDS WITH THE FOLLOWING
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES
13-117-24-33-0074
13:117-24-32-0145
13-117-24-32-0144
2200 COMMERCE BLVD.
222] FERN LANE
ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341Maywood
Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 1989 to consider the is-
suance of a preliminary and final plat for lands lying within the
Following described boundaries:
Bounded on the north by Church Road, bounded on the
South by Lynwood Boulevard, bounded on the west by Com-
merce Boulevard and bounded on the east by a line drawn
from a point on Church Road 500 feet easterly of Com-
merce Boulevard to a point on Lynwood BoulevarO 500 feet
easterly of Commerce Boulevard and bearing the following
street addresses: 2200 Commerce Blvd. and 2221 Fern
Lane; including the following PID Numbers 13-117-24-33-
0074, 13-117-24-32-0144, and 13-117-24-32-0145.
persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above
be heard at this meeting.
! ~ .. ~ ,,,,,:~ ~ NWOOD
~ ,
CH
0
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
(Pre-published in "The Laker" June ]2 and June I9, 1989.)
Planning Co~mlsston Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Two
be
Case No. 89-82]: JRW Properties? Inc., Cc~erce Place; PID
#13-I17-24-33-0074, 13-1]7-24-3Z-0144 & 0145. PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT (PUBLIC HEARING).
The City Planner explained that the applicant is seeking approval
of an easement agreement as well as the preliminary plat and
Elna1 plat. The Etna1 plat portrays a total oE six lots divided
as Follows:
Lot I - Bank
Lot 2 - Parking and Clrbulatton
Lot 3 - Snyder Drug
Lot 4 - Retail Shops
Lot 5 - Cltnlc
Lot 6 - Parking and Circulation
The easement agreements provide shared parking and access between
the bank and the shopping center· Koegler explained that the
City has not received any type-of documentation guaranteeing that
signage wfll be maintained as one consistent theme. He recom-
mended that some sort of agreement be drafted and executed as a
condition of the approval of the plat.
The City Planner further reviewed the City Engineer's report.
The City Engineer recommended approval upon the Following
conditions:
Documentation be provided prior to plat approval showing
that the proposed lot lines are located within the co~on
walls.
Prior to plat approval, the plat must be revised showing the
existing easements running in Favor of the City of Mound
along the south side adjacent to Lynwood Blvd.
Prior to plat approval, an easement must be required on the
Final plat relating to a six-inch water main Installed
through Lot 6 between Lynwood Blvd. and Church Road, which
provides service to the rear of the main complex. The ease-
ment must be sufficient tn size to cover the main, curb
stops, and hydrant.
The trash enclosure encroaching into the City right-of-way
at Fern Lane must be removed, or the Issue addressed.
The City Engineer and City Planner recommended approval of the
preliminary and Final plat' contingent upon the above Four Items
being completed and the signage be addressed.
lqq .
Planntng Commission Nlnute$
June ]2, ]989
Page Three
The Commission questioned Mr. John Bierl3aum, who was representing
the applicant, tF he had any objections to an agreement relating
to the signage continuity. Hr. Bierbaum stated that they are
wtlltng to sign an agreement relating to the signage.
Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There was no one
present to speak on the issue. Vice Chair Michael closed the
public hearing.
The Commission discussed the problem relating to the encroaching
trash 'dumpster. Hr. Bterbaum stated that the dumpster
enclosed by a masonry wall, therefore is a permanent structure,
and would prefer not to move it. The Commission agreed that the
dumpster does not cause any problems as it exists, however IF the
street were improved, or Commerce Place sold, problems relating
to the dumpster could arise. ThereFore, the Commission discussed
drafting an easement type agreement which states the dumpster
will move with the property.
MOTIO~ n~acle by Weiland, seco~ed by Thai to approve the
City Planner and City Engineer's recommendations For ap-
proval of the preliminary and final pl~ For Commerce
Place contingent upon the City Attorney researching the
need for agreements relating to the encrc~achfng d~ster
and signage continuit~. Mod:ion carried unanimously.
This Case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
Case No. 89-822: E.W. Blanch? Jr. and Patricia K. Blanch?
Langdon View; PID #23-ll?-24-13-0003/0004/0005/0006/0008;
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (PUBLIC HEARING).
The City Planner reviewed the City Engineer's recommendation.
The proposed plat is the same plat which was approved by Resolu-
tion No. 86-85, however this resolution was never recorded,
therefore requires City approval again. The City Engineer recom-
mended approval oF the preliminary p!at and Final plat For
Langdon view including the conditions listed in resolution 86-85,
with the Following modifications:
A.Z. Eliminate (soil report has been submitted to city staFF).
A.3. The Bond amount should be increased From $12,000 to $15,000.
Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Bernie Malcheskt oF 5820 Bartlett Blvd., Gary Peterson oF 58?2
Bartlett Blvd., and Buzz Sycks oF 5900 Beachwood Road expressed
their concerns regarding the slope and 'erosion problems at the
'site.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRON: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 6, 1989
SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval (Commerce Place)
APPLICANT: JRW Properties
LOCATION: Commerce Boulevard
CASE NUHBER: 89-O21
VHS FILE NUNBER:
EXISTING ZONING:
89-310-A22-Z0
B-1
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial
BACKGROUND: JRW Properties has submitted the preliminary plat and
final plat of Commerce Place for City approval. Additionally, they
are seeking approval of an easement agreement. Since this item
involves both planning and engineering issues, it is also being
reviewed by John Cameron, City Engineer. At the time of the
preparation of this report, the plat submittal by JRW Properties
is incomplete. An "as built" drawing of the project has not been
submitted to verify the placement of the lot lines relative to the
constructed buildings. This should be available prior to the
meeting and a verbal update will be presented.
When the original plans for Commerce Place were presented, the
applicant stated that the property would ultimately be divided into
2 lots. The final plat portrays a total of six lots divided as
follows:
Lot I r Bank
Lot 2 ~ Parking and Circulation
Lot 3 r Snyder Drug
Lot 4 r Retail Shops
Lot 5 ~ Clinic
Lot 6 - Parking and Circulation
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
The easement agreements provide shared parking and access between
the bank and the shopping center. This will ensure that the center
continues to function as one entity regardless of eventual
ownership.
The easement agreement deals only with the use of surface areas.
The City has not received any type of documentation guaranteeing
that signage will be maintained as one consistent theme. As a
condition of approval of the plat, it is recommended that some sort
of agreement be drafted and executed.
Other than long term signage issues, no other planning issues
exist. Based on the information available at this time, approval
of the plat is recommended. This report and a final recommendation
will be updated verbally at Monday's meeting.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
June 7, 1989
Telephone
612/476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
Commerce Place
Case #89-$21
MFRA #6689
Dear Jan:
As requested, we have reviewed the application for preliminary and final
plat approval for Commerce Place. As everyone is aware, this project was built
a couple of years ago, so most items necessary in conjunction with a final plat
approval have already been completed. The following list are the only items
that we recommend be taken care of before the City releases the plat for
recording.
No documentation was furnished to show that the proposed lot lines are
located within the common walls. I have spoken to the surveyor and
they will be forwarding the necessary certification to you by the end
of the week.
There are some existing easements running in favor of the City of
Mound along the south side adjacent to Lynwood Boulevard, which we
would like shown on the final plat. We have talked to the surveyor
about this, and they will be added before the plat is signed.
A six-inch watermain was installed through Lot 6 between Lynwood
Boulevard and Church Road , which provided service to the rear of the
main complex. The ownership of this main transferred to the City at
completion of the project. An. easement, sufficient in size to cover
the main, curb stops and hydrant, will be required on the final plat.
We are in the process of obtaining the information necessary for the
surveyor to revise the mylars.
Attached is a copy of a portion of the as-built survey completed by
Sathre-Bergquist. As you will note, it shows the trash enclosure
projecting into the City right-of-way for Fern Lane. The actual
encroachment is not dimensioned, but we are estimating it to be
approximately 8 feet. 'I am not sure how this should be handled, short
of ordering it removed from City property.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
June 7, 1989
Page Two
We are recommending approval of the final plat, contingent upon the
proceeding items being completed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES,
John Cameron ~
INC.
JC:jmj
Enclosures
o0!
cc: John
Cameron
5-23-89
FEE OWNER
su.o,v, ,o. OF 8%' I-
Sec. 22.03-,
PRELIMINARY PLAT $1.50
VILLAGE OF MOUND FINAL PLAT $100
JRW Properties, Inc.
FEE $ $250
(no escrow requl red )
PLAT PARCEL
Location end complete I~1 description of property to be divided:
See Exhibit A attached hereto
Commerce P~ice
To be. divided ~s follows:
See plat
!
ZONING
AIl sopportln~ documentsr such as sketch plansr surveySt attachmentsr etc. must
be submitted in 8½" X 11" slze~,~l/or 14 copies plus one 8½" X !1" copy.
(attach sudsy or scale drawing showinga~acent e~eets, dimen$ioflof prc~o~ed
building sites, aquarefootaraaofea~newpsrceldesignitedbynumber)
Rea$ofl:
JRW~Prope~ties, Inc.
By:~
APPLICANT ,9! /~-/,;~ TEL. NO.
~ORE~ ~ Sou~e[~{~tStreet DATE
A~lieent'a interest in ~e pr~e~= Su~e 925
H~nneapo~s, HN 55402
~ee o~e=
Thl~ oppli=ati~ mu~t ~ ~igned by all ~ OWNERS of
ati~ given ~y ~is i~ not ~e
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
DATE
DATE
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF.TAXES BY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID..
338-3888
A list of residents end ovmers of property within 350 feet must be attached.
Call 348-3271 to order a certified list from Ite.nnepln County Property I~lvislon.
L~
I00o O0
Cot'. LoP 4~ ~
70.1
I
I
t-
,1
I
I
,3 '1 0 ,Y, N I, ']
,~.~' ALL .~" ~' ~lr ]~_-~-~_'~: Trm% ~= ~l~r~i~, 1~., ~ ~o~ ~tJ~, f~
~2~ ~,~ra~i~; ~ll .r, '~.e 5iOe l~.: ~.L. C~ker's 1st Divi~i~, ~, ~r~', ~l~ ~ ~ ~ plat ~f.
~ 2. 2, ~. ~ 5, '~hler's ~ti~ ~ )~' ~e ~, ex.pt ~ ~U,erly
~at ~t of ~ S~'~st ~r~r of ~e ~t ~r of ~ti~ 13, 7~:p Ill,
T~ E, F, G, R, 1, J, ~g [, ~iste~ ~ S~'ey ~. $~B, Files of ~ ~.;is~ of
~ l: T~t ~t of ~t 22, ~fa~ette ~rk, ~e )ti~ lyit~ ~t of ~t 8, Bl~k
~ ~ of ~e S~ I~ of ~1 St~t ~ s~ ~ ~ plat of ~id ~e Si~e ~k;
eo~r ~e~f. ~ '~ a ~int of ~'J inter.tim ~'i~, 9~e ~esterly ll:~ of ~id ~t ~r
~.qt ~'t U~ ~J.~] SL~L, d~i~t~ ~ ~e pint of L~ SibE P~;; A. k. ~i~'S
i~t of x~ ~cx Pl~, fo~r~y ~ ~ ki~en St~t ~i~ 1~ l~l~n the e~eL
~'i~ a li~ ~ilel ~'i~ ~ l~ f~t geit f~ ~%e e~t li~ of ~id ~Io~ 11 ~ intent ~'~th
f~ O,e n~r~ li~ of ~id ~t Il, ~lo:k 12.
~t I ~ O~ ~O)erly 26 f~t of ~k~ 2, 3, 4 ~ 5 "K~ler's ~iti~ to ~' ~.e
~t I ~ ~,e ~st line ~f ~)g ~t a4 of ~id 'LC~'S ~C'ITI~ ~ ~.9' ~ ~h~3~ a d~ of 75.10 f~t ~ '~e ~int of
.~, a ~J~ of G09.17 f~t ~ m ~o~ of 60.48 f~t ~t ~ ~r~ T6 ~eg~ 44 ~nu~
sc~Jr~ ~t, ~-~,t Lo ~e l~t de~ri~ ~, iT.Ti f~t; ~,~ nor~e~terly 3~3.53 f~t ~o~
~t ~t of ~e ~th~st ~Ler of ~ ~sL ~r of ~tl~ 1~, T~ip
of ~,e ~'J~t Q~r of ~ ~t ~r of ~tl~ 13, T~hip ll~, ~e
1i~ of ~d kt~ ~d ~t 33 f~t ~'~rlr U~f~ ~ at right ~1~ ~ at a ~l~t ~ ~id li~ 50 f~t ~r~ of ~
line ~'i~ 9~ ~ li~ of ~11 St~t. *J,e~ ~ alor~ ~id lk~ a dls~%~ of 50 fc~t to
1)ne of Cell SL~t 101.5 f~t. ~e~.~ ~r~sterly 50.IS f~t, ~ or less to ~e inte~ti~
St~t f~ ~ ~nt of ~g:~,xr~, ~c~ ~est al~ ~)d ~]lel lire i05.14 f~t to
~s~e cf 53 f~t; '~e~ ~t ]~3lel ~i'~ ~ ~r'~ 1i~ of ~%d ~t I a ~s~ of
~l~ O,e )~J lir~ of ~id ~dt~,~t Q~rter of O,e ~st Q~rter ~ a ;~2nt 145.30 f~t ~t f~ ,~ %or'~t ~r cf ~id
LA~V OFFICES
Bt{lOGS AND MORGAN
PROFESSZON~J. A$$OCL&TION
o~oo FI]~ST ~ATION~L B.A..~-K ]B~JILI)~G
TELEPHOA'E ~012) ~)1-1215
TELECOPIER 181~) 2~2-4071
lq~CLL'DI"/~G T~IE i~O~]~EH FI~/~ O1~
LE%qTT, i°AI.~]~]~, ]~O~EI~, ROT.%LA-~~ & S~=rA]~:E
May 22, 1989
ViA MESSENGER
John Bierbaum
JRW Properties, Inc.
88 South Sixth Street
Suite 925
Minneapolis, Minnesota
55402
Re:
Commerce Place
Our File No. 17797.5
Dear John:
in connection with the completion of the recording process
for the plat of Commerce Place, it has come to our attention that
preliminary and final plat approval was never obtained from the
City of Mound. We were somewhat shocked by that news because
we were under the impression that the plat had been approved by
this City years ago and that the only problem related to the City
completing a Proceeding Subsequent. We have been in contact with
Jan Bertrand at the City Planner's office and have obtained an
Application which is enclosed and must be executed on behalf of
JRW Properties, Inc., the fee owner of the property. The
Application must be delivered to the City along with a check for
$250.00 by Wednesday, May 24th in order for publishing
requirements to be met and in order for this matter to be placed
on the agendas for the June 12th Planning Commission and the June
26th City Council meetings.
Also enclosed are a list of property owners for property
within 350 feet of Commerce Place which we obtained from the
Hennepin County Treasurer's office, and 14 copies and an 8% x 11
copy of the proposed plat as required by the Application.
Finally, we are enclosing a copy of the Declaration of Easements
which should be delivered to Jan Bertrand along with the other
items for her review. These easements will need to be approved
by the City before final plat approval is given.
{612) 2f)1 - 1215
2200 FIRST NATIONAL I~\'K BUILDINO
SAL%-~ PAL--~v .x~r~-~.'E$OTA 59101
(~12) 291 - 1~1~
~ I D S C~-rEH
MI~'NEAPOLI$, I~L%~E$OTA 55402
16121 33~)- 0~81
BRIGGS .~D MORGAN
John Bierbaum
May 22, 1989
Page Two
The list of property owners and the copies of the proposed
plat must be delivered to the City of Mound along with the
Application and the check for $250.00.
Please call me if you have questions in connection with
filing the Application as these deadlines must be met if we are
to obtain~ the plat approval as early as June 26th. We should
also discuss the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
Very truly yours,
Daniel J. Cole, Jr.
DJC:sjc
12/012
cc:
Tom Bergquist
Tom McManus
Justin Hell
Jan Bertrand
SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
(612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104
June 6, 1989
~k~. Jan Bertrand
CITY OF MOU~)
5341 ~aywood Road
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Dear ~. Bertrand:
I hereby certify that the lot lines between Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1, of
CO>P~ERCE PLACE, fall within the constructed building ~.~lls between
units.
This was an as-built location of said lot lines within the walls.
Sincerely,
Registered Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 7725
John d~rr~r0 o
DECLARATION OF EASEMENT,~
THIS DECLARATION OF EASEMENT is made this day of , 1989
by JRW Properties, Inc. a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter "Declarant").
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of
Mound, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as Lots I through 6, Block 1,
Commerce Place (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, in connection with the development of the Property, Declarant has found it
necessary to create various cross and mutual easements which provide for parking, vehicular
and pedestrian access to public streets, internal vehicular and pedestrian movement; and
WHEREAS, Declarant is desirous of establishing a mechanism for apportioning the
maintenance and repair costs associated with such easements; and
WHEREAS, the Property is improved as follows:
(a) Lots 3 through 5, Block I are improved with a Shopping Mall known as
Commerce Place;
Lot 1, Block 1 is improved with a bank facility and a surrounding parking
(b)
area;
(c)
Lots 2 and 6, Block 1 are improved with parking areas and roadways
serving the Property; and
NOW THEREFORE, Declarant, as sole owner in fee simple absolute of the Property
hereby declares and creates the following easements and obligations:
1. Declarant hereby declares and creates a perpetual, nonexclusive easement for
access to public streets, vehicular and pedestrian movement and parking over all of Lots 2 and
6, Block 1, Commerce Place and over all portions of Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Commerce
Place, exclusive of the buildings there~3n and which are designed and constructed for those
purposes or any one of them (the "Roadway Easement").
2. The Roadway Easement shall run with the land and shall be appurtenant to each of
Lots I through 6, Block 1, Commerce Place.
3. Declarant hereby declares and creates a perpetual nonexclusive, permanent
easement for pedestrian and other nonvehicular movement over all portions of Lots 1, 3, 4, and
5, Block 1, Commerce Place, which are designed and constructed for those purposes or any one
of them (the "Pedestrian Easement").
4. The Pedestrian Easement shall run with the land and shall be appurtenant to each
of Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Commerce Place.
5. The easements granted herein shall be for the benefit of Declarant, its
successors, assigns, employees, agents, invitees, licensees, customers, clients, tenants and any
of tenant's employees, agents, invitees, licensees, customers and clients.
6. Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for maintaining the
· Roadway Easement and the Pedestrian Easement; provided, however, Declarant shall have the
right to apportion the costs of repairing and maintaining of said easements among the tenants of
the Property according to the terms of Declarant's leases with those tenants.
7. Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for obtaining
and keeping in full force and effect proper liability insurance insuring against all claims or
causes of action for injury or property damage which occur on any portion of the Roadway
Easement or the Pedestrian Easement; provided, however, Declarant shall have the right to
apportion the cost of obtaining such insurance among the tenants of the Property according to
the terms of Declarant's leases with those tenants.
8. The Declarant, its successors and assigns hereby reserves the right to relocate
the Roadway Easement and the Pedestrian Easement if such becomes desirable or necessary.
Such relocation will be done in such a way as to not substantially diminish the areas subject to
such easements or adversely and materially affect the use of such easements.
9. Any owner of the Property or any portion thereof shall have the right to enforce
this Declaration in a legal or equitable action brought in a court of competent jurisdiction.
1 0. It is the intent of the Declarant herein that this Road Easement and the Pedestrian
Easement shall not now or in the future merge into the fee ownership merely by virtue of the
ownership by Declarant of the Property or any part thereof. The Road Easement and the
Pedestrian Easement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon all owners of the
Property, or any portion thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns.
11. In the event any lot or portion of the Property is sold, conveyed or otherwise
transferred to any person or entity so that there is more than one owner of the Property, all
costs of maintaining, repairing, replacing and/or resurfacing the easements granted herein or
of insuring the easements granted herein shall be equitably apportioned among the various
owners of the Property, taking into account, among other things, each owner's use of said
easements and the proportion which each owner of any of Lots 1 through 4 of the Property bears
to the total square footage of Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, JRW Properties, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, has executed
this Declaration of Easement on the year and date first above written.
JRW PROPERTIES, INC.
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~
1989, by , the
Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the corporation.
day of
of JRW
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Briggs and Morgan, P.A.
2200 First National Bank Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
North American Life and Casualty Company, a Minnesota corporation, hereby assents to
the filing of the Plat of Commerce Place by JRW Properties, Inc.
NORTH AMERICAN LIFE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY
By
Its
STATE OF )
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
1989 by ., the of North American
and Casualty Company, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Life
(Seal)
Notary Public
State Bank of Mound, a Minnesota corporation, hereby assents [o the filing of the Plat of
Commerce Place by JRW Properties, Inc.
STATE BANK OF MOUND
By
STATE OF )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1989 by ., the
Mound, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
day of
of State
Bank
(Seal)
Notary Public
Drafted as of 6/12789
Re-Draft of Declaration
delivered to City for review
on 5/22/89
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS.
R]~STRICTION$. AND EASEMENTS
This Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Easements is made this
day of , 1989 by ]'RW Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation.
(Hereinafter "Declarant".)
WITNES SETH:
WHEREAS, Declarant is the fee owner of certain real proper .ty located in the
Ci.ty of Mound, County. of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit
A. ("The Property.");
WHEREAS. Declarant is in the process of seeking approval from the Ci.ty of
Mound, under the relevant ordinances of the City, to plat the proper _ty into six (6)
Lots legally described as Lots 1-6, Block 1, Commerce Place; -
WHEREAS, the Property is improved as follows:
(a)
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 1 are improved with a Shopping Mall known as
Commerce Place;
Lot 1, Block 1 is improved with a bank facility and a surrounding
parking area;
(c)
Lots 2 and 6, Block 1, are improved with parking areas and roadways
servinfi the Property; and
WHEREAS, although the Property is currently under the single ownership of
Declarant, the City., as a condition to its approval (~f the Plat, is requiring that the
Declararant agree that it will not convey any of its ownership interest in Lots 3, 4
and/or 5 in any manner that would result in two or more owners of said Lots 3, 4 ·
and 5 without first filing a Supplementary Declaration Covenant Restriction and
Eassement which sets forth the rights, duties and obligations of such separate
owners relating to improvements on said Lots 3, 4 and 5, party, walls on such Lots
by the City and filed prior to any document of conveyance of ov, mership interest in
said Lots 3, 4 and 5.
WHEREAS, in connection with the development of the property, Declarant
has found it necessary, and the Ci.ty has required in connection with the approval of
the plat, that various cross and mutual easements be created to provide parking,
vehicular and pedestrian access to public streets, a.nd internal vehicular movement;
and
WHEREAS, Declarant is desirous of obtaining approval from the City of the
plat of Commerce Place and of establishing a mechanism for apportioning the
maintenance and repair costs assodated with such easements;
NOW THEREFORE, Declarant, as sole owner in fee simple absolute of the
Property hereby declares and creates the following easements and obligations:
Declarant spedficaIly agrees that prior to conveying any ownership in-
terests in Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Commerce Place in such a way that
there would be two or more owners of such Lots, that Declarant shall
cause to be pre'pared ind Placed of record a Supplementary.. Declaration
setting forth the rights, duties, and obligations of the owners of such
Lots under separate ov~mership. Declarant further agrees that such Sup-
plementary Declaration shall be reasonably approved bv the City and
filed with the Hennepin Coun~ Registrar of Titles pri~r to any con-
vevance of said Lots.
2.
Declarant hereby declares and creates a. perpetual, nonexclusive
easement for access to public streets, vehicular and pedestrian
movement and parking over all of Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Com-
merce Place, exclusive of the buildings thereon and %Nich are designed
and cortstructed for those ptrrposes or any one of them (the "Roadway
Easement").
o
The Roadway Easement shall run with the land and shall be appur-
tenant to each of Lots 1 through 6, Block 1, Commerce Place.
Declarant hereby declares and creates a perpetual nonexclusive, per-
manent easement for pedestrian and other nonvehicular movement
over all portions of Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Commerce Place, which
are designed and constructed for those purposes or any one of them
(the "Pedestrian Easement").
2
The Pedestrian Easement shall run with the land and shall be appur-
tenant to each Lots 1' through 6, Block 1, Commerce Place.
The easements granted herein shall be for the benefit of Declarant, its
successors, assigns, employees, agents, invitees, licensees, customers,
clients, tenants, and any of tenant's employees, agents, invitees, licen-
sees, customers, and clients.
Declarant, its successors and assigns, shall be responsible for
maintaining the Roadway Easement and the Pedestrian Easement;
provided, however, Declarant shall have the right to apportikm the
costs of repairing and maintaining of said easements among the
tenants of the Property according to the terms of Declarant's leases with
those tenants.
10.
11.
Declarant, its successors and assig'ns, shah be responsible for obtaining
and keeping in full force and effect proper liability insurance insuring
against all claims or causes of action for injury or property damage
which occur on any portion of the Roadway Easement or the
Pedestrian Easement; provided, however, Declarant shall-have the
right to apportion the cost of obtaining such insurance among the
tenants of the Property according to the terms of Declarant's leases with
those tenants.
The Declarant, its successors and assigns hereby reserves the right to
relocate the Roadway Easement and the Pedestrian Easement if such
becomes desirable or necessary. Such relocation will be done in such a
way as to not substantially diminish the areas subject to such
easements or adversely and materially affect the use of such easements.
Any owner of the Property or any portion thereof shah have the right
to enforce this Declaration in a legal or equitable action brought in a
court of competent jurisdiction.
It is the intent of the Declarant herein that this Road Easement and the
Pedestrian Easement shall not now or in the future merge into the fee
ownership merely by virtue of the ownership by Declarant of the
Property or any part thereof. The Road Easement and the pedestrian
Easement shall insure to the benefit of and be binding upon all owners
of the Property, or any portion thereof, their heirs, successors, and as-
signs.
12.
In the event any lot or port, on of the Property ~s sold, conveyed or
otherwise transferred to any person or entity so that there is more than
one owner o{ the Property, all costs o{ maintaining, repairing,
replacing, and/or resurfacing the easements granted herein or of in-
suring the easements granted herein shall be equitably apportioned
among the various owners of the Property, taking into account, among
other things, each owner's use of said easements and the proportion
wkich each owner of amy of Lots 1 through 4 of the Property bears to
the total square footage of Lots 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, J'RW Properties, Inc., a Mirmesota corporation, has
executed this Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions, and Easements on the year and
date first above written.
JRW PROPERTIES, INC.
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this day of
,1989, by , the
of J'RW Properties, Inc., a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the. corpOration.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:'
Briggs and Morgan, P.A.
2200 First National Bank Building
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 291-1215
4
State 'Bank of Mound, a Minnesota corporation, hereby ~-ssents to the filing of the Plat of
Commerce Place by JRW Properties, inc,
STATE BANK OF MOUND
By
Its
STATE OF )
)
COUNTY OF )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
1989 by ., the
Mound, a MinnesOta corpor~.tion, on behalf of said corporation.
day of
of State
Bank
(Seal)
Notary. Public
North American Life and Casualty Company, a Minnesota corporation, he,
the filing of the Plat of Commerce Place by JRW Properties, Inc.
NORTH AMERICAN LIFE AND
CAS UAL'FY COMPANY
By,
Its
.STATE OF )
)
COUNTY OF )
SS.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day '
1989 by ., the of North .'
and Casualty Company, a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
~°c~?~7 ~
', PARK
;ART OF
LOT $2
--
RD
'I
.J
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY Of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
Case No. 89-822
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY AND
FINAL PLAT FOR LANGDON VIEW LOCATED AT BEACHWOOD ROAD AND
COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LOTS I? THROUGH ZZ, 26, AND Z?, AND PART
OF LOTS Z3, 24, AND 25, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION #168, PID NUM-
BERS 23-1I?-24-I3-0066, 0012, 0015, AND 0014.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341Ma~ood
Road, .at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27, 1989 to consider the is-
suance o~ a preliminary and ~fnal plat For lands legally
described as:
Lots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27; That part of
Lot 28 lying Northerly oE a line which is paral)e] with
and 15.00 feet South Erom the North line of Lot 28;
Those parts oF Lots 23 and 24 lying Northerly oE the
Westerly extension oF a line which rs parallel with and
15.DO Feet South From the North line oF Lot Z8; All tn
Auditor's Subdivision #168.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the aboVe
will be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Pre-published in "The Laker" June 12 and June 19, 1989
Case No. 89-822
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
LANGDON VIEW SUBDIVISION
(PID #23-117-24-13-0066, 0012, 0015, AND 0014)
P&Z CASE NO. 89-822
WHEREAS, the final plat of Langdon View has been submitted
in the manner required for platting of land under the City of
Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330.00 and under Chapter 462 of the
Minnesota State Statues and all proceedings have been duly con-
ducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on June 27, 1989 held a .public
hearing pursuant to Section 330.00 of the Mound City Code of Or-
dinances, to consider the approval of the preliminary plat and
final plat of Langdon View Subdivision located on property
described as follows:
Those parts of Lots 17 through 22, inclusive, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 168, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of
the southerly right-of-way tine of Beachwood Road; also
those parts of Lots 23 and 24, said Auditor's Subdivi-
sion Number 168 lying northerly of the westerly exten-
sion of the south line of the north 15 feet-of Lot 28,
and lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line
of Beachwood Road; also that part of Lot 25, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 168 lying southerly of the southerly
right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also all of Lots 26
and 27, and the north I5 Feet of Lot 28, said Auditor's
Subdivision Number 168, situated in the City of Mound,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (also to be known as 58__
Beachwood Road) PID #23-117-24-13 0003/0004/0005/0006/
0008.
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the
City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of
the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the
City of Mound.
Proposed Resolution
Page Two
Case No. 89-822
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota:
Plat approval is granted for Langdon View Subdivision as
requested by E. W. Blanch, Jr. and Patricia K. Blanch.upon
compliance with the following requirements:
Per final plat, Exhibit "A".
of 10,000 square Feet.
All lots to be a minimum
The Developer is to sign a Development contract and
furnish the City a Performance E~oncL. i n~ the._amoun_t_o.f --
$15,000 to cover gradingi~drainage~~~~
of sewer and water services for Lots 2, 4, and 5 as per
plans approved by the City Engineer.
Park dedication in the amount of $500.00 per lot shall
be paid prior to plat certification by the City Clerk.
¸0
Driveway access to ail lots is to be from Beachwood
Road.
Permits as required shall be obtained from the Min-
nehaha Creek Watershed District and any other agency.
Refer current Abstract of Title or Registered Property
Report to the City Attorney for his examination and
report.
Be
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified
copy of this Resolution to the above named owner and sub-
divider after completion of the requirements for his use as
required by M.S.A. 462.358.
Ce
That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to ex-
ecute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City
Council upon compliance with the foregoing resolution.
Upon completion of all requirements heretofore stated, the
Mayor and City Manager shall execute the finished plat which
shall be delivered to the City Attorney. The City Attorney
shall obtain and record any and all hardshells, easements
and other items required to protect the public interest·
Proposed Resolution
Page Three
Case No. 89-822
Ee
This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days
of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor
and City Manager in accordance with Section 3~0 of the City
Code of Ordinances and shall be recorded within 180 days of
the adoption Oate of this Resolution with one copy being
filed with the City of Mound.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certifi-
cate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be con-
clusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider
and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on
record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance
with M.S.A. 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances.
EXHIBIT "A"
r: :~ 1': .~-'."! Ji j ~ h :..iJ i-'.!ll ' TI l-.-i~l ! !il; ! i :
., ...i .. .i i , :I " ',l,! I .l.. j-~l... ,,
.,-, I-..,+ [- , J-' ~'i , t,i . ' ,.
' ;' , -'~"'-: i i. '- i i'-ii' J" J
I, ::J, ,:,:-: :. , .-~ ,J,~ '! .,,,.,: ! I,:.~l, ,.,
-.. ;! -.. :! 1 t . l~ i;-:: J -,, ~" ~ ~' i
,.,,.,.~. ,.:.,..,,,, ,,., -,,. ,~._.,,
'. '' ' '" -- · ~o · · Ii"1'~''t :I -I I I iI'l -1
/
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Three
The Co~mission questioned Mr. John Bterbaum, who was representing
the applicant, if he had any objections to an agreement relating
to the signage continuity. Mr. 8ierbaum stated that they are
willtng tO sign an agreement relating to the signage.
Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There was no one
present to speak on the issue. Vice Chair Michael closed the
public hearing.
The Commission discussed the problem relatfng to the encroaching
trash 'dumpster. Mr. Bterbaum stated that the dumpster is
enclosed by a masonry wall, therefore is a permanent structure,
and would prefer not to move lt. The Commission agreed that the
dumpster does not cause any problems as it exists, however if the
street were improved, or Commerce Place sold, problems relating
to the dumpster could arise. Therefore, the Co~ission discussed
drafting an easement type agreement which states the dumpster
will move with the property.
MOTION ~cle by Welland, seconded by Thai to approve the
City Planner and City Engineer's recommendations for ap-
proval of the preliminary and ftnal plat for ~rce
Place contingent upon the City Attorney researching the
need for agreements relating to the encroaching d~pster
and signage continuit~. Motion carried unanimously.
This Case will be heard by the City Counc.il on June'27, 1989.
Case No. 89-822: E.W. Blanch~ Jr. and Patricia K. Blanch?
Lan~don View~ PID #23-ll7-24-13-0003/0004/0005/0006/0008~
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (PUBLIC HEARING).:
The City Planner reviewed the City Engineer's recommendation.
The proposed plat is the same plat which was approved by Resolu-
tion No. 86-85, however this resolution was never recorded,
therefore requires City approval again. The City Engineer recom-
mended approval of the preliminary plat and final plat for
Langdon view including the conditions listed in resolution 86-85,
with the following modifications:
A.2. Eliminate (sot1 report has been submitted to city staff).
A.3. The Bond amount should be increased from $12,000 to $15,000.
Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Bernie Malcheskl of 5820 Bartlett Blvd., Gary Peterson of 5872
Bartlett Blvd., and Buzz Sycks of 5900 Beachwood Road expressed
their concerns regarding the slope and 'erosion problems at the
site.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Four
Dennis Sandfn, who was representing the applicant E. W. Blanch,
stated that development plans .'For the site do not exist yet, they
are awaiting City approval.
LynDelle Skoglund oF 5823 Bartlett Blvd. expressed a concern
about heavy traFFic. She explained that traffic is already heavy
at Beachwood and Commerce, and there are a 1or'oF kids and
bikers. She added that people park their cars and trailers along
Beachwood where the proposed plat will be, and ts concerned with
where they will go when the area is devel'oped.
Vice Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the existing and potential soil erosion
problems. Dennis Sandtn stated that it is possible this land
could sit vacant .'For another year before it is developed. The
City Planner inFormed the Commission that a time limit can be es-
tablished through the development contract.
MOTION ~e by Neiland, seconded by Andersen, to
adopt Resolution ~86-85 with the n~>dlflcattons listed in
the Ctty Engineer's recommen~tlon Including:
a)
b)
c)
The park dedication fee referenced in A.5. of
Resolution #86-85 should meet requirements in the
current .'Fee schedule.
Staff is to implement a time table into the
Devel~ent Contract.
Staff is to inspect existing soil erosion and storm
sewer sediment conditions to determine IE .'Future or
.'Further action is necessary.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
Case No. 89-823: Craig Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd., PembrokeT
Block 7, Lot I; PID #19-i]7-23-33 0039. VARIANCE: Existin~
NonconForming Setback.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request. The
applicant's home ites 3 .'Feet from the property line, thereFore
requires a 12 foot variance to the rear yard. They plan to con-
struct an addition which will require a 3 .'Foot variance to the
rear yard. This particular property has two rear yards due to
the triangular shape. Staff= recommended approval of the 1Z foot
variance to recognize the existing rear yard setback and a 3 .'Foot
variance to allow construction oF an addition to the home. In
addition, before a building permit will be issued, the inspection
department will require a new survey to be completed and sub-
m i tted.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
1505023rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
June 6, 1989
Telephone
612~76-6010
Facsimile
612~76-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning Department
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
Preliminary and Final Plat
Langdon View
MFRA #6936
Dear Jan:
As requested, we have reviewed the most recent application for the above
mentioned project and have the following comments and recommendations:'
It appears that these plans are the same ones that were used when approval
was granted in 1986 by Resolution No. 86-85. We would recommend using the
same resolution, with the exception of Items A-2 and A-3, which should be
revised as follows:
A-2 could be eliminated completely, since said soil report has been
submitted to City staff.
A-3 - the dollar amount should be changed from $12,000 to $15,000.
For additional information, please see our original review letter, dated
July 8, 1986, a copy of which is attached.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jmj
Enclosures
An Equal Opportunity Employer
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LANO SURVEYORS ~ PLANNERS
July 8, 1986
Oan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
1612) 559-3700
SUBJECT:
Langdon View
Plat Review
MKA File #6936
Dear .]an:
As requested, we have reviewed the most recent material submitted for final
plat approval on the proposed plat of Langdon View. Tn, following are our
comments and recommendations.
Preliminary and Final Plat. The information submitted does not
inOicate the area of eaCh individual lot. This needs to be submitted
prio~ to Council action.
Gradin9 and Drainage. As you are aware, some site grading was done on
this property by the previous owner, in fact, the site was left in
quite a mess. We would suggest that the new owner contact
Geotechnical Engineering, the firm which did the original soil borings
on Lots 6 and 7, and have the report brought up to date before any
more fill is placed on these two lots. After the grading is
completed, the slopes on the south side of the entire plat will need
black dirt placed, seeded and mulched to prevent erosion. The new
slopes created by the grading should not be greater than 3 to 1.
Erosion control measures are needed to prevent excavated material from
washing onto. Beachwood Road until such time ground cover is
established. The existing storm sewer inlet and COncrete apron which
extends from the catch basin in front of Lot 6 will need to be
abandoned as per City requirements once this area is filled to allow
overland drainage to the street. A permit may also be required from
the ~innehaha Creek Watershed District, which the developer will need
to obtain before the final approval is complete.
Utilities. From the records available, it appears that Lots 2, 4 and
5 will need sewer and water services installed and/or extended from
the existing mains in the street. We would recommend that the
developer be responsible for providing sewer and water services at the
front property line of each lot.
Development Contract and Performance Bond. We would recommend that
the developer be required to enter into a development contract with
the City to insure that the site grading and utility work is
completed as required; We are suggesting that the amount of the
performance bond be set at $12,000.00. The following is an estimate
of the cost for the site grading and utility construction and how the
bond amount was arrived at.
Jan Bertrand
Ouly 8, 1986
Page Two
Grading: 7 lots ~ $ 500. O0/lot = $ 3,500.00
Utilities: 3 lots $ $2,000.00/lot = $ 67000.00
Estimated Construction Cost ........... $ 9,500.00
Bond Amount:$9,500.O0 x 125% = $11,875.00
Street Assessment Deficiency. This property'was assessed frontage
area and 5 units for the 1978 Street Improvements. The policy in the
past has been to collect for any additional units created by platting
or subdivision of lots. If this policy is continued, 2 additional
units at $1,170.90 per unit for a total of $2,341.80 should be
collected.
e
Park Dedication Fee. The 1985 market value for the entire property is
$17,500.00. Using l0 percent of this figure, the park dedication fee
would be $1,750.00, or $250.00 per lot for 7 lots, which would be
collected at the time building permits are issued.
In conclusion, we would recommend approval of the final plat of Langdon
View subject to the following conditions:
Furnish to the City an up to date soil' report on Lot 6 and 7 prior to
completion of the site grading.
Developer sign a development contract and furnish to the City a
performance bond in the amount of $12,000.00 to cover grading,.
drainage and the installation of sewer and water services for Lots 2,
4 and 5 as per plan approved by the City Engineer.
Two deficient street improvement unit charges in the amount of
$1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 are to be paid.
Park dedication fee of $250.00 per lot to be charged and collected
with building permit fees.
5. Driveway access to all lots to be from Beachwood Road.
Approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other
agency requiring review.
7. City Attorney's approval of title opinion.
me.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
OC:cah
Oohn Cameron
135
July 22, 1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86-85
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
LANGDON VIEW SUBDIVISION (PID ~23-117-24 13 0003/
0004/0005/0006/0008) P.C. CASE ~86-259
WHEREAS, the final plat of Langdon View has been
submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the
City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462
of the Minnesota State Statutes and all proceedings have been
duly conducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, on July 22, 1986, held a
public hearing pursuant to Section 22.00 of the Mound City Code
of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the preliminary plat
and final plat of Langdon V.iew Subdivision located on property
described as follows:
Those parts of Lots 17 through 22, inclusive, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 168, lying southerly of the southerly
right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also those parts of
Lots 23 and 24, said Auditor's Subdivision Number 168
lying northerly of the westerly extension of the south
line of the north 15 feet of Lot 28, and lying southerly
of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road;
also that part of Lot 25, Auditor's Subdivision Number
168 lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line
of Beachwood Road; also all of Lots 26 and 27, and the
north 15 feet of L'ot 28, saSd Auditor's Subdivision
Number 168, situated in the City of Mound, Hennepin
County, Minnesota (Also to be known as 58 Beachwood
Road (PID #23-117-24 13 0003/0004/0005/0006/0008.
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with
the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the
laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of
the City of Mound·
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota:
A®
Plat approval is granted for Langdon View
Subdivision as requested by the Bank of Minneapolis
and Trust Company upon compliance with the
following requirements:
Per final plat, Exhibit "A".
All lots to be a minimum of 10,000 square
feet.
2.. Furnish the City an up-to-date soil report on
136
July 22, 1986
Lots 6 and 7 prior to completion of the. site
grading.
The Developer is to sign a Development
Contract and furnish the City a Performance
Bond in the amount of $12,000 to cover
grading, drainage and the installation of
sewer and water services for Lots 2 , 4 and 5
as per plan approved by the City Engineer.
Two deficient street improvement unit charges
are to the paid in the amount of $1,170.90
each for a total of $2,341 .80.
Park Dedication Fee of $250.00 per lot is to
be charged and collected with Building Permit
at the t~me of development·
6,-
Driveway access to all lots is to be from
Beachwood Road·
7. Permits as required shall be obtained from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any
other agency.
8. Approval of the land title by the City
Attorney.
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a
certified copy of this Resolution to the above
named owner and subdivid&r' after completion of the
requirements for his use as required by M.S.A.
462.358.
That the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby
authorized to execute the certificate of approval
on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with
the foregoing resolution.
This final plat shall be filed and recorded within
60 days of the date of the signing of the
hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in
accordance with Section 22.00 of the City Code and
shall be recorded within 180 days of the adoption
date of this Resolution with one copy being filed
with the City of Mound.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The foliowing Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jess.en, Paulsen, Peterson and Smith.
(2.1) e4 o
81
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND r,, ,,
~S'~O~J ~000
FEE S
FEE OWNER
--E. W. Blanch, Jr. and
Pa~ricia K. Blanch
PLAT PARCEL
~ots 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25,
L~cslion~xlcompistalqald~sorlptiond prq~r~ bbe diwid~d: 26 and 27; That part of ~t 28
lying Nor~erly of a line which is parallel wi~ and 15.00 fee~ Sou~ from ~e
Nor~ line of ~t 28~ Those ~ar~s of ~s 23 and 24 lying Nor~erly
Westerly extension of a lane which is ~arallel wi~ and 15.00 feet Sou~ from
~e Nor~ lane of ~t 28; All in Auditor's S~ivision N~er 168, Hennepin
County, Mi~e~a accruing ~ the r~c~
-- ' ~"- ' "--~'~e~ !an~ as
is eviSence~ bv C~rtificmte of m~tl~ N~. 69g~7]. Z~l~
To be. divided so follows:
See attached documentation.
All supporting documentsr such as sketch plansr surveys~ attachmentst etc. musl
be submitted in 8}" X !1' size and/or Iq copies plus one 8}" X I!" cop),.
(attach survey or stole drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, oqusro foot ores of each new parcel clesigflsted by number)
· A WAIVE8 IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
, No. Fram
Squire lest TO Squere fret
RlllOfl:
Appllcant'l Interest in tho propsrty=
Fee Owners
APPLICANT ('~t ~'%' TEL NO (612) 835-3310
C/O E. W. Blanch Co. L \DATE May 23, 1989
3500 West 80th Street · __.,,)
Bloomington,,M~ 55431
This application must bo signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or ~fl explm-
atio~ giYsn why this is not the csse. See attached explanation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION;
CC: John
Cameron
Curt
Pearson -,
DATE
5-24-8§ COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
DATE
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL A~ESSMENTS BY WAIVER. THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOFTAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE R~SOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID..
A list of residents snd armors of proper'tr withls.,3~O fest must bo attached,
Cell 3~8-327l to order a certified list from He.nnepln County Property IHvlsion.
May 22, 1989
TO:
Village of Mound
RE:
Application For Subdivision of Land
One of the two fee owners, Patricia K. Blanch, was not
available to sign the application at the time of filing.
However, if acceptable, I will obtain her signature on a
copy of the application and submit it to the Village of
Mound.
RMB:km
Attachment
5995Z
Sincerely,
Robert M. Ben~min
Attorney for
E. W. Blanch, Jr. and
Patricia K. Blanch
/
'1
I
· > 0
/// /
i
J ' H
!
!
m
66
EXHIBIT "A"
<[ ~.
0
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
HOUND ADV I SORY PLANN I NG COMM I SS l ON
June 12, !9~9
Present were: Vice Chair GeofE Michael, Commissioners.Brad
Sohns, William Thal, Frank Wetland, Vern Andersen, and Jerry
Clapsaddle, Counctl Representative Llz Jansen, City Manager Ed
$~,ukle, City Planner Mark Koegier, and Secretary Peggy dames.
Absent and excused was Chair Bill Meyer and Commissioner Ken
Smith. ~'
Also present were the following interested citizens: Bernie Mal-
cheskf, LynDelle Skoglund, Daniel Johnson, Cheryl Johnson, Elsa
Watson, Percival Jacobson, John Bierbaum, C. Dudley Fitz, June
Fltz, Buzz Sycks, Dennis Sandin, Gary Paterson, Melvin Zuckman,
Sharon Zuckman, Paul Reis, and Richard Jacobson.
Vice Chair, GeoEf Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30.
"NiNbTES=
MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Welland, to approve
the Planning Commlssion Minutes oF Nay 22, 1989 as sub-
mttted. Notion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS=
a. Case No. 89-815: Scott HIll? 4984 Three Points Blvd. & 4978
Three Points B1vd.t Lots 11~ 12, 13, 14~ Block 25, Shadywood
Point: PID #13-1217-24-11 0105 & 0106. MINOR SUBDIVISION:
changing 1or itne.
The City Planner reviewed the application Eot a minor subdivi-
sion. Both homes have conforming, side yard setbacks with the ex-
isting and proposed lot configurations. Staff recommended ap-
proval of the division as descrfbed on the apr1 lcants Survey
dated 5-22-B9.
NOTION made by Andersen, seconded by ~ohns to recommend
approval of staff recommendation for approval of a minor
subdivision at 4984 and 4978 Three Points Blvd. Motion
carried unanimously.
This case wtll be heard by'the City Counctl on June 27, I989.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROH: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~
DATE: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
APPLICANT: Scott Hill
LOCATION: 4984 Three Points Boulevard
CASE NUNBER: 89-B15
VHS FILE NUNBER: 89-310-A17-Z0
EXISTING ZONING: R-1
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval of a minor
subdivision to modify a lot line between two existing homes. The
proposed shift will make the lot line parallel to the existing side
walls of both structures. Both homes have conforming side yard
setbacks with the existing and proposed lot configurations.
RECOHHENDATION: Staff recommends waiver of public hearing
requirements and approval o% the division as described on the
applicants survey dated 5-22-89.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
cc: Mark
I~oeg I er
5-25-89
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE OWNER
4987, Three Points: 13-117-24-11-0105
4984 Three Points: 13-117-24-11-0106 ZONING
To bt. divided ~s follm,~:
!
All sup'portln~l documents~ such as sketch plans~ surveys, attachments~ etc. must
~e submitted In 8~°' X 11" size and/or lq copies plus one 8~" X I1" copy.
(attach survey or scale drawing ~howing adjacent atreett, dimon~ion of proposed
building ~ites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
. A WAIV~ FOR:
New Lot~
Re,son:
PLANNING COMMI~ION RECOMMENDATION:
DATE
COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
DATE
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF.TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN I YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID. .
list of residents and owners cf property witi~in....,3,50 feet must be attached.
2 I t ' . ' o ers ' lsio
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 89-815
RESOLUTION #89-
RESOLUTION tO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION
LOTS 11, 12, 13, 14, BLOCK 25, SHADYWOOD POINT
PID #13-117-24-11-0105~
(4984 & 4978 THREE POINTS BLVD.)
P&Z CASE NO. 89-8~3
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, Block
25, Shad~ood Point, PID #13-117-24-11-0105, has been submitted
in the manner required for platting of land under City of Mound
Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Min-
nesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted
thereunder; and
WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision require-
ments contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed
with the City of Mound; and
wHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the
Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special cir-
cumstances affecting said property such that the strict applica-
tion of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the
reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;
and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the other property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota:
The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provi-
sions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to
subdivide property of less than five acres, described as
follows:
Ali of Lots 1], 12, i3, 14, Block 25, and that part of va-
cated Navajo Road (now known as dennings Road), Shadywood
Point, PID #13-117-24-]1-0105.
Proposed Resolution
Case No.~ 89-815
Dm
It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per
the Following descriptions as shown on Exhibit "A"
(survey):
Parcel A: Lot 14, and those parts of Lots 12 & 13,
Block 25, Shadywood Point, Henneptn County, MN,
together with that part of vacated Navajo Road which
lies Easterly of the Southerly extension of' the
Westerly line of said Lot 14. and Northwesterly of a
llne drawn parallel with and 33.00 feet Northwesterly
o,, .,~o~ureO au right angles to. the centerlfne of
Shadywood Boulevard (now- known as Three Points
Boulevard) as delineated 'in the plat of 5hadywooa
Point, Hennepin County, MN, which lie Westerly of the
Following described line: Commencing at the Northwest
corner of said Lot 14; thence Easterly along the North
line of said Lots I4 and 13 a distance of 76.00 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence Southeasterly deflecting right 72 degrees 44
minutes a distance of 200.00 Feet.
Parcel B: Lot ]I, and those parts of .Lots ]2 and
Block 25, Shadywood Point, Hennepln County, MN, which
lie Easterly of the following described line: Commenc-
Ing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 14; thence
Easterly along the North line of said Lots 14 and 13 a
dtstance of 76.00 Feet to the point of beginning of the
line to be described; thence Southeasterly deflecting
right 7Z degrees 44 minutes to the Southerly llne of
said Lot 12 and there ending.
It ts determined that the foregoing subdivision wtll
constitute a desirable and stable community development
and It is tn harmony with adjacent properties.
The City Clerk ts authorized to deliver a certified
copy of this resolution to the applicant For Filing in
the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of
Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the
subdivision regulations of the City.
This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within
180 days of the adoption date of this resolution.
Z ~
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-823
RESOLUTION 89-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO ALLOW A REAR
YARD. SET.BAC.K V.ARIANCE FOR LOT 1, BLOCK 7, PEMBROOK;
PID # 19-117-23-33-0039 (4610 TUXEDO BLVD); P&Z CASE #89-823
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance, to recognize
an existing three (3) foot nonconforming rear yard setback and
allow a new addition to the principal structure within 12.5 feet
of the. rear property line for Lot 1, Block 7, Pembrook; PID #19-
117-23-33-0039; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-2 Single
Family Zoning District according to the City Code, which requires
a 15 foot rear yard setback for principal structures; and
WHEREAS, the applicants lot is of a highly unusual shape being
"pie" shaped and having two street frontages resulting in one rear
yard, two front yards and no side yards; and
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that
alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful
nonconforming residential unit when the alteration will improve the
livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number
of living units; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend approval due to the unusual shape of the parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming
principal structure setback of three (3) feet and further
approves a 2.5 foot rear yard variance to accommodate a new
addition to the principal st'ructure for the property located
at 4610 Tuxedo Blvd., PID # 19-117-23-33-0039.
The City Council authorizes the existing structure setback
violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Mound Code
of Ordinances 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
Case No. 89-823
It is determined that the liveability of the residential unit
will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to
a nonconforming use property due to the unique triangular
shape of the lot:
A one story addition to the northeast corner of the house as
shown on Exhibit 1. A revised registered land survey will be required
prior to building permit issuance.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lot 1, Block 7, Pembrook, PID # 19-117-23-33-0039.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder with
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until
proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
P1anntng Commission Mtnutes
June 12, 1989
Page Four
Dennis Sandin, who was representing the applicant E. W. Blanch,
stated that development plans for the site do not exist yet, they
are awaiting Ctty approval.
LynDelle Skoglund of 58Z3 Bartlett Blvd. expressed a concern
about heavy traffic. She explained that traffic is already heavy
at Beachwood and Commerce, and there are a 1or'of kids and
bikers. She added that people park their cars and trailers along
Beachwood where the proposed plat will be, and is concerned with
where they will go when the area is deve]-oped.
Vice Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the existing and potential soil erosion
problems. Dennis Sandtn stated that it is possible this land
could sit vacant for another year before it is developed. The
City Planner informed the Commission that a time ltmtt can be es-
tablished through the development contract.
MOTION made by Wefland, seconded by Andersen, to re-
adopt Resolution #86-85 with the modifications listed in
the City Engineer's recommendation Including.:
a) The park dedication fee referenced in 1.5. of
Resolution #86-85 should meet requirements tn the
current fee schedule.
b) Staff is to implement a time table into the
Development Contract.
c) Staff is to inspect existing soil erosion and storm
sewer sediment conditions to determine if future or
further action is necessary.
Motion carried unanimouslY.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
d. Case No. 89-823: Cratq Watson, 4610 Tuxedo Blvd., Pembroke,
Block 7~ Lot 1~ PID #19-1i7-23-33 0039. VARIANCE: Existing
Nonconforming Setback.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request. The
applicant's home 1les 3 feet from the property line, therefore
requires a 12 foot variance to the rear yard. They plan to con-
struct an additton which wtll require a 3 foot vartance to the
rear yard. This particular property has two rear yards due to
the triangular shape. Staff recommended approval of the IZ foot
variance to recognize the existing rear yard setback and a 3 foot
variance to allow construction of an addition to the home. In
addition, before a building permit will be issued, the inspection
department will require a new survey to be completed and sub-
mitted.
o 055
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Five
Elsa Watson, applicant, explained that she has contacted McCombs
Frank Roos who had staked out their lot in order to improve
Tuxedo Blvd. in front of their home, and they will be sending her
a survey of her lot. Mrs. Watson asked if this would be a suffi-
cient survey. The City Planner informed Mrs. Watson that the
survey needs to pass the building inspector's approval prior to
permit issuance.
MOTION n~e by Thal, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
staff recommendation for approval of a IZ foot rear yard
variance and a 3 Foot rear yard variance at 4610 Tuxedo
Blvd. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
e. Case No. 89-824: Dante1 Johnson, 1766 Shorewood Lane?
Shadywood Point? Block 3t Lot 4~ PID #13-117-24-11-0135.
VARIANCE= Front Yard Setback Variance.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request for a 19 foot
Front yard variance to construct a two car garage and second
Floor living space addition. Koegler stated that he feels place-
ment of the garage in the rear yard is impractical due to ltmited
space to the side lot lines. However, there ts room for a living
space addition on the lakeside of the hc~ne.
Staff recommended approval of a 19 Foot .front yard variance for
the construction of a new garage and entry area on the first
floor of the home. Second story construction within the 20 foot
required setback area ts specifically prohibited since other al-
ternatives for the construction of additional livf;ng space exist.
Dan Johnson, applicant, submitted pictures to the Commission
showing some of his neighbors garages, and how close to the curb
they sit. Mr. Johnson further explained the need for the second
story addition. He stated that the home has no basement, and the
lakeside portion o~ the home has vaulted ceil tngs. He does not
want to add onto the lakeside .of the home because it would
destroy the view from the living area.
The Commission explained to Mr. Johnson the need to be consistent
with their decision pertaining to second story additions being so
close to the front property line.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Andersen to accept
staff rec~endation for approval of a t9 Foot Front
yard variance For the construction of a garage and entry
way. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the Clty Council on June 27, I989.
PLANNING .REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Variance (Recognition of rear setback)
APPLICANT: L. C. Watson
LOCATION: 4610 Tuxedo Boulevard
CASE NUMBER: 89-623
VHS FILE NUMBER:
EXISTING ZONING:
89-310-A18-ZO
R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking recognition of an existing
rear yard variance with the intention of constructing a new
addition to the northeast corner of the house. The proposed
addition conforms to all setback requirements. The existing
northwest corner of the..home lies 3 feet from the' property line.
The R-2 zone requires a 15 foot rear yard setback resulting in the
12 foot variance.
The home sits on a triangular lot with approximately 2/3 of the
lot lines abutting existing streets. Accordingly, the lot is
subject to rear yard setbacks on the western side and front yard
setbacks on the remaining two sid·es. The shape of the parcel and
the resulting setbacks complicates the use of the land and
establishes the rationale for approval of the recognition of the
existing rear yard setback.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 12 foot variance
to recognize the existing rear yard setback for the purpose of
constructing a conforming addition to the home.
NOTE: The application is based on a 39 year old survey by Arleigh
C. Smith. Past experience in the City of Mound with surveys
completed by this firm has uncovered a number of errors.
Therefore, before a building permit is issued, the inspections
department will require that a new survey be completed and
submitted.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
ITl' OF NOUND
PART II
Fee $50.00
¢
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the Following information.)
Address of Subject Property
Lot /
..9//z)
Owner's Address ~//J /~) ~~.~ t//~)E/
Block
Day Phone ¢'/'//,.,,~~
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
;xtsting Use of Property:
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made For zoning, varianc~--~conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure For this property? ~_~J/ no . IF yes,
iist date(s) of application, action taken, and provide T-esolution 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.. ! 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. ~ /bl? 7
APplicant's Signature ~ Date
///////////////////////77777~//////////I//I///I////////////////I/I///11//
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
il Action:
Resolution No.
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which tt is ~ocated? Yes ¢~!..No (~). IF no,
specify each non-conforming use: ~c7~-7~--~/~//~ L' t r~-=c~
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations for the Zoning district In which it ts Io~=ated?
Yes ( );, No cy)~. /If no, sp/ectfy each non-.conforming ~use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted tn that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow (
( ) too s~all (
( ) too shallow (
) topography ( ) sot 1
). drainage ( ) sub-surface
) shape ( ) other.- specify
e
Was the hardship descrt~bed above created by the action of anyone
having property Interests in the land after the zoning orc[lnance was
adopted? Yes ('~,. No (). I~= yes, explain ~.~-~, ¢,--(1.,.,,_,,__~.,..~ b,.,,".~ '~-,,,,,
g
Was the hardship crea~any other man-made change, such as the
tARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No. fq-S
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to th~ property OescriDeQ in this.petition? Yes (K),
No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, anO
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, si%e plans wi%h dimensions and writ-
ten explanation· l>~ ~ --.--/lb., ~_C,~?.~_?~ ~/~/-- ~x~
Wtll granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in
the same zone, or to the enforcement o~ this ordinance?
PART III
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Ali supportinq documents such as sketch plans,
attachments, etc.? must be submitted in 8-1/2"x11" size. IF larger
drawinqs 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),
building(s), driveway(si/street access, off-street parking, and
utilities·
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building and ~ront, 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 information as may reasonably be required by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance·
Carlisle Madsort, AssoeAnle
~ '..'.'...-~.'?.. ~ 'x -~'~,'. : . ,,,.-":,:. ~.
. I .:~ i. i"."...-.'!,.' i o ","'~ - · · ' ../ '-'"
.:".". ,--X' ' }'"'"" ": "' ' :':'" ' 0
i,: .~! · .., '.,:....i .~..~ . ~ -.-?'·
..'. !'" ,o'" ..' Jo ,,.-"
:£RTI~ICAT.C F~,J~%CATION' OF ~UILDING
' ' .~'~'~ aecatlofl oZ the buUdin~
above d~'~e:'ibe~l P:'o3erlr ~ad thai the l~lio~
j. ulldm~ 1, torr~ll), Il*own on lh~ above
C]~RTIFICATIC OF SURvEy,'
! herebj,- certify that on.~-q~J I r
I sUrveyO the .~rO~rty · . '
de~nb~ a~v~.nd that the a~ve
· plat is a Correct representation o~ ~nid ~urvey.
' THIS AGREE:4ENT made this/~_~ day of .~_'~.~' ,
between Lester Craig Watson and Elsa K. Watson, husband and wife, and
Northwestern Federal Savings and Loan Association of Williston
part iesof the first part, and TH~ CiTY O~ ~OUND, a municipa!
corporation under the laws of the State of ~.~innesota, ~art~ of
~he secon& part,
WZTNESSETH: That th~ parties of the first part in
consideration of the sum of 0%;~ ~OLL.~-R--A~fD OTHER GOOD AND VALUABL~
CO[;SIDE~TION to them in hand paid by said party of the second
part, the receipt~ich is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant
and convey ~to the said party of the second part, it~successors
and assigns, the following:
A perpetual easement for s~reet and utility purposes over, ·
under and across the followinE described tract:
Lot 1, Block 7, PE~RO~, accordinE to the recorded
plat thereof. ,
Said easement lyinE southeasterly of a line 30.0 feet north- '
wes~erl~ of and parallel with'the followinE described line:
Co~encinE at the southeast co,er of Section
To,ship 117, RanEe 24~ thence on an assumed beartns of
West alon~ the south line of the Southeast Quarter o~'
' said Section 24 a distance of 75.00 feet~ thence
53 deErees East 95.86 feet; thence continue North 53
deErees East 71.58 feet; thence northeasterly 169.65
feet alonE a tanEential curve c6ncave to the southeast,
havinE a radius of 286.48 feet and a central anEle of
33 deErees 55 minutes 46 seconds; thence North 86 .
deErees 55 minu~es 46 seconds East, tanEen= to said. ...
cu~e, 415.10 feet; thence northeasterly 146~77 feet '.
alonE a tanEential curve concave to the northwest,
herinE a radius of 272.84 feet and a central anEle of -
30 deErees 49 minutes 15 seconds to the point of beEinnin~;
thence North 56 deErees 06 minutes 31 seconds East,
tanEent to said curve, 233.19 feet; thence easterly
228.32.feet alonE a tangential curve concave to the
south, herinE a radius of 272.84 feet and a central
anEle of 47 deErees 56 minutes 48 seconds, and there
te~inatinE.
ToEether with a temporary construction easement over and
across the southeasterly 20.0 feet of said Lo= 1.
'Said temporary construction easement expires December 31,
1978.
Affects Certificate of Title No. 460346
This instrument drafted by:' State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Non~
LeFevere, Lefler, Pearson, O'Brien & Drawz
1100 First National Bank Building
~4inneapolis, Minnesota 55402
IN TESTIMONY WHE~OF, the said parties have hereunto set-
their hand~ the day and year first above wri't~en. --
In Presence of:
STATE OF ~-~I~.;NESOTA)
}ss.
COU~.;TY OF HEi4NEPIN)
']~ste~ Crai~ Wa~ts~n , ~
Elsa ~. WatsOn '
On this ~ day of ~ ' , 197~, before me, a
Notary Public within and for s,~-~ County, personally appeared
Person~ descried in and who executed the--foregoing instrument and
ackn°w~~~.a~---~-'~,~uted the same as ~1,~,~ free
~.~.~.~ ' --
{.'~?~9 NOTARY ~U?~C.,,,~.j~$OTA ~
~uly 11, 1978
CouncllmembeP'Polston moved the followi.ng resolution,
RESOLUTION 78-335
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNINg COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO-APPROVE THE REAR YARD VARIANCE
WHEREAS, owner of property described as Lot 1, Block 7, Pembroke, has re-
quested a rear yard variance of 12 feet, and
WHEREAS, said variance would be to construct a 12 foot deck across the front
of home after basement wall Is finished being repaired, and
WHEREAS, grantlng of variance will bring home more in harmony with setback re-
quirements for front yards off Tuxedo Blvd. or Gordon Road and it does
not appear detrimental to neighborhood or have any adverse effect on
traffic or traffic safety,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE I.T RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That Council concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation
to approve the 12 foot:rear yard variance as requested.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Member Swenson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the followlng voted In ·
favor thereof: 'Lovaasen, Swenson;.'Polston.and Fenstad, with Withhart being
absent temporarily, .the following voted against the same: none, whereupon
said resolutlon' was declared passed and adopted, signed by :he Mayor and
his signature attested by the City Clerk.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-824
RESOLUTION 89-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WIT. H THE PLANNING COMMISSION .
TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI.ANCE. FO.R LOT 4, BLOCK 3,
SHADYWOOD POINT; PID #13-117-24-11-0135
(1766 SHOREWOOD LANE); P&Z CASE #89-824
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a
two story addition containing a two car garage and living space to
the existing principal structure within one (1) foot of the front
property line for Lot 4, Block 3, Shadywood Point; PID #12-117-24-
11-0135; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-2 Single
Family Zoning District according to the Mound Code of Ordinances,
which requires a 20 foot front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Mound Code of
Ordinances provides that alterations may be made to a building
containing a lawful nonconforming use which will improve the
livability thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and
found that the one story garage should be approved within one foot
of the front lot line because no feasible alternative for a garage
exists on the lot due to the width of the parcel; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed t'he request for
second story living quarters above the garage within one foot of
the front lot line and found that such construction should be
prohibited within the required front yard setback area because the
applicant has adequate rear yard area for placement of additional
habitable living space.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City does hereby authorize the applicants request to
construct a garage and entry area on the first floor within
one foot of the front lot line (19 foot. var. iance), for the
property at 1766 Shorewood Lane; PID # 13-117-24-11-0135.
That the City does hereby deny the request for a 19 foot
variance to construct second story living quarters above the
first floor construction referenced in item #1 above due to
the applicants ability to construct the addition in the rear
P OPO D SOLUTION
Page Two
Case No.
yard area of the property.
The City Council authorizes the structural setback violation
and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to
Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Mound Code of
Ordinances 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.
It is determined that the residential unit will be improved
to afford the owner reasonable use of his property by
aUthorizing the construction of a first floor garage and entry
area within one foot ~f the front yard property line.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lot 4, Block 3, Shadywood Point; PID # 13-117-24-
11-0135.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder with
the Registrar of Titles- in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered as a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until
proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Five
Elsa Watson, applicant, e~lafned that she has contacted McCombs
Frank Rods who had staked out their lot In order to Improve
Tuxedo Blvd. in Front of their home, and they wi11 be sending her
a survey of her lot. Mrs. Watson asked if this would be a suffi-
cient survey. The City Planner Informed Mrs. Watson that the
survey needs to pass the building Inspector's approval prior to
permit Issuance.
HOTION made by TI~sl, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve
s,~aFf recommendation for approval of a 12 foot rear yard
variance and a 3 foot rear yard variance at 4610 Tuxedo
Blvd. Motion carried unanimously.
This case wi11 be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
Case No. 89-824: Daniel Johnson~ 1766 Shorewood Lane?
Shad~ood Point~ Block 3~ Lot 4~ PID #t3-117-24-11-0135.
VARIANCE: Front Yard Setback Variance.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request for a 19 Foot
Front yard variance to construct a two car garage and second
floor living space addition. Koegler stated that he Feels place-
ment of the garage tn the rear yard is impractical due to limited
space to the side lot lines. However, there is room For a living
space addition on the lakeside of the home.
Staff recommended approval of a t9 Foot .Front yard variance For
the construction of a new garage and entry area on the First
floor of the home. Second story construction within the 20 Foot
required setback area Is specifically prohibited since other al-
ternatives for the construction of additional living space exist.
Dan Johnson, applicant, submitted pictures to the Commission
showing some of his neighbors garages, and how close to the curb
they sit. Mr. Johnson Further explained the need for the second
story addition. He stated that the home has no basement, and the
lakeside portion of the home has vaulted ceilings. He does not
want to add onto the lakeside .of the home because it would
destroy the view From the ltvtng area.
The Commission explained to Hr. Johnson the need to be consistent
with their decision pertaining to second story additions being so
close to the front property line.
HOT[ON made by Sohns, seconded by Andersen to accept
staff recommendation for approval of a 19 foot front
yard variance for the 'construction of a garage and entry
way. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June ZT, 1989.
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRON: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT: Variance (Front yard setback)
APPLICANT: Daniel P. Johnson
LOCATION: 1766 Shorewood Lane
CASE NUHBER: 89-~24
VHS FILE NUHBER: 89-310-A19-ZO
EXISTING ZONING: R-2
COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a 19 foot front
yard variance to construct a two car garage and second floor living
space addition. The existing home sits approximately 24 feet back
from the front yard property line. Proposed improvement plans call
for construction of a garage and entry area on the first floor and
a new bedroom on the second floor between the existing front of the
home and the front property line. Upon completion, the addition
to the home will be I foot from the front property line.
The subject property is a lakeshore lot with limited side yard
areas (6 feet and 9.6 feet). In the application, Mr. Johnson notes
that the "existing setbacks do .not allow wide enough driveway
access for (the) garage to be on (the) lakeside." Because of the
limited side yard areas, staff feels that placement of the garage
in the rear yard is impractical and would result in a single car
width driveway abutting the south lot line. Because of this
situation, approval of a front yard variance for the garage seems
to be warranted in this case. Properties approximately one block
north of this site have garages very close to Shorewood Lane.
According to City Code, requested variances are to be "the minimum
variance which would alleviate the hardship." This section of the
ordinance impacts both the proposed garage and the second floor
living space that is proposed to be constructed above it.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Regarding the garage, the applicant is proposing the construction
of a structure to house two vehicles. The proposed garage is 24
feet in width resulting in the I foot front setback. A 22 foot
wide garage will accommodate two vehicles but would reduce the
required variance to 17 feet.
The existing home presently has a rear yard setback of
approximately 78 feet from Lake Minnetonka. The City and the LMCD
require a 50 foot lakeshore setback for the principal structure.
Construction of additional living space at the rear of the ho'me is
possible in conformance with the City's setback requirements.
Past actions by the Planning Commission and City Council have
recognized the need to allow variances for the construction of
garages when no feasible alternatives exist. Garages have been
found to be normal and customary parts of residential structures.
In all cases, the City has not allowed construction of living space
within one foot of a property line when feasible alternatives
exist, particularly when the construction will be two stories in
height.
R£COMM£N§ATION: Staff recommends approval of a 19 foot front yard
variance for the construction of a new garage and entry area on the
first floor of the home. Second story construction within the 20
foot .required setback area is specifically prohibited since other
alternatives for the construction of additional living space exist.
OF HOUND PART II
Fee
YARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property
LOt ~/
Addition ~.~, ~z .~[~
Owner' s Name ~.1 e ! F.
Owner's ADdress ~ ~(~0~
$50.00
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Block
Day Phone
Address
sting Use of Property:
Zoning District
Day Phone
HaS an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes /~ If yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide 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 DE posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by )aw.
APpl i cant' s Si gnature ~ Date ~--~ ~
IIIIIIIi11111111111111111111111111~/~111111111111111111111111111~11/1~/1111
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
iPlanning Commissio~ Recommendation
Date
fl Action:
Resolution No.
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is 1ocated? 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 (~0, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow (X) topography ( ) sol1
( ) too small ( ). drainage ( ) sub-surface
~ too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
$ir_ c r-d no¢
Was the hardship described above created by the action o~= anyone
having property fntereEts~ 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
ARIANCE APPLICATION
Case Nc).
Are the conditions of hardshiD for which you request a variance
peculiar only to th~ ~ro~erty described in this ~etit(on? 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 o~ the variance De ~terially detrimental' to p~ope~ty in
the same zone, or to the enforcement o~ this or~tnance~
PART III
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents' such as sketch planst
attachments? etc.? must be submitted in 8-1/2"x11" size. If laroer
drawings are submitted? one must be 8-1/Z"xll"~ 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-
lng the following information:
Location, area, and dimens.ions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and
utilities·
Existing and proposed elevations·
Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot linesl
principal building and accessory buildingsl principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent lots·
Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate "north" compass direction.
Any additional information as m~y reasonably be required by the
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
f ~cl~ & ~ ~ /^8~ os oe ' I
ao-~
I'1~/~ Shorcuoc~ D~.
2o7~'
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-825
RESOLUTION 89-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO ALLOW A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR .LOTS. 1,. 2,. 3, 16, 17, & 18,
BLOCK 31, SETON; PID #~3-~~----1-~Z~g2-g-9--q~--I~i-i~?~
(4700 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD); P&Z CASE #89-825
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow
construction of a six (6) foot high fence within the front yard
setback area abutting Cavan for Lots 1, 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18, Block
31, Seton; PID #19-117-23-23-0112/0119; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the fence variance to
install a six foot high fence for the purpose of screening firewood
stored on the site; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-3, Two Family
Residential District which according to City Code requires a 30
foot front yard setbaCk; and
WHEREAS, the Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 23.415(4)(a)
limits the height of fences within the front yard area to four (4)
feet in height; and
WHEREAS, Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances
allows variances where exceptional circumstances exist resulting
from topography; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend approval of the variance due to topography.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City does hereby approve the applicant's variance
request to construct a six foot high fence in the front yard
setback.area abutting Cavan at 4700 Wilshire Boulevard; PID
#19-117-23-23-0112/0119.
The City Council authorizes the fence height variance with the
clear and express understanding that the fence will exist as
a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions
and restrictions of Section 23.404 of the Mound Code of
Ordinances.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Page Two
Case No. 89-825
It is determined that approval of the fence height variance
will afford the owner reasonable use of his property by
allowing construction of a six foot high fence in the front
yard setback of the property abutting Cavan upon the following
condition:
All storage shall be maintained at a height not exceeding the
height of the fence.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: .Lots 1., 2, 3, 16, 17 and 18, Block 31, Seton'; PID
#19-117-23-23-0112/0119.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder with
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until
proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
Planning Commission Minutes
June IZ, 1989
Page Six
Case No. 89-825= Percival Jacobson, 4700 Wilshtre Blvd.,
S,ton, Block 31~ Lots 1,2~3,16~17, & IB~ PID #19-117-23-23-
0112 & 0119. VARIANCE= Fence Height.
The City Planner reviewed the applicant's request to place a 6
foot high fence in his front yard, the maximum allowable height
is 4 feet. The Building OFficial and City Attorney'S office have
been involved in trying to clean up this property over the'past
two years. As a condition of dropping prosecution of the
property owner, tt was agreed that the site would be totally
cleaned up and the remaining storage would consist of wood to be
used For fuel purposes. This wood is stacked on a rack, which
it was agreed would be lowered to a height consistent with the
height of a wooden fence. Koegler added that a 6 foot high fence
would improve views from the abutting residences.
Staff recommended approval of the fence height variance due to
the elevation of Mr. Jacobson's property relative to the sur-
rounding homes. This approva! recommendation is contingent upon
maintaining 411 storage at a height below the height of the
fence. This will require modification of the existing rack
storage system.
Jansen stated that she believes this property at a disadvantage
because it has double street frontage and abuts an unimproved
right-of-way. Weiland commented that he did not feel 2 feet
would make a difference to the neighbors view.
Richard Jacobson, the applicant's son, spoke on Percival Jacob-
sons behalf. Richard Jacobson informed the Commission that his
father has a bad back and therefore would like tO have the wood
rack extend to 6 feet in height to make it easier For him to
retrieve wood. Since the wood rack cannot exceed the height of
the Fence, they are requesting a 2 foot variance in fence hetght.
MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Clapsaddle, to ap-
prove staEE recommendation for approval of a 2 foot
fence height variance. Motion carried S - 2. Those in
favor: Andersen, Thai, Michael, Jensen, and Clapsaddle.
Those opposed: Wetland and Sohns.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, I989.
Case No. 89-826: Melvin Zuckman, 501Z Tuxedo Blvd., RLS
llS0t Tract Ar PID #Z4-II7-Z4-43-0034. VARIANCE: two prin-
cipal structures on one zoninq iot~ side yard setback and
lakeshore setback vart. ances,
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of this case.
The applicant is requesting recognition of an existing noncon-
Forming 13 foot 1ak,shore setback to the summer cottage, result
PLANNING. REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRON: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 6, 1989
SUBJECT: Variance - Fence Height
APPLICANT: Percival L. Jacobson
LOCATION: 4700 Wilshire Boulevard
CASE NUNBER: 89-825
VHS FILE NUNBER:
EXISTING ZONING:
89-310-A21-Z0
R-3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: Mr. Jacobson has applied for a 2 foot high fence
variance to place a 6 foot high board on board fence in the front
yard portion of his home that abuts Cavan. Within the front yard
setback area, the Zoning Code permits fences four feet in height.
The purpose of this request is to provide screening. The property
owner heats the home with wood (supplemented by natural gas) and
has a large quantity of wood stored on the premises. Over the past
two years, the Building Official and the City Attorney's office
have been involved in trying to clean up the property. Significant
progress has been made toward cleaning up the site, however,
additional clean up efforts still need to be completed.
As a condition of dropping prosecution of the property owner, it
was agreed that the site would be totally cleaned up and the
remaining storage would consist of wood to be used for fuel
purposes. Mr. Jacobson has a rack storage system to accommodate
wood. At the present time, the rack is approximately 7 feet in
height. As a condition of the City dropping charges, the rack is
to be lowered to a height consistent with the height of a wooden
fence.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Each variance request is unique and must be judged on it's own
merits. It is questionable that this request meets all of the
City's criteria for the granting of variances. However, it is easy
to slightly modify some of the criteria statements to justify
approval of this request. For example, criteria statement #2
states that variances may be granted where the literal
interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the
same district. This statement could be modified for this case to
say that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the
ordinance might deprive other properties in the district with the
rights commonly enjoyed in residential areas, namely, freedom from
intrusive views. Homes adjacent to this property sit at a higher
elevation and look down into the storage area. A six foot high
fence would improve views from the abutting residences.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the fence height
variance due to the elevation of Mr. Jacobson's property relative
to the surrounding homes. This approval recommendation is
contingent upon maintaining all storage at a height below the
height of the fence. This will require modification of the
existing rack storage system.
CITY OF HOUND
PART II
Fee $50.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.)
Address of Subject Property
Add i t i on ~e~d~
Owner's Address
Day Phone
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Day Phone
Exi sti ng Use of prOperty.:
Zoning District
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, coj3cUtional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes/~n~' If yes,
I 1st date(s~) of application, action taken, and provide resolu~on number(s)
(Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)
] certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in
any required'papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac-
curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
be required by law.
/ .
App! tcant', Signature /_~c~~~aa~- ~ Date ~_.:_.~_~ '~?
.llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll~)l/lll/llllllllllllllllllllllllllll
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
IANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
Does the present use oF the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is located? Ye~ (~), No (). IF no,
specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and
setback regulations For the zoning district in which it is located?
Yes ~), No ( >. If no, specify each non-conForming use:
Which unique physical characteristics oF the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any-oF the uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow
( ) too small ( ) drainage
('') too shallow ( ) shape
topography
( ) sot1
( ) sub-surface
.:~ 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 ~-PF. 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
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~),
No ( ). if no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) From the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that wiil permit you to make reasonable use of
your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ-
Will granting, of the variance be materially detrimental to property in
the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
PART ! ! !
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All suppor~ctng documents such as sketch plans~
attachments? etc.? must be sul~nitted in 8-1/2"x11" size. If larger
drawfnqs are sul~nttted, one must be 8-1/2"x11"? and 15 lar~er 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 dimens.ions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s),
building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and
utilities.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building and Front, side and rear lot lines;
principal building and accessory buildings; principal building
and principal buildings on adjacent 1ors.
Location of: signs, easements, unOerground utilities, etc.
Indicate "north" compass direction.
Any additional information as may reasonably be required by t' ~
city staff and applicable sections oF the Zoning Ordinance.
Y'I
:.,.
I
ROGER W. REED
PAUL L POND*
*C, ertlfled Civil Tdal ,~peclalilt
June. 23, 1989
REED & POND, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
5424 SHORELINE BLVD.
P.O. BOX 9
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009
PHONE (612) 472-2222
FAX (612) 472-2254
REL"D JUN 2 6 1989
GREGORY S. HAGGE
FBCHARD N. INDRrEZ
KAY L DUNN
Leg;a/~
Mr. Ed Shukle
city Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re:
Melvin Zuckman
Building Permit Application
Dear Mr. Shukle:
Following up on our phone conversation of June 22, our firm will
be representing Melvin Zuckman on a variety of legal matters
concerning his property at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard. It is my
understanding that Mr. Zuckman's request for a building permit is
scheduled before the City Council on June 27. In our conversation
we agreed that his request could be tabled indefinitely. There is
also a criminal charge pending against Mr. Zuckman arising out of
alleged construction on the property and he has also recently been
served with a Summons and Complaint by Jim Larson concerning the
same property. It would appear that the civil suit would be the
appropriate, forum to resolve this dispute.
If yog/~a~e~?any questions, please feel free to contact me.
/: 'O D, LTD.
CC: Melvin Zuckman
James Larson
Case No. B9-BZ6: Melvin Zuckmant 50]Z Tuxedo B1vd.~ RL$
1150~ Tract Ar PID #24-117-24-43-0034. VARIANCE; two prSn-
cipal structures on one zoninglot? side yard setback and
lakeshore setback variances.
City Planner, Mark Koegier, reviewed the history oE this case.
The applicant is requesting recognition of an existing noncon-
Eorming 13 Eoot lakeshore setback to the summer cottage, result
Planning Commission Minutes
June ]2, 1989
Page Seven
ing in a 37 foot variance, and a 4.5 foot existing nonconforming
side yard setback to the second principal buildtng at the south
end of the lot. In 1966 the City granted a variance to recognize
the existence of two principal uses on one zoning lot (Resolution
#66-77).
In ]979 there was a fire in the cottage at the north end of the
lot (home closest to the lakeshore). The owner applied For a
variance to repair the building, however, the variance was denied
due to finding the buildtng to be more than 50% damaged
(ResolUtion #?9-2]3>.
The Planner reported that he did not ~lnd any "new facts" relat-
ing to this case. Staff recommended denial of the variance
request based on the reaffirmation of the the Finding in ]9?9
that the structure was more than 50% damaged by Fire. Section
23.404 (2) of the Mound City Code specifically prohibits restora-
tion of a nonconforming structure when it is Found that the
repairs will constitute more than 50% of the Fair market value of
the structure. If the ortginal action is upheld by the Planning
Commission and City Council, the City should initiate proceedings
to guarantee removal o~ the nonconforming structure.
The Commission questioned why the City never followed through
with removal of the structure after Resolution 79-2]3 was
adopted. No answers were supplied, present staff was not here
when the resolution was passed.
Mel Zuckman, applicant, reviewed the history of his case. He tm-
plted that the house was never 50% destroyed. Mr. Zuckman
presented a letter to the Commission dated May 30,' 1989 signed by
Barry Palm o~ 48?9 Wilshtre Blvd. who was a Fireman at the fire
in ]979. The letter stated that he did not feel the house was
structurally damaged. Mr. Zuckman explained that this letter is
a duplicate of a letter written ten years ago which they cannot
locate.
Mr. Zuckman informed the Commission that the County Assessors
report dated 3-30-79 Is incorrect. The dimensions listed are for
a home 22' x 24' totaling 528 square feet, when in actuality
their home is 32.2' x 30' totaling 966 square feet.
Mr. Paul Reese of 4120 Htghwood Road, St. Louis Park, stated he
has been a friend of Mr. Zuckmans since before the fire in 1979.
He informed the Commission that he saw the home both before and
after the fire and does not believe the home was 50% destroyed.
Howard Barrett, of 5000 Tuxedo Blvd., Mr. Zuckman's neighbor,
stated that he would like to see new siding on the home.
Planntng Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Eight
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Weiland, to approve
staff rec~,,Jendatlon for denial oE the variance. Motion
carried 4 - 3. Those in favor: Sohns, Welland, Thal,
Jensen. Those opposed: Andersen, Michael, Clapsaddle.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, ]989.
DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL:
City Hall Building improvements
Thal questioned the Commission tF they would be interested in
touring the Mound Police Department at the June 26th Workshop
Meeting. It was agreed the tour would take place from 7:00 to
7:30 p.m. prior to the scheduled meeting. The City Manager will
contact the Police Chief to make proper arrangements for the
tour. -
Letter From the Cambridge Group regarding a proposed Fence behind
the Balboa Business Center.
-,The City Planner reported that since the cottonwood trees have
died, the management company For the Balboa Business Center,
Cambridge Property Management, has proposed to erect a 6 foot
high privacy fence to screen the Toro semi-trailers From the
neighboring houses and street.
Sohns commented that the neighbors may be interested in reviewing
this proposal, since they expressed a strong concern about this
matter previously. AFter further discussion, the City Planner
determined that a 6 Foot high Fence may not be allowed in the
proposed location, he stated he will research this possibility.
Ci~y Council Representatives Report.
Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting=of May 23, 1989.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Welland to adjourn the
meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Attest:
Vice Chair, GeofE Michael
PLANNING .REPORT
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRON: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~
DATE: June 5, 1989
SUBJECT:
Variances (Two principal structures on one zoning lot,
side yard setback and lakeshore setback variances)
APPLICANT: Melvin Zuchman
LOCATION: 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard
CASE NUMBER: 89-826
VHS FILE NUMBER: 89-310-A20-ZO
EXISTING ZONING: R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The subject parcel contains two principal structures,
a single family residence abutting Tuxedo Boulevard and a
modernized boat.house/summer cottage on the north end of the site
approximately 13 feet from Lake Minnetonka. In 1966, the City of
Mound granted a variance to recognize the existence of two
principal uses on one zoning lot (Resolution 66-77). The property
contained two legally occupied structures from that time until 1979
when a fire severely damaged the boat house/cottage. After the
fire, the applicant applied for a variance and building permit to
reconstruct the building. The. permit and the variance were
subsequently denied since it was found that more than 50% of the
structure was damaged by the fire.
Over the past 10 year period, the fire damaged structure has been
improved without issuance of building permits. These illegal
improvements have been completed by the applicant in direct
violation of both the zoning and building codes and Resolution No.
79-213 adopted by the Mound City Council. Recently, the applicant
completed a building permit, application to add new siding to the
home and was informed by the Building Official that a permit could
not be issued without the prior issuance of a variance.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll,.Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 6121553-1950
The current variance application is essentially the same
application that was submitted and reviewed in 1979. When a
variance application is resubmitted, staff reviews the case to
determine if new facts are known which were not known at the time
of the original application. Application attachment #2 dated May
23, 1989 by Mr. Zuckman contains two paragraphs in support of the
approval of the current application.
The first paragraph states, "The nonconforming hardship was an
existing situation previous to Mound's acquisition of the Island
Park area and any variances were given at the time the building was
given building permits by Island Park Council." There is no
supporting documentation to indicate any previous actions by the
Island Park Council. Even if such documentation is supplied by the
applicant, it is not germane to this issue. The Mound Zoning Code
contains a section on nonconforming uses. Even when uses are
granted variances, they remain nonconforming and are subject to
all applicable sections of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code is
very specific in stating that structures that are damaged more than
50% can not be rebuilt.
The second paragraph' states, "It is my contention that the
structural damage to this building was less than 50%." After
reading this statement in the. application, I reviewed Resolution
79-213 which found that the structure was more than 50% destroyed
by the fire. Resolution 79-213 identifies a process that was
followed in 1979 to determine whether or not the structure was
damaged more than 50%. The process included reviews by the
Building Official, Lyle Swanson, a Professional Engineer, the
Hennepin County Assessor, Mr. Chester J. Zimniewicz, a civil and
structural engineer, and a firm known as Home Inspection
Consultants. Based on the information compiled by these
individuals and firms, the City Council concluded that the building
was more than 50% damaged by the fire.
In my review of this case to search for "new facts"', I did not find
any such information. Rather, I found what is probably the most
thorough analysis of a fire damaged nonconforming structure that
I have seen in my 14 years of city planning work. By all evidence,
the issue was given a fair review in 1979 and the decision that was
reached was the appropriate one.
RECO~ME~§ATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance request
based on the reaffirmation of the finding in 1979 that the
structure was more than 50% damaged by the fire. Section
23.404 (2) of the Mound City Code specifically prohibits
restoration of a nonconforming structure when it is found that the
repairs will constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of
the structure. If the original action is upheld by the Planning
Commission and City Council, the City should initiate proceedings
to guarantee removal of the nonconforming structure.
CITY OF MOUND
Fee $50.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the
Address of Subject. Property 0~0 /¢~
followtng information.)..
B 1 ock
Owner's Address ~O/~.
Appl i cant' s Name ( i f other than owner)
AdOress
Existing .Use of Property:
Zoning District ~--I
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, varta~-~r~ondittonal use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? (~es ~ no . if yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide~ution number(s)
( o i' rev t 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
appl ication by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose
of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may
App ! I cant' s S f gnature Date.
///////////I///////////////////////i////OIl//I///l//////////////I////I//
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commission Recommendation
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
IANCE APPLICATION
Does the present use of the property conform to .al_) regu~tions for
the zoning cl~strfct iD which it Is l_ocal;ecl? Yes~ No (/~9. If no,
specify each non-conf~rming use: .~~,~_ _~C~? ',~.~iJ?r~-~.-~_
Do the existing structures comply with al1 area, height, bulk, and
setback regu]a.ttons for the zoning district in which it ts located?
Yes (), Non(X/~). IF no, sFieciFy each non-conForming use:
Which unique physical characteristics oF the subject property prevent
its reasonable use for any.oF the uses permitted tn .that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( '' ) to{) shal low ( ) shape
( ) soil
( ) sub-surface
-( .) 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 o~hxer man-made change, such as the
relocation oF a road? Yes ( ), No (X~). [F yes, explain
VARIANCE APPLICATION
conditions of hardship for which you request a variance
Are
the
peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ),
No (~). IF no, how n~any other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) 1=rom the area, bulk, and
setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use o6
your land? (SpeciFy, using maps, site. plaps with dimensions and writ-
ten explanation. /~ ~ /~~ ~~ ~/
Will granting ot= the variance be materially cletrlmental to property
the same zone, or to the enFoFcement o1= this ordinance? ~
PAR~ I I I
SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch planst
attachments~ etc.? must be submitted in 8-I/2"xll" size. If larger
drawings are submtttedt 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),
building(s), driveway(si/street access, oFF-street parking, and
utflitt.es.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building and 1=font, stde 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 o1= the Zoning Ordinance.
}4EL ZU¢ K.'tAN
?rac~,'A., Re~£st~ered Land
,?
/
/
.j.
' 2%9
May 22, 1979
Councilmember Withh&rt moved the following resolution,
RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 213
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT A STRUCTURE LOCATED
ON TRACT A, RLS 1150, WAS 50~ OR MORE DESTROYED
BY FIRE & DENYING AN APPLICATION TO REBUILD & RE-
CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING USE
WHEREAS, Melvin Zuckman is the owner Of property located at 5012 Tuxedo Blvd.
in the City of Mound, and
WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes authorizes'the City Council with
the aid and assistance of the City Planning Commission to carry out muni-
cipal planning activitieS which guide development and improvement of our
community, and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance, Chapter 23 of the City Code, and
the intent of said ordinance is to correct past errors in plattlnq, build-
ing and land use wherein much development took place in the City'prior to
the adoption'df-ady planning regulations or planflihg-thought and to direct~
aid and assist development on an equal basis throughout the community for
present and future development, and
WHEREAS, the City did provide in the Zoning Ordinance for non-conforming uses to
protect existing property values and to.meet constitutional.r~qulrements'
protecting the rights of property owners and to prevent the taking of lands
or property without the payment of compensation, and
~ .... · .... WH.E~EAS, Courts throughout this country have uniformly recognized non-conforming
" 'uses as a method of protecting said property rights but Courts and treat-
ises on zoning and planning have uniformly agreed that non-conforming
uses may be lost for a variety of reasons, including destruction, and
WHEREAS, Section 23.20 of the Mound Code of Ordinances relates to and provides re-
gulations regarding non-conforming uses and Sec. 23.20, Subd. "g" of the
City Code states as follows:
"Any building which is partially damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake,
wind, water, or.explosion may be restored to its former use, provided
that no building which does not conform to the requirements of the use
district in which it is located, and which is thus partially damaged or
destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (509) or more, may be rebuilt
oE reconstructed other than for purposes of conformity. Estimate of the
extend of damage Or destruction, shall be made by the City Council or its
appointed agent." and
WHEREAS, the property located at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard and legally described as
Teact A, RLS 1150 is owned by Mr. Zuckman and is a non-conforming use for
the following reasons:
Contains two principle structures (houses) on one parcel of land
which is zoned Residential A-1 (Single Family); said structures had
3 housing'~rn~i'rs in a single family district.
b)
Building A on said parcel is the structure involved in the request
and it is further non-conforming because of
~-IOI 1) a minor side yard set back deficiency (1/4 of a foot)
220
May 22, '1979
c)
it is built 13 feet from the lake front and the ordinance requires
a 50 foot setback - therefore the owner i's requestlng_a 37 foot
variance from the lake front setback requirements.
Buildlng B is the other structure on this parcel and this has two
setback violations
1)
a deck is built 4.5 feet from the neighboring parcel and the or-
dinance requires a ten foot setback
the structure is 16.7 feet from the street and the ordinance re-
quires 20 feet as a setback,
and
WHEREAS,~Building A was damaged by fire and the property owner failed to obtain any
building permits as require~ by the City and State building codes and began
reconstruction of the damaged home;.the Building Inspector observed this con-
struction and stopped work on the house because the owner had not obtained
building permits and the property is a non-conforming use. The applicant
has applied for a variance to the non-conforming use section of the ordin~
ance, and has asked for variances from the setback requirements and has con-
tended that Building A was not damaged by the flre "to'the extent of 50% or
more", and
WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission at its meeting of March 26, 1979, indicated
it was very difficult to ascertain the percentage of structural.damages caused
by the fire because the owner had torn down and replaced portions of the
.structure be£ore the BuildiNg Inspector stopped work; it was therefore im-
possible to determine with certainty the before and after values of this
structure, and therefore the Planning Commission recommended that this Council
determine the question-of damage to the property before considering the
owner's request for variances, and
WHEREAS, the City directed Lyle Swanson, a Professional Engineer, to examine the
structure and to provide his professional opinion Eegarding damages, and
he did examine the building on March 28, 1979, and stated as follows:
"Virtually all of the structural members from the first floor level up were
damaged beyond repair. Many of these have been replaced with'new members
since the fire. There are stress fractures in the sub-level block walls,
but these were probably not caused by the fire."
A copy of said report is on file in the City Clerk/Treasurer's Office and
marked Exhibit A, and
WHEREAS, the City then contacted the Hennepin County Assessor who acts as the assessor
for the City of Mound, who reported and filed with the Council a report in-
dicating that a member of the assessor's staff had inspected the premises
a~er the fire and estimated the damage to the structure at 50% of its value;
a copy of said appraiser's report and finding is on file in the City Clerk/
Treasurer's Office and marked Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the City retained the services of Home Inspection Consultants, a national
firm, to examine this property and said report did not specifically state
the before value of the premises because they had not had an opportunity to
examine the premises prior to the fire and were unable to give before and
May 22, 1979
after value, but' the professional appraiser did state,
"It must be said here that extensive rehabilitative work to much of
the structure has been initiated without obtaining a buiiding permit.
While many of the remaining structural members have some structural
integrity, in my professional opinion, I would not depend upon that
integrity unless every structural member damaged or scorched by the
fire would be subject to testing. Because testing would be 'impract-
ical if not impossible, I am assuming that the entire frame portion
of the house would be replaced. Also because the entire chimney de-
veloped serious structural cracks from the fire, it would also have
to be rebuilt."
This Civil and Structural Engineer, Chester J. Zim~iewicz, did not make a
before and after valuation, but did give a professional opinion related to
the destruction and the estimated costs of repair in the amount of $12,754.
.Said~report. is on file in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer and marked
Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, thls Council, having'the responsibility of determining if 50~ or more of
the structure'had been damaged or destroyed, requested additional informa-
tion from the City Staff, and the City Manager requested Edward J. Stanke,
Vice President of Eberhardt Company, to examine the structure, and he has
stated, ~
"It is my opinion that ~he fi're must have caused over 50~ damage to
the home."
.it being impossible toigive'before and after figures because he'had not
'examined the house prior to'the fire and substantial work had been done
'on it by the property owner without a permit after the fire. A copy
of said report, is on f.ile in the-City Clerk/Treasurer's Office and
marked Exhibit D, and
WHEREAS, the Council obtained a review by Mr. Milton Hilk of the Hennepln County
Assessor"s Office who transmitted a report to the City Manager under date
of May 8 indicating that in its present state, the house is 45.7~ complete,
and that in his opinion most of the structure is being replaced with new
materials. Said letter and report is on file in the City Clerk/Treasurer's
office and marked Exhibit E, and
WHEREAS, the property owner has appeared before the Planning Commission and the
City Council on two occasions' and has not at any time presented a before
and after valuation nor any app.raisal of the property, but did on April 24
present a copy of a contract agreement with Deluxe Builders and Remodelers,
Inc. to do certain work on the building for the sum of $9,260. The
applicant has then argued to this Council that $9,260. is less than 50~
of what they consider the fair market value prior to the time of the fire.
A copy of said contract and agreement is on file in the office of the City
Clerk/Treasurer and marked Exhibit F. This contract does not take into
consideration that the owner was to furnish all roofing material, redecor~
ate the interior of the structure, furnish and install all interior trim,
kitchen cabinets and counters;'and made no provision for plumbing, elec-
trical, work, or exterior painting, and therefore said estimate as pre-'
sented by the applicant is incomplete as to the actual work to be done
on the structure, and
222
May 22, 1979
WHEREAS, the City Councll has asked the City Attorney to review the law in Minnesota
regarding non-conforming u~e~ and valuations, and ~e has done so and re-
ported on the case of State v, Pah] wherein the Minnesota Supreme Court
indicated that if preexisting non-conforming structure is substantla])y
destroyed, then the owners must thereafter comply with the setback re-
quirements of the ordinance even though the building did not conform to
such requirements at the time the ordinance was adopted, and
WHEREAS, this Council is sympathetic to the property owner and has done everything
in its power to fairly appraise the property, but has been frustrated in
coming up with exact numbers because of the property owner's proceeding
without a building per~it and the property owner's failure to present any
evidence to the Council of a before and after valuation of the structure
to refute the evidence assembled by the City staff;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND:
1. The structure located on Tract A, RLS 1150, located the closest to Lake
Minnetonka was damaged by fire to the extent of 50% or more some time prior
to March of 1979. This estimate of the extent of the damage and destruction
is made by this Council pursuant to Section 23.20, subd. "g" of the City Code.
2. The applicant's request for variances to rebuild-and reconstruct this non-
conforming use is hereby denied based on the following.findings:
ae
be
The applicant has created his own hardship by illegally proceeding to
reconstruct a structure without obtaining a building permit,
The.applicant has failed to present any evidence to this'Council to in-
dicate the structure was not 50% or more destroyed by fire.
Ce
de.
The property is a non-conforming use in that it contains'two structures
and three dwellin9 units on a single family lot and does not meet the
setback requirements of the ordinance,
The request of a lake front setback of 13 feet is contrary to the zoning
ordinance of the City of Mound and does not conform to the Minnetonka Lake
Conservation District requirement.
e. It is the findi'ng and determination of this Council that based upon the
'fact situation as set forth in the Whereas provisions of this Resolution,
the applicant's problem and the Council's dilemma in establishing valua-
tions was created by the applicant's failure to comply with City and State
laws,
3, It iS a further finding of this Council that the application for variance
should be and is hereby denied because the granting of the variance would have an
adverse and detrimental affect on the health, safety'and general welfare of the
City, would, be contrary to City ordinances, and would perpetuste and extend a non-
conforming use which would frustrate the purpose and intent of the comprehensive
plan and zoning ordinance of the City of Mound,
A motion for the adoption of the'foregoing resolution was duly seconded By Council-
member Polston and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof;
223
Hay 22, 1~7~
Lovaasen, Polston, Ulrick and ~/ithhart, the followlng voted against the same;
Swenson, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by
the Hayor and his:signature attested by the Acting City Clerk.
Attest: Acting~City Cl&rT~
cCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC..
March 29, 1979
Reply 1'o:
1:2~OS Olson
Minneapolis, Miml~.ota
(612) SSg..~TDO
Hank Tr. uelson'
Buildi~.g Inspector
City of.Mound
.5341.MaSn, ood Road
Mound, Minnesota :55364
Subject': City of Mound
Burned House
'Tract A, RLS 1150
Dear Mr. Truelson:
.On March '28, 1979, I looked at th~ house on Tract A,
RLS 1150, which Yecently burnt.
.Virtually all of th~ structural members fr~m th~ first
floor level up were damagea beyond repair. Many of these have.
been replaced with new members since the'f'ire.
There are stress fractures in th~ sublevel block walls,
but %h~se were probably not caused by the fire.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNuTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
'
Lyle Swanso. n, P.E.
LS':sh
cc: Curt Pearson
Leonard Kopp
~!C205
Area
Own~.r
Address
Extras:
Fireplace
.Fireplac~
· ~tange-Oven
Dish:,/ash~r
Disposal '
Baths ,
'Tile
Finished Bsm't..,
W.O. Bsm't.
Air Cond.
Brlc1~ or Stone Trim
Drive
· Fixt.
Total Extres:
COMPUTATIONS .
:
· .. - Dimensions ' - Sq. Ft. Rate Value · Total
i~ ~ ¢. - ~- ~ ..' ~-',~ ~.~.-/.~?~ '..
x =
__ ... . /~5~
Porch:
Extras:. ·
Less Depreclat;on: Physi~l ~ _ % '
Fu~ctlonal
Economic
Nat Value - ·
G~rage:'
Lass Dap,
Other Buildin~s
Total Value Improvements
Land Valu~
HOME INSPECTION
CONSULTANTS
55 NO. LEXINGTON PKWY. -
ST. PAUL, MINN. 5'5104'-
2,24 8300 "
April 10, 1979
Mr. Jeff=cz J. Strand.
Attorney-at-Law
LeFevere, Lefler, Pearson, O'Brien &Drawz
1100 First National Bank Building
Minneapolis, ~4innesota 55402.
Re: Burned House ~ 5012 T~xedo Blyd., ]-~ound, ~.
Tract A, RLS 1150
Dear ).~-. Strand:
At the request of Henry Trvelson, Building Inspector at ~bund
,
· ~4innesota, I inspected the b~rned house as noted above on
V. arch 7, 1979. Tae purpose of the inspection was to note the
structural damage to the house by a fire which occurred on
~ay 5,. 1978. I was also asked to estimate the cost to completely
rehabilitate the house t~ its former condition based upon present
day' costs, l'~ile much of the house above the top o£ the
foundation walls-was destroyed or nade' structurally'inadequate
because of the fire damage to major structural elements, other
parts suffered water damage which could be considered for comp-
lete rehabilitation.
As a basis for my estimate I used a book called H0.'-~E TECH
EST]],~ATOR published by Home-Te~ Pablications of ~.~as~iugton, D.C.
It must be said here that extensive rehabilitative work to much
of the structure has been initiated without obtaining a building
permit.
fO~.EGOIhlG REPORT IS FURNISHED AT YOUR REQUEST IN STRICT CONFIDENCE ~Y US AS YOUR AGENT AND EMPLOYEE FOP. YOUR EXCtUSIVE USE AS AN AID
~N~ 1HE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF THE SUHECT PREMISES. THIS REPORT IS INTENDED TO COVER ONLY SUCH PORTIONS OF THE PREMISES A~DTHE EOUIP~NT THE~E~
cAY a[ [XA~AINE D VISUALLY; AI4D WE WARN YOU THAT ALTHOUGH SUCH PREMISES AND/O~ EOUIPMEN[ ~AY BE IN GOOD CONDITION WHEN EXAMINED, THE
'CHANGE 1H~REAFTER. FUR~HER)AORE, 1HIS REPORTIS NOTTO~E USED AS A~AStS~O~ D~TERMINING THE VA~UE OF SUCHP~EMIS[50~[TH~R$~
HOHE AI~D BUILDING INSPECTION FOR THE: HOHE OWNER
While many cf the remaining structural members have some
structural integrity, in my professional opinion, I would.
not depmnd upon that integrity 'unless every structural
member damaged or scorched by the fire would be subject to
testing. Because testing would be 'impracticzl if not
impossible, I am a~suming that the entire frame portion of
the house would be replaced. Also because the entire chim'
ney developed serious str~ctura! cracks from the fire, it
would also have to be rebuilt.
· While my estimate, here~*ith ~LI deal ~th the stractural
damage from the fire only, it must be stated that the
buildin~ code says in Section 104 (b) that if additions,
alterations and repairs exceed more than %0~of the value
of an existing building or structure, such building or
structure shall be made to conform to the requirements for
new buildings or structures. · It must .be said here that if
· the estimate is more than 50%, the fou_udation walls and .most
of the structu~-al framing and concrete mason~y of the lower
level would also have to be rebuilt. ..
Th~ following comments are herewith made from .my notes on
· April 7, 19~9 relative to the structural inadequacie.s as
noted by my inspection,
1. 2_x8 joists span 16'-0". Too gr,.at a span for 2xS's.
.2.
Deck overhang in front of house ~is unsafe because
the cantilever overhang is 7'-0" on the outside.
The deck is anchored ~'-0" inside .the building. This
type of construction does not conform to e~ngineering
practises.
3. Rear masonry wall n~t structurally adequate.
4. Two parallel exterio~ masonry walls show extensive
structural cracks.
Inadequate headcrs over aLI windows.
2~.4's over kitchen area are nailed together At the.center to make
a structural Joists. This is not an acceptable
method of construction.
ESTIY~ATE OF THE ~TE~T OF D~%AGE OR RECO,':STPJ~.CTIO~
Remove e~stinE roofing, roof sheathin~ & rafters
30' x 32' $0.5~ $/S.F.
2. Remove all exterior & interior walls
162 L.F. @'11.25 $/L.F."
-TNSTALLATION
.Remove joists & sub-floor
30 x 32' x 0.47
.4. Fmrst floor joists
· . '~r~ 2.10
.- .. ~x32x
518. O0
1823.00
45i .oo
2016.00
.5.
Ins t. ~!1 sub-z-loot
30 x 32 x 0.80
6. Lnterior walls (brg. & non-brg. ) -.
5~ L.-~. ~ 0.8~
Roof framing
30 x"32 x 2.46 $/S.F.
Install ceilinE joists
30 x 32 x ~ .7o $/s.F.
768.00
~oo
2362. O0
1632. O0
'9.' Inst~ll asphalt shingles
30 x 32 x 0.65 $/S.F.
· 10;
11.
Lustall sheathing & sidin[
· 9~z s.~'. ~ 0.93 $/S.F.
Install ext. doors 2 ~ 218.00
624.00
923.0o
~6.oo
12. Install int. doors
~ ~ 79.Oo
316.oo.
13. l~ndows
8 @.1 o~.oo ..
TOTAL ES'i'IMATFL~ COST
8~o.oo
'' 1275b.00
If you have s_ny further questions, pleaso do not hesit-~te to
contact me.
Vqry truly yours, .
Cnost~9.J.? Zi=nicwi c?J) P.E. ·
~vil ~ Structura~-'~gin~er
Reg. No. h832
CJZ/km
110
_. .
.r"har-db
I~oDerly H, an~ger$ · Insurance Agents .
April 26, 1979
Village of Mound
5341 MaywOod Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Attn: "Leonard Kopp
RE:
Dear Leonard:
Home at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota
Having looked at the subject property at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard, it is
my opinion that the fire must have caused over fifty per cent {50~}
damage to the home. Not knowing the' condition of the home pr. lot to the
fire it is a little hard to make a positive statement. I base my opinion
on the remaining structure that was lef.t after the fire...
if you have any questions please feel free to call me.
~/ery truly,
Vice President
EOS/njl
eberhardt company, mound, inc.
2305 commerce bOulevard-mound, mTnnesota 55364-phone (61 2)472-1133
1979
l~r. Leonard L. Kopp
Mound City Manager
5341 Maywood Rd.
~oun~, MN .55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As per your request, I have viewed the property legally ~
described as Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1150, Henne-
pin County, Minnesota.
It is impossible for me to say what the condition of the prop-
erty was just after the fire; however, I have made the following
observations after viewing the conditions of the property as
they exist at the present time.
.1.- The roof, roof boards, and rafters are §one; no
lumber which represents that part is visible.
The x, est and north walls are now being rebuilt.
Most of the 2 x 4's for these walls are new. The
exterior sheeting is new pl>~,oo~.
3. The. ceiling joists are mostly new.
4. The 'east and north walls are basically older, and
appear original.
5. The sub floor is older.
6. The cement blocks or basement walls are older.
Comments:
After looking at the structure on 1.',~y 4, 1979, it is my opinion.
that most of the structure is being replaced with new materials.
For your information, I am including a p~rcentage of completion
report.
Sincerely yours,
Milton Hilk
Z, IIZ.
/
PERCEh"rA~ OF COMPILTION REPORT ·
f
INSPECTION DATE
:PZAT
PARCEL
BUILDING PERMIT
O~W~'ER
DATE ISSUED
CONTRACTOR
LESAL DESCRIPTION
L. $
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
A
B
Excavation 2 2 ~
Forms Set 4 2 ~-
F. oundation &/or Blocks. ' 7 3 ~
Joists Set 9 2 ~-
'~ubfloor ! 1 '2 ~
~ tame d I 7 n~-
'Sheathed 21 ~- -
Roof (shin~led) 25 4
'Windows Set 27
Sidin_~ On 32
~Chimne~y & Fireplace 37
Furnace Set & Connected 44
PlumbinE Roughed In SO
.Wiring Roughed In 52.
Insulated 52. $
'lathed $4.. S
Plastered -. 59. $
Floors Imid 62.5
Interior Trim' & Cabinets 67. $
Doors HunE 69.5
Water & Sewer Connected 71.5
Basement Floor
.W/ring. Fini shed
Plumbin~ Fixtures
Linoleum Laid
Exterior Concrete Work
73,5
75.5
O. 2.-
2
S
2
78.5
80.5 2
82.5 ~ 2 "-:
85.5 I 3
87.5 : 2 ,--
4
Outside Paintin~
Driveway
In te ri or De coratin g
Fini s h ,Hardwa re
Floors Finished
Extra & Misc.
^-CUI~IATI%-~ Y.
B-SINGLE UNIT Y.
M-I-i~TERIAL ON ~.%ND
P-WORK IN PROGRESS
91 .S
92.5
93
' 100
NOTES - 'PICTURES
COLU.~; A
COLUHN B
IRDICATED /z/~z~.~ % COMPLETE
INSPECTED BY:
· · '.. -- ,,,.; ,,,,,,,o,,. ,,,,,. ..... -
- - · ' , . . . PAD,,, cE~=) =,7-~=-- - .":' ":T'F"'"4f4"/. :.;.;.~.;:':::-:'r:,.
· ; · . ~ - .. , ,.,.'...' '..- ~
· · CO,T.^~ A.D ^GnE~NT ' · /-- --'". "..-
· , I . · . ·
I/We. the owntr($) of the p~eml~e~ m~nllonmd below, he~eb,/c~ntr·.e with end euthorize~ou ~ cmmlr'~lor, lo lumlsh el~ nec. s~/m~lal,,; I~bet
· nd workm~nt, hip, ~o in.ti&Il, ¢~lrucl In~ place the lmpr~v~m~l~ a~.ording te ~he Ioilcl~ing IiI~licaUonl,
below de~2tbed: · . · -- - . . -- ---
'~ ~' ' ° ' SPEDIFICATION~
'~'.;," .,-:. ,..>,.,...,.~:~ '~ o-,c~ ,~,-,,,-~--,--//'~.-.--,~-4, .~,.,...~.,J.,, ..c.-,-4.~' ':~,._;.,,..,'--- ,.~
..... ~ '"'~ ' , ~/,' ~ v' (/' t// ' '
,. ,: .;.~-. ,~..,~....~/-,-~..7~.~ ~,z,,4'/...~-J~,, ~}~ ,4~./,~,,x_,:.: ~ ..~., '-..'h'-;
...-'~.;.,.,~;,., ~,u,,.,,.,,~..~,~T-~ ~ ><~.-~.~., .~.~,,~ ~ ~; .... · ~ ~.~ ~ ::;.::' .-
. , . . · · . _~... ~, -*
r~ ..;.!;..... r:....../.,.:~z:; .-. -~.,-4.,..--~_~. ' ' ' : .' .. -~ .. - =.;.- .;... .. ~;~.
.,.z.-;.. ;., ~.,..,/.,,3',./..-~ ~ c, "~/.7..; :. ~.~..~ G.;E--c.,,.,-.., -... /
. / · ,' ." -- .- .r."-~ ~ ' ' '~"'--~"~"~' ~ IN LENDING DI$CLOSURU '~ '~. C
~., % ~...,,.~'~ ,~ 4/-,4 ..,.,'-~..;, :- ,. c.,,, P,,. ; · ':... ,.
/.;' .-. ' .. / .~ /,~ · / _ '" _ ~ '. 2. Downp~,yme~l -_ ' , "" · · "' · '-...- '-.
: ....'.;~9;~..; ~,,,/-~,-.~ ~ ~'.,,,~'~.:~.4,.,-~ , ' C~Dew~,--,.,~ · ', :. · :- .. ::4, .~o~
~ 6/ · - ~o~,, uo~-,pav,=,~l. ' ' "' .'. $ ' , f'4: m-'"
./ L/ - ' I- . .? - -I..¢.,.
/
Sellar'i otfiee de~enal~ bblow or el lur..h other office d'~'~ll]nlle~ 4. OIh~' Ch=~, Fkanced: $ · °
- Snl~.~ Tax (Not im::~ded in
"~ by any =$s',lgnee Of thl~, ~on~ct in eq.al consecutive IComputed on
monthly ( . ) Installment~ of $ :each and Price plus C~b Downpayment]" ' .' ~. ' ';
· 'one final inst,,llment'ol $ . On the ~ day of ' ;' Official Fee~' !o~. · ' : $ "
each monlh ( . ) Come,acing Lien search, pe~:~lon & release
,19 ", Or eS Indicated:., ".. Pr~mium... tot ¢:mdl lite Insurance ..?~ :
,. ,,~.~ .. . ;.. ..' .
· ' Pro,,,I,,,,;,
· . '." · . d~,.~,l,l~/In,,,,=
~ '. Other
Less: Cach ~ If ·ny $ -.r' --
Total Other
0-
[3 + 4) · $ (S) _-.
The purchase of Insurance coverage Is voluntary and not ~, FINANCE CHARGE $,
required for credit, m
(Type of insurance) ?. Total of Peyme~m (5+ $)
insurance coverage is available et a cost of'$ ~. Delerred I~¥mrII Price
· .
lot · term of credit, e. ANNUAl. PE. RCEliTAGE rtAT~
· .. . .
/ I doslre insurance coverage Si0ned Dali .................
m~
,,o.o,,.,,.,.......o....,. ,,,.. .................................................. ..,. .... ...........
$~.ller is entitled to lien rights to the property shown as address of buyer unless othef~se sp~ciflecl.
Buyer agrees to execute · promissory note upon delivery of goods or complei;on o! servlc~s. Finance charge will begin to accrue ~ _C.
from date of s=tcl note.
ANY UNPAID BALANCE M^Y O E PAID, AT ANy TIMD~, WITHOUT PENA,LTY AND ANy UNF_ARNED FINANCE CHARGE WiLL BE -~r~
REFUNDED BASED ON THE 'RULE OF 78's'. O _
It Purchaser d~t~uli~in the payment ol'~ny inst.~llmen! ·nd such default cent;Rues for mor~lhan 10days, Purchaser agrees to paya
late charge of 5% o! tho in~.lallment or $5.00 ($3.00 in Ohio), whichever is lesser.
Tl,$ CO;¢TR^OT IS SUBJECT TO ACOEPTANOE BY DE LUXE BUILDERS & RE~,~ODELER$, INC. AND APPROVAL OF THE
UUYEF~'S CREDIT.
· .,4 ~.
DO NOT .'4,AKE CHECKS PA YABLE TO ANY INDIVlDUA I. -- MAK.E~. LL~CHEC. KTS PA YADLE...TO COMPAI~Y *
si~,~u ' ' _' ' '"_ '.". '" ..... . sle,~,~.../'.'./' t'"/~."~'.,,',/
z...' .
~ . /' /'
Accepted '
Owne~
66-77
4-12-66
RESOLUTION NO. 66-77
RESOLUTION. GP~%NTING ZONING VARIANCE
(Tract A, RLS liS0--Second D~ell~ng on Lot)
· WHEREAS, the o~,ner of Tract A, Re~stered Lane Survey No. 1150
has petitioned the Council for-.a variance from the
single family residence requirement of the permissable
uses;
WHEREAS, the Village Planning Commission has approved the
request with conditions upon the height thereof;
AND WHEREAS' it appears to the. Council. that the' granting of
the varlance is necessary to avoid substantial
hardship and to promote the spirit of the zoning
ordinance, and that the granting of the variance
· rlth suitable conditions would not unduly increase
· ' the hazard intended to be avoided;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ViLLAGE COD~iciL OF
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
1.. That substantial harris?dp be, and hereby is,
found in the st~lct application of the single
dwelling use restriction of the zonings.ordinance
s~ck as to .roquire the granting of permit to
.add to and to modernize a boat house and s~um~er
cottage on Tract A,' Registered Land Survey No.
ll50, provided the roof height be limited so as
not to obstruct the view from neighboring
dwell I ngs.
2. That the aforesaid variance, as conditioned, be,
and hereby is, granted.
Adopted. by .the Council this 12th day of April, 1966.*
'\
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 89-827
RESOLUTION #89-
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR
LOT 2, 3, 7 PART OF LOT 1, BLOCK I, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT 3,
PID #24-I17-24-13 0037 (5145 EMERALD DRIVE); P&Z CASE #89-827
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog-
nize an existing nonconforming front yard Setback of ZO feet for
an accessory building to allow structural modifications for a
conforming 24' x 30' two story addition with a 24' x 24' attached
garage to the principal structure for Lot 2, 3, and part of Lot
1, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit C, PID #24-117-24-13 003?; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I
Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code
requires a 50 foot setback to' lakeshore, lO foot side yard set-
backs, a 30 foot front yard setback, and a 20 foot front yard
setback for an accessory bui)ding with the doors facing the
public 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 unit when the alteration will improve the
ltvability 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 property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City does hereby authorize-the existing nonconform-
ing accessory structure setback of 0.0 Feet to the front
property line at 5145 Emerald Drive, PID #24-117-24-13 0037.
The City Council authorizes the existing accessory structure
setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth
below pursuant to 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and
express understanding that the use remains as a lawful non-
conforming use, subject to ali of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 23.404.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 26, 1989
Present were: Chair BIll Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Ken
Smith, Brad Sohns, William Thai, Frank Wetland, Vern Andersen,
and Jerry Clapsaddle, City Manager Ed Shukle, Butiding Official
Jan Bertrand, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was
Council Representative Llz Jensen.
Also present was the following interested citizen=
Stutsman.
Marge
Chair Btll Meyer called the meeting to order at ?:00 p.m.
TOUR OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT:
Poltce Chief Lenny Harrel directed a tour of the Police Depart-
ment. He explained what each room is currently used for and em-
phasized how inadequate the present facilities are. Bill Thal
reviewed the plans for the proposed addition.
MINUTES:
MOTION made by Thai seconded by Michael to approve the
Planning Commission Minutes of June 12, 1989 as sub-
=lttecl. Motion carried unanimously.
RECOGNITION:
A Certificate of Award was presented to Marge Stutsman for 15
years of secretarial service.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
%
a. Case No. 89-827: Dante1 & Diane DeMatteo, 5145 Emerald
Drive~ Lot....2~ 3~ & part of [~ Block I~ Shirley Hills Unit C~
PID ~24-i]7-24-]3 0037. Existing Nonconforming Accessory
~Structure.
The Buil~ing Official explained that the applicant is proposing
to construct a conforming addition to his home which includes
living area and an attached garage. However, there is an exist-
lng detached garage that ts encroaching into the public right-of-
way 1.4 feet. This garage has cement block walls, therefore,
The Building Official recommended approval of a 20 foot front
yard setback variance for the existing detached accessory build-
ing upon the condition that the 1.4 foot encroachment Into the
public right-of-way be removed. This would allow construction of
the addition to the principal building with conforming setbacks.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 26, ]989
Page Two
The applicant, Dante1 DeMatteo explained that he would like the
structure to remain so he may use the garage to store his boat
and lawn mower.
The Commission discussed their concern with the building
encroaching onto City property.
MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Michael 'to grant the ZO
Foot Front yard setback variance to allow construction
of the proposed addition upon the condition that the
encroachment be removed From the public right-of-way.
MOTION FAILED I - 7. Those tn Favor: Thai. Those
opposed: Andersen, Sohns, Wefland, Meyer, Clapsaddle,
Smith, and Michael.
that if the
garage Is not allowed to remain, he,~mi¢~ will have to re~esign
the proposed addition/improvements because he will not have
enough storage area. He planned on putting $1ZO,O00 worth of im-
provements Into the home, and wanted to keep the garage to store
his boat.
The Commission discussed the~ need to remove the 16" From the
accessory building. They also questioned IF a hardship existed.
They concluded that there is enough lot area to construct a new
conforming detached garage and/or move the existing.
MOTION made by Welland, seconded by Michael, to bring
the accessory structure into conformance in its en-
tirety, thereby creating a conforming lot. MOTION
CARRIED 7-1. Those in Favor: Andersen, Sohns, Weiland,
Meyer, Clapsacldle, Smith, and Michael. Those opposed:
Thai.
This case wtll be heard by the City Council on July Ii, 1989.
The applicant, Daniel DeMatteo, expressed his distaste in the
Planning Commission's recommendation. He stated
DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL=
a®
Discussion regarding Housing Maintenance Code / Truth in
Housing (FYI: letter From Minneapolis Area Association of
Realtors).
Meyer commented that the Commission needs to receive copies of
the complete set of the originally proposed ordinance before they
can pursue any revisions. The commission is to review the or-
dinance before the next workshop meeting.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Page Two
Case No. 89-827
It is determined that the ltvability of the residential unit
will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to
a nonconforming parcel to afford the owner reasonable use of
his property.
A 24' x 30' two story addition and a 24' x 24' one
story attached garage will be added to the west side of
the principal building with conforming setbacks, upon
the condition that the i.4 foot encroachment of the
detached accessory building be removed from the public
right-of-way.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lots 2, 3, and part of Lot 1, Block I, Shirley
Hills Unit C, PID #24-II?-24-13 003?.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder
with the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs
for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued
until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
1612) 472-1155
CASE NO. 89-827
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of June Z6, I989
CASE NO.: 89-827
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Dante1 & Diane DeMatteo
5145 Emerald Drive
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Lot Z, 3, & Part of Lot I, Block 1,
Shirley Hills Unit C, PI0 #24-117-24-13 0037
SUBJECT: Existing Nonconforming Accessory Structure
EXISTING ZONING: r-I Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting an addition to the ex-
isting home which complies with all zoning setback regulations.
The applicant has a nonconforming detached accessory structure
with an encroachment into the Emerald Drive public right-of-way.
COMMENTS: The R-I Zoning District requires a 50 foot lakeshore
setback, a 10 foot side yard setback, a 30 Foot Front yard set-
back, and a lot area of 10,000 square feet minimum. The detached
accessory building requires a ZO Foot Front yard setback when the
doors face the public right-of-way and a 4 Foot side yard. The
existing accessory butldtng encroaches into the public right-of-
way 1.4 feet on the northeast corner. The lot area is 31,695
square feet with conforming setbacks to the principal building.
RECOMMENDATION: To afford the owner reasonable use of his
property, staff recommends allowing the addition to the principal
building with conforming setbacks upon the condition that the 1.4
foot encroachment Into the publ ic right-of-way be removed. Thts
would allow a 20 foot front yard setback variance For the exist-
ing detached accessory building.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This case wi11 be referred to the City Council on June ZT, 1989.
PART II
Fee. $50.00
VARIANCE APPLICATION
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type or print the following information.).
Address Of Subject Property
~ner's Name ~~ ~ ~~
App]tcant's Name (if other than owner)
Block
PI D No. Z4-1
Address
Day Phone'
)xisti. ng'Use of Property:
Zoning District R-~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use
permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes /~(~-----~. IF yes,
list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide 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
6e required by law. x-~ ~ / / '
ApPlicant's Si'gnature t Date
'1111/11111111111/111111~1~1111111111111t117111/1[11111111111111111111/1111/
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:
Planning Commissioh Recommendation
>uncil Action:~-?_~
Resolution No.
Date
Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Case No,~
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for
the zoning district in which it is locate~, Yes (~), No (). IE no,
spectEy each non-conformlng use=
Do the existing structures comply wfl;h all area, height, I:)ulk, and
setback regulations for the zoning district: in which it Is located?
Yes. ( ), No ~. )~ no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics o~= the sumJect property prevent
its reasonable use for amy of the' uses permitted in that zoning
district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
- · -( ). too smal ! ( ). drainage ...... ( ) sub-surface
(' ) too shallow ( ) ~hape ('~) other: specify
Was the hardship desc. rlbed above created by the action o~ 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 (~i)- IE yes, explain
7,,1'7,.I
,RIANCE APPLICATION
Case No.
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vart~nce
peculiar only to the property described in this- petition? Yes ~),
No (). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) From the area, bulk, ant
setback regulations that wi il permit you to make reasonable use o+-
your 1and? .(Specify,, using maps, site plans with dimensions and,writ-
ten explanation. L~I~ ~) c~/-J5 ~/~ -/-0 ~)~ ~ ~O~~j,~
Wtl I granting oF the variance be materially detrimental to property ir
the same zone, or to the enforcement oF this ordinance?
PART I I I
SITE PLAN INFORMATION= Ali supportfnq document~ such as sketch plans~
attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8-1/Z"xll" size. If larger
drawings are submitted, one must be 8-.l/Z"xll", and 15 larger siz~
copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure~
a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show-
fng the following information:
Location, area, and dimens'ions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s).
building(s), drlveway(s)/street access, ofF-street parking, an~'
uti. l.ities.
Existing and proposed elevations.
Distance between: building.and front, side and rear lot )ines~
principal building and accessory buildings; principal butldln~
and prlnbipal buildings on adjacent lots·
Location oF= signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate "north" compass direction.
Any additional info~ma~ion as may reasonably be required by thu
city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
,~E'IVCAI /qA£K :
T. ~ lty~. ~t A von D
~ ~'~er~/d Dr. £1e~,.
3 I. SQ. ? r: O.
6enotes ~eJ /ton ~onwmqn~, _
Denote~' dun,'/orf Sewer ~ ~onho/e'
D enole~ Fenc ~
We hereby certify that' thls-is a true and correct reOreser' ~.-. of a . ~ey of
t~ ~un~arles of: - '
Lots 2 a~ ~, a~ t~t part of Lot 1 descr1~ as foilows:
~~ng at the. NorthweSt corer of said Lot i t~e Easterly along the
~rt~rly li~ of sai0 Lot, ~0 feet; 'C~e ~ut~rly ~o t~ shore of Lake
~t~a ~ssing th~ a point which tS locate~ 70 feet Easterly at right
a~es fr~ a point ~ t~ westerly li~ of said Lot which point is 18~.2
feet ~th fr~ t~ ~est corer t~reof; thence ~esterly along t~
lakes~re to t~ interaction of t~ West li~ of said Lot; t~nce
Nort~rly. al~ ~sterly li~ of said ~t to point of begi~ing,
Bl~k 1, ~~ ~L~, ~IT C, according to t~ plat t~reof on file or of'
r~coN in t~ 0ffi~ of t~ ~gis~rar of Titles, ~nnepin ~unty,
~j~t ~ all.restrfctio~, reservations, a~ eas~ents of recor0, if any.
~ 0f~ l~ations of all ~ildings, t~r~n, a~ all visible e~roac~nts,
if' any, f~ o~ ~ said la~. As surveyed by me, or under my direct'
s~ision, t~s 26th day of Sept~r, 1988 .....
APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERHIT
OF APPLICANT t~
5t feet Number ty
(If other than applican[) Name Address
Zip
/ ,
CONTRACTOR
SIGN LOCATION
LOT
Name Address
BLOCK ADDITION
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE ~ ~
WALL AREA BY Ft. = TOTAL
EXISTING SIGNAGE NUMBER OF SIGNS
HEIGHT OF SIGN ILLUHIHATED:
/
SIGN SIZE BEING REQUESTED > BY r~ ~PE 0F SIGN:
'= SQl' FT. ~' WALL MOUNT
.ENGTH OF TIME SEASONAL SIGN TO BE ERECTED: FREE STANDING
/ ~ ~' ~'-~'~' ~ ~q' PORTABLE OTHER
Square Footage
ZONING DISTRICT
SQ. FOOTAGE OF SIGNS
YES NO ~
PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST: ~~J,~ ~.9~J~:L~
Is sign for a community organization and does It meet all the standards of Section
I'f additional, information is attached, please submit 8½" X 11" maximum sized drawings.
Applicant's Signature
Da tSs u~bZ~m ,O~t e~d -~
Recommendation:
168
R 9/85
APPROVED:
Building Official
ummous, repar, on mermepln Coumy Road
;; No. 110.=~:)proximate Cluantltie~:oong~ ~,
removing 480 ~.y: of bituminou~=a~ement. - . ..
i 20O tons of b~tUrn~ous base (233"~),~S0 tons
, . of bituminOUS- binder (2331),. 55 ..t°ns
All ~OropoMls,shall be a~re~ed to:~
' qposal lor'.'1989 Street 'Rej:~aJm ,City_of
ed Jn.~t~e'SDecifioations for the project.- '
[ t ' Copies.ofthe~cians and specifications and ;
other propc,~l contract documents are on file.
"" .w. ith t .~Clty; Clark and at .the .offioe of
23rd ,Avenue North, Plymouth; :'Minhesota
· set,- which is NON-REFUNDABLE. In~i¥idcal
~::! '~sheets of the plans and Sections Of the spectfi- '
: .~. ,~ .~ione may_be.purchased at the .rate of four
~.~ .~ '.~ lars ($4.O0)Pe~ sheet of plans and twenty:.
' ~ '- five-cents {$0.25) per page of specifications, ;'-'
;- WHICH I$ NON-REFUNDABLE;: -.
I~ ::;.:,.. Each bidder shall file With'his bid a cashier.s
~' "-check. certified check~-.o(~.bid bond in lin
:~ ~- amount of not less than five {5) percent of the
':' ' total amount of the bicL No-bid may be with;
f draw~, within s~xty (60} days after, the bids'are
opened. ~ ........ , ~'
· The Cty of Mound reserves'the right to re-
· '~, es or a'regummie$-thorein .~ ~;, ~ -
CITY OF MOUND.;MINNE$OTA
; Ste{,e Smith. Mayor
~ed in' The Laker ;June'.;12. ~'
Affidavit of Publication
State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin.
Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is
an authorized agent and employee of the publisher
of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Min-
nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
A.) The newspaper has complied with all the require-
ments constituting qualifications as a qualified
newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute
331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as
amended.
B., The printed J/~, ~. ~ bl~'--
which is attached was cut from the columns of said
newspaper, and was printed and published once each
week for. .successive weeks:
It was first published Monday~
the I~.__ day of ~"~ 19~,
and was thereafter printed and published every
Monday, to and including Monday,
the day of 19~;
"; ....... ' ~' ' d Agent
~ ,~::r-~'~ MAR;ETTA A. STRAUS ;
-; '"'"~";~ '-,..~-,~t'"': I'~OTARY PU~MC - M::.::Z~OTA ~
~ My Comm~ion ~:}ms J~27, 1~0 ~
Subscribed and sworn to me on this
Notary Public
Rate Information
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comp~
ble space: s9.80 per inch.
(2) Maximum rate altowed by law for above matter: $9.80 per ir, ch.
{3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $4,86 per inch.
Each add'~tional successive week: $3.24 per inch
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plgmouth, MN
55447
June 27, 1989
Tetephone
612/476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound, Minnesota
1989 Street Repairs
Hennepin County Road 110
Bids
MFRA #8941
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Friday, June 23, 1989, for
the Hennepin County Road 110, 1989 Street Repair Project. Bids ranged from a
low of $12,355.48, submitted by Aero Asphalt, to a high of $24,101.90. The
Engineer's Estimate for this project was $14,522.00.
Aero Asphalt completed a bituminous overlay project for the City several
years ago, which Public Works was very satisfied with. Therefore, we recommend
that Aero Asphalt be awarded a contract in the amount of $12,355.48.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jmj
Enclosures
An Equal Opportunity Employer
L",'J
0
,H
,,-t
¢
Z
n
W
W
Z
I
W
W
Z
LI"I 0 0 0 0 0 0
Z
~J ~ej
June 27, 1989
RESOLI~IO~ ~0. 89-
RESOLUTION ~MENDING ST~ND]tRDS ]~ND GUIDELINES FOR
DEFERRAL OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE OF HARDSHIP
FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted MSA 435.193
to 435.195, which authorizes a city to defer the collection of
special assessments for homestead property owned by a person 65
years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make
payments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this law
should be implemented by the City of Mound for all special
assessments to be hereinafter levied by Mound, and that the City
Attorney is authorized and directed to ask for an opinion of the
Attorney General as to the legality of making this policy ap-
plicable for special assessments which have been previously
levied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota:
Persons 65 years of age or older who reside on and own
homestead property may apply to defer special assess-
ments levied by the City of Mound.
Application for deferred assessments shall be on forms
prescribed by the County Auditor and such other infor-
mation as is determined necessary by the City Manager,
City Clerk and City Treasurer to make their certifica-
tiohs as set forth in paragraph 3.
The City Council will approve deferred assessments for
property owners who reside in a household which has a
gross income of less than $~8788~ $12,500. The City
Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer are hereby
authorized and directed to review income data and to
certify to this Council that the property owner
qualifies as a hardship case under the aforementioned
criteria. Income tax returns and other private data
may be reviewed by said city officers to determine that
the property qualifies for a deferred assessment but
said income information shall not be kept on file as a
public record and said officials are directed to
protect the privacy of applicant's personal financial
affairs.
After City Council approval of the application for the
deferral, the City Clerk shall file a notice with the
County Auditor thereof setting forth the amount of spe- ·
cial assessments' being deferred. The County Auditor
shall file a copy of said notice with the County
June 27, 1989
June 27, 1989
Recorder pursuant to M.S.A. 435.194. Ail special
assessments deferred under the provisions of M.S.A.
435.193 to 435.195 shall bear interest at the rate of
6% 8% per annum on the unpaid balance. The notice to
the County Auditor shall specify the interest rate and
all such interest and principal shall be collected when
the deferred assessment is payable under the provisions
set forth hereafter in paragraph 5.
Se
The option to defer the payment of special assessments
shall terminate and all amounts accumulated plus inter-
est shall become due upon the occurrence of any of the
following events:
ao
The death of the owner, provided that the spouse
is otherwise not eligible for the deferment. The
surviving spouse shall file a new application with
the City Manager, City Clerk and City Treasurer.
If the property is still eligible for deferment,
they shall so note in the city records and the
matter need not be referred to this Council.
The sale, transfer or subdivision of the property
or any part thereof.
Ce
The property for any reason loses its homestead
status.
de
The City Council shall determine that there is no
hardship and shall require immediate or partial
payment.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION TO RENAME COUNTY RO~D 15
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is completing the County Road
15 Project; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Mound, Spring Park and Orono
(Navarre) are working together on a beautification project for
the upgraded road and are trying for a unified, but generalized,
landscape and design concept plan for all of County Road 15 from
Navarre to Mound; and
WHEREAS, part of the uniformity is to have the name of
County Road 15 the same from Navarre to Mound; and
WHEREAS, the name of County Road 15 in Navarre and
Spring Park is Shoreline Drive and'in Mound it is known as
Shoreline Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby change the name of
County Road 15 in Mound to Shoreline Drive.
A. THOMAS WURST, P.A.
CURTIS A. P£AR$ON,
tJAM£$ D. LARSON, P.A.
THOMAS F". UNDE:RWOOD, I~,A.
CRAIG Iv~. M£RTZ
ROG£R d. ~£~.LOW$
I-AW OFFIC£$
WURST, PEARSON, I-ARSON, UNDERWOOD
IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
HIN N EAPOLIS, HIN N £SOTA
June 6, 1989
Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Liquor Store Lease
Dear Ed:
We have reviewed the new proposed liquor store lease from
Saliterman. The only two changes we are able to note are as
follows:
1. Change in dates. The new lease is proposed to run for
three years from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 1992.
2. Rent. The new lease shows a rent figure of $21,412.56.
.This is the yearly rental for the space based on a monthly rental
of $1,784.38. That is $7.50 per square foot which is the same
price as they have paid from January 1, 1988, through December
1, 1989.
If you have any questions or
please contact me.
CAP:lh
comments concernin~leas
V ~uly you
'%~i.s A. Pearson
6~ity Attorney
June 27, 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH MARK A. SALITERMAN
FOR THE MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE
WHEREAS, the lease for the Mound Liquor Store will ex-
pire on December 31, 1989; and
WHEREAS, a new lease has been negotiated with Mark A.
Saliterman for the 2,855 square feet of space in the building;
and
WHEREAS, this new lease will have a square foot price
of $7.50 which is the same as we have been paying for 1988 and
1989; and
WHEREAS, this lease will run from January 1, 1990,
through December 31, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and
city Manager to execute a lease agreement with Mark A. Saliter-
man, with terms as specified above, for the Mound Municipal Liq-
uor Store.
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Twin Cities St. Cloud
15050 23rd Ave. N.
Plymouth, MN
55447
June 19, 1989
Telephone
612/476-6010
Facsimile
612/476-8532
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound, Minnesota
Norwood Lane/Bartlett Boulevard
Storm Sewer Improvements
MFRA #8614
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is Hardrive's Final Payment Request for the subject project. The
amount of this request is $9,500.00.' Since thiS work is fully completed, we
are not recommending any amount be retained.
We have reviewed this project and find that it is in accordance with the
plans and specifications. It is our recommendations that the Contractor be
paid in full for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
JC:jmj
Enclosures
An Equal Opportunity Employer
r~
W~--
_~Z
~W
rnW~
Wn~ r-
WW ~
Z~ ~
Z
,-4 O)
· 0
0 M
Z~-
0'~ WI,I
r~ ~ W~
o
~) C
r' t-
O ~
~,-~0
'0 0 ~-~
o
0 0
~ 0
~ c
~ C
0.~
0
u~
~.~
x
W
o
~) 0
0~ 0
E
Or`
0 ~
z 4
Maintenance Permit= M lchae! Kraemer 5500 Breez Road 8 ste s
down to dock ~n Waterside Lane.
The Commission clarified the Iocatton of the steps noting that
the channel extends Further gown PeaboOy Avenue than shown on the
plat map. The channel extenOs gown to lot 16. The Park Director
added that lots 14 through 20 are owned bY the City.
Park Commission Minutes
June 8, 1989
Page' Two
/Applicant, Jan Kraemer, a~e~ that the hill leading to their ~ock
Is very steep and dangerous.
MOTION made by 8alley, seconded by Casey, to approve the
construction of a stairway with eight steps and a hand-
rail be allowed at 5500 Breezy Road. Motion carried un-
animously.
This request will appear before the City Counctl on June 27
1989.
CITY OF HOUND
HOUND~ HINNESOTA
MAINTENANCE PERMIT
For
Continuing the Present .Use of a Structure
or Improvement on Public Lands or Commons
Do you have an improvement or structure on Public Lands or ~ns?
su v s,o.
Was a permit issued to authorize the construction of this improvement or structure?
If yes, month and year:
APPLICANT MUST FURNISH THE FOLLOWING:
1. Copy of permit issued to authorize construction.
2. One plot plan drawn to scale showing dimensions of the structure/improvement and
location of same.
3. One set of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate
the nature and extent of the structure or improvement. Show foundation plan,
floor plan, front and side elevation, wall and roof section detail.
4. Photographs of existing structure/improvement..
PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DATE:
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.
DATE:
FOLLOW-UP ACTION:
oo
,/3
ORDINANCE NO ·
AN ORDINANCE ~.MENDING SECTION 468:10 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO GAMES OF SKILL LICENBES
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 468.10 of the Mound Code of Ordinances is amended to
read as follows:
Section 468:10. License Application. Application for such
licenses shall be made to the City Clerk upon a form to be sup-
plied by the municipality, and shall give the name and address of
the owner and applicant, the place where each such game is-to be
operated, what business is conducted at that place, t~h~-mame,
number and description of the game and particular piece of equip-
ment to be licensed, the fee for playing the game and prize, if
any, and such other information as the Council may require.
Every such application shall be accompanied by an annual license
fee as set by the Council in Section 510:20 which shall be paid
into the general fund of the municipality. Such application
shall be considered by the Council at its next regular meeting
and granted or rejected. Licenses shall be for the term of one
year for each game, and shall expire on April 30th of each year.
No such license shall be transferred to any other
~ location that that for which originally issued. Any game of
skill, which is also a "video game of chance" as that term is
defined in Section 349.50 of Minnesota Statutes, shall be exempt
from the requirement that an annual license fee' be paid to the
City; provided, however, that the licensing provisions of Section
468:05 of the Code shall nonetheless be applicable to any such
video game of chance.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 800:05,
SUBDIVISION 3, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
ON-SALE WINE LICENSES
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 800:05, Subdivision 3, is amended to read as follows
Subd. 3. On-Sale Wine Licenses. "On-Sale" wine licenses shall
be issued only to restaurants meeting the qualifications of Min-
nesota Statutes Section 340A.404, Subd. 5 and shall permit only
the sale of wine not exceeding 14 percent alcohol by volume, for
consumption on the licensed premises only, in conjunction with
the sale of food. The holder of an on-sale wine license issued
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.404, Subd. 5, who is
also licensed to sell nonintoxicatinq malt liquor at on-sale pur
suant to section 340A.411, and whose qross receipts are at least
60 percent attributable to the sale of food, is authorized to
.sell intoxicatinq malt liquors at on-sale without an additional
license.
April 6,1989
Mr. Shukle
City Managerl City of Mound
Mound City Offices
Mound, MN 5536~
Dear Sir,
I am writing to formally request from the City of Mound permission to
serve strong beer under our existing beer & wine license. This would be 'a
possitive change for our D'Vinci's Italian Cafe and hopefully one that w~l~
be easily attainable with your cooperation. The reasons for our request are
as follows:
We are able to buy the beer in smeller quanities, which helps
us in the area of storage,as well as being able to keep the
product fresher.
We have been trying to upgrade our image with the new decor,
new menu, and more professional service staff. We feel that
the move to serve strong beer would please our clientel and
help increase our customer count as well as our volume. The
strong beer has a greater saleabilty than that of 3.2 beer.
.Weask for your prompt consideration on this matter. Please let us know
aa to the steps we need to take to make this change in our restaurant.
Thank You.
Ron Scudder
June 27, 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 89-
RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS
TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND
CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed.by the
Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain
lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real
estate taxes; and
WHEREAS, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning
ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health
safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and
WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the
time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is
returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S.
444.076); and
WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levies
since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added
to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it
is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the city of Mound, Minnesota:
That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are
released to the County of Hennepin for public auction
and the City hereby certifies the following special
assessments.
AMOUNT BEFORE
FORFEITURE
PARCEL PID ~ & DESCRIPT. LEVY ~ AMOUNT
19-117-23 32 0107
(Lots 16 & 17, Block 10,
Wychwood)
None
AMOUNT AFTER
FORFEITURE
LEVY # AMOUNT
7928A $4,765.25
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale
at public auction subject to the County imposing the
lien of special assessments on said lands.
June 27, 1989
June 27, 1989
The City of Mound is releasing the above properties
subject to street and utility easements being retained
by the City of Mound and the above notes acknowledged
and abided by.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
June 23, 1989
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~
FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
RE: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) PARKING PROGRAM
CBD PARKING pROGRAM HISTORY
As you know, the City of Mound has been involved in a CBD Parking
Assessment program for the last 19 years. The program began in
1970 due to the fact that there was a demand for parking in the
central business district area that was under private ownership.
A few business persons got together and discussed the possibility
of sharing the privately owned lots with the public. Jerry
Longpre, Bill Netka and others approached the City of Mound at
that time to see if some type of an arrangement could be made
where maintenance of the privately owned lots could be done on an
assessment type basis. Where the City of Mound would participate
in sharing some of these costs.
In 1970, the City Council approved the program which essentially
involved all of the parking lots within the immediate central
business district area. A rather detailed formula was developed
to pay for the maintenance program. The formula included such
things as customer parking required, employee parking required,
spaces provided, market value of the' parking lot areas, etc.
Each private owner of the parking lots, as well as businesses
that did not own parking, were assessed based on this formula.
Owners of lots had specific leases with the City to credit them
for the number of spaces they did provide. The end result was a
cooperative partnership between private business and the City to
assure adequate parking in the downtown area, as well as
satisfactorily maintained lots and related improvements.
The types of improvements .that were paid for by these assessments
included sweeping, patching, striping, garbage pick-up, Christmas
decoration purchase and installation, snow removal and other
improvements.
An 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 Ir employment ir~, its programs and activities.
The assessment year operates between July 1st of one year to June
30th of the next. Assessments are then placed on the various
properties· The City Council certifies the assessment levy to
the County in the fall. Over the last several years, there have
been several objections raised by the business district over the
cost of the program· To alleviate some of these problems, the
City of Mound has assumed more of the financial burden of the CBD
Program, i.e., garbage collection, street sweeping, Christmas
decoration installation have been absorbed totally by the City.
We have also increased the percentage of the lease cost that we
have with Dakota Rail for Railroad owned lots. We now pay one-
third of the total lease cost. There have been some other
improvements which the City has taken over. We estimate that
$38,000 has been absorbed by the City over the last three years.
Each year the assessment roll is presented to the Parking
Committee. We hear the complaints that the program should be
dissolved due to the high costs. The program has survived the
last three years due to the fact that the City has contributed
more.
FUTURE OF PROGRAM
As stated above, the program has a threat of dissolution each
year. Recently, Dakota Rail, owner of several lots in the
downtown area, which the City currently leases, has offered these
lots for sale and/or lease. The Central Business District
Parking Program Committee has requested the City to purchase
these lots and take them under municipal ownership. It is
unclear whether or not the business owners would accept the idea
of assessments for these purchases·
Recently, the City Council discussed the railroad lots, and
indicated they would like to make an offer on them. These lots
include the parking lot directly across Shoreline Blvd. from the
House of Moy Restaurant, a portion of the lot on the north side
of the railroad tracks in front of the Coast to Coast store and
an area along the north side of the law office on the south side
of the railroad tracks. Prior to any offers being made, the City
Attorney had advised me that the City Council ought to decide how
they were going to finance such a purchase. Further, the City
Attorney indicated that the Council ought to decide if they were
going to purchase these lots outright as municipal lots or assess
a portion or all of the cost to the CBD. The staff is seeking
direction from the Council as to how it should proceed. The
staff concludes, at this point, that the following directions
could be taken:
Do nothing.
Assess the CBD for a portion of the cost, with
the City paying the other portion.
City purchase only resulting in municipal lot
ownership.
2
In order for the City to pay a portion or all of the cost, it
would have to rely on its Capital Improvements Fund. This would
be the primary source to accomplish # 2 and # 3 above. I do not
believe it would be in the City's best interest to do nothing.
Parking is a major problem in downtown Mound. It would be in the
City's best interest to somehow acquire the lands currently
leased from Dakota Rail for parking purposes. The most critical
lots are those currently being leased by the City on the north
side of the railroad tracks and the portion that is not under any
kind of a lease adjacent to it on the east side. I will provide
drawings at the City Council meeting which will refresh your
memories as to the location of all of these lots.
The staff requests direction on how to proceed. Please consider
this and be prepared to offer suggestions at the June 27th
Council meeting.
ES:ls
CITY of MOUND
June 21, 1989
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CURBSIDE RECYCLING SERVICE
The CitY of Mound is interested in receiving proposals for re-establishing
a city wide curbside collection of recyclable material. This will be a
city administered program. The contract length will be for the remainder
of 1989 to start as soon as August 4, 1989 but no later than September 15, 89
and all of 1990, with a minimum ninety (90) day written cancellation clause.
We are anxious to start the service as soon as possible. "
General proposal requirements are as follows:
1. Ail responding firms must submit a proposal for the following
collection schedule:
Collection from 3,200 single family/four-plex homes, 4 apartment
complexes and 2 business on the first and third Fridays of each
month, with the whole city collected on the same day.
2. The following alternate proposals may also be considered:
- Starting in 1990 weekly collection.
- Other schedule day the bidder proposes.
3. Materials to be collected:
At a minimum, the firm must collect all glass food and beverage
containers commingled, all metal food and beverage cans commingled,
and newsprint.
Other material can include office type paper, corrugated boxes,
and plastic.
e
List general collection process, including type of vehicle used,
main processing center(s), alternate processing center, reporting
method for tonnages, participation, complaints and end markets for
material,
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of racb, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and act!vities.
Page 2
6. Must be an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity employer.
7. Insurance and Bond requirements:
Please refer to proposal.
All proposals are due by 11:00 a.m., Thursday July 20, 1989. Proposals
will be considered on July 25, 1989.
The city reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, issue
another Request for Proposal, and/or negotiate with any number of
responding firms.
Upon City's acceptance of proposal bidder will sign "Agreement for'
Recycling Services'l.
QUESTIONS ! - 9 TO BE COMPLETED AND MAILED IN WITH COVER SHEETS
W"nat collection cost for all units including businesses (bi-monthly).
cost/ton $ OR
cost/unit collection $ OR
Flat/fee month $
What collection cost for all units including business (Weekly starting
in January of 1990).
cost/ton $ OR
cost/unit collection $ OR
Flat/fee month $
What preparation is required before recyclable materials are placed
on the curb. (check all that apply)
NEWSPRINT
GLASS
Bag. wash
Bundle rinse
other (specify) remove labels
smash
ALUMINUM: other (specify)
wash
rinse
remove labels
smash
other (specify)
Preparation of additional recyclable materials:
Identify any aspect of this program which would cause a problem or
present difficulties to your business to undertake this program.
11.
What i$ the extent of your current recyclable$ collec:i0n operation?
Number of units now serving OR
Number of municipalities servered
AND
Number of years in CONTINOUS busin¢,ss
Please furnish references of previous/current customers.
Are your recyclable materials collection trucks/vehicles clearly marked
and identifiable with your company's name?
Yes No
Number of trucks/vehicles used for your recycling
hauling servies.
Please furnish a copy of your most recent financial statement or balance
sheet. (Auditied statement preferred if available).
Present a brief description of the procedures used to operate your
current recyclables collection program. Include comments about thc
equipment, facilities and number of employees needed for your recycling
operation.
9. Is your business for profit or not-for-profit?
10 Other comments:
NAME OF COMPANY
SIGNATURE
DATE
TE1,EPiIONE
12
Mound City Code
Section 800:10, Subd. 7
can be made either by the bonding company or the applicant, 'without said person
first giving 30 days written notice to the City, addressed to the City ~anager.
of intention to cancel bond.
Subd.-:7. Liability Insurance. Prior to the issuance cfa liquor license, the
applicant shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to
liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.801 to the City Clerk and
to the Commissioner of Public Safety asa condition of the issuance or renewal
of bis license. Proof of financial responsibility may be given by filing a
certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing that
the ~t~,~ coverages for dram shop liability shall be a $300,000 combined
single limit policy and an aggregate policy of no: less than $300,000 per
policy year. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Section 340A.409 relating to liability insurance policies. If a
liability insurance policy is made subject to all the conditions of a bond
under that statute, the policy may be accepted by the Council in lieu of the
bond required under Subd. 6. Prior of issuance of a liquor license, the applicant
shall file a certificate that there is in effect an f-surance policy providing
public liability coverages of at least $300,000 because of injury to any one
person in any one occurrence and $500,000 because of injury to ~wo or
more persons in any one 6ccurrence.
Subd. 8. Approval of Security. -The security offered under Subds~ 6 and 7
shall be approved by the City Council, and in the case of applicants for "On-Sale".
wine licenses, by the State Commissioner of Public Safety. Surety bonds and
.liability insurance policies shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney
Operation of a'licensed business without baying on file with the City at"all
times effective security as required 'in Subds. 6 and 7 is a cause for re-
vocation of the license..
Section 800:15. License Fees.
Subd. 1. Fees. The annual fee for a Class A liquor license, Class B
liquor license, On-Sale Wine license, and Club license,..shall be as set
by the Council in Section 510: 25.
Subd. 2. Payment. Each application for a license shall be accompanied by
a receipt from the City Treasurer for payment of one-half of the license fee
and the fixed investigation fee required under Section 800:20, Subd. 1, if any.
'The remaining balance of the license fee shall be paid before the license is
issued. The entire annual On-Sale license fee must be paid for the first
year's operation of a licensed establishment. In renewing the license, the
Council may allow the On-Sale licensee to pay the fee in two installments,
with one-half due on or before June 30th and the balance due on or before
December 31st. All fees shall be paid into the general fund.
Subd. 3. Term, Pro Rata Fee. Each license shall be issued for a period
of one year except that if the application is made during the license
year, a license may be issued for the remainder of the year for a pro rata
fee, with any unexpire~ fractio~ of a month being counted as one month.
Every license shall expire on the last day of June of each year.
Subd. 4. Refunds. No refund of any fee shall be made except as
authorized by statute. If an application for a license is withdrawn
or rejected, the Treasurer shall refund the amount paid as the license
fee, except where rejection or withdrawal is-a willful misstatement in
the license application.
CI;
aga~
'akopee
June 15, ~966
steve KeillOr
City clerk
p.O.'Box 245
~s~OV, !4N 5570~
o'r' ~v~,~
Dear 14r ·
e~
KeillOr:
The range of Dram Shop
vary according to the
ability to regulate the
cities municipal liquor ordinances
reviewing liability limits are
the following
I,~innesota'
t~umber of Cities
2~
liability limits set by Minnesota cities
of the city and the
establishments In
size and location ·
liquor LeagUe has on file
that the cities in
being used by
Vlnile t~e majority of the
state requirementS were in''
seVeFa! cities, such as Moose Lake, Whlc~ are
which have higher limitS. ~.
their
underwriters with columbia Casualty (John
cities requiring there are
the metropolitan area,
located near
Liability Limits
minimum requirements
state50,000 / 100,000
100,000 / 200,000
100,000 / 300,000
250,000 / 500,000
more than the minimum
~skOV
Crowther Co.) do not
sense of the market
/
keep this kind of statistiC, however,
as of ~pril 1966 is that most licensees are buying 100,000
300,000. EBk companY, which administers the state assigned risk
plan will only write for the statutory minimumS, unleSS the city
has an ordinance in place requiring a higher amount'
· appropriate limits of
of
Rgain, the ultimate decision on the
liability to require of licensees rest in the sound discretiOn
the city council. I hope this answers your question
satisfactorilY' 7-5S00 /
na~l, minnes°SS~101 [61~]
C
$3~
diff~
$300,
WOUld
wOuld
If liqu
·mit to
zish to
e/come
June 19, 1986
City of Mound
5341May~oodRoad
Mound, ~ 5536&
Attention: Mr. Ed ghukle
Dear Ed, ' related issues
· on. first
recommendations liquor license
I am writing you in response to the Two insurance The
that you asked me to review and state ny sale
issue being about the Ci~ of Mound requiring all on
applicants to carr~ a specified minimUm amount of public liability insurance.
The second issue being the City's requiring 'these same liquOr license
applicants to carr~ a specified minimUm amount*of liquor liability
shop) insurance, liabilitY. After talking to many
First, a city requirement of public I find that the city of Mound is one
insurance people and municipalities
of the few cities in Minnesota to have a public liability requirement
as'a prerequisite to obtaining an on sale liquor license. ~one of our
surrounding communities do, nor can I f~nd one of similar population
to Mound that doeS~ .. Mound should eliminate their
not ecessarily mean that clos°lY at it. Carryin~i~
But that does A~ou~hyou shOUld ~°°k_anc~is certainly ~ne
· ementS. ~'~"__.= _ or any insu~ __~ is though,
requlr .... ,it~ insurance. ._ ..=... The qued= .... business _actiqi%ie§,'
nublic l~ap~ ; ~_, wesDonsibll~=;' main
'. iabtlity" insurance that we.are addre~stn~
~f proving finanC==~ ~ ~ ncc coverages, or other
basic =nsura .... or a bank, or any other
the city control the
a hardware
restaurant, or 'n running a business,
of a ...... ? The "publ~c.l.~vities involved z _ ,-~ardouS activities,
street Dusxn~ ~sic, generai ~['_~ ~he ordinary or
here covers ~=~' ~oesn't cover ou~ ~
any businegs. ~ -- It
in fact it excludes them.
That is why a special policy like a dram shop policy is necessarY-
addresses the special exposure or dangers of intoxicating people. This
cities control the
is probably why in ent requirements
special exposure to the public a select f~' Str g - - -ontrolS over
exposure and issue licenses to
of the dram activity should be made withou a doubt, Du~
the basic restaurant operation I question.
· h making a minimUm
- ~ ~o continue w%t ~-- ~-li uor license,
. _ . · should ~ec~u~ - .~reouislte ~u~ - .~-~A single
£z u~= -_~% for public lzau~= ~% a minimum 0% ...3u~t ~ama~e Liability
requlrem~. ..... =hould consxu=-_ ...... nd ~roperu~
en I thlnK yu~ - =-~ Bodilw ln3u~ '
~.~ Der occurred55 ~% ~ b~ned single
~.._t _ --- of SDOU,UU~ _om
Su~on L ~~ ~ No ~ ~ ~y ~ ~
or ~n~ ~ ~c apph~t dcmons~t~ p~f of ~ ~~
~d to ~b~ ~ .by ~on ~801.. ~c h~t a~od~ m~
to ~e ~mmlssioncr ~e app~!'s pr~fof.~ ~~. ~ ~ion
d~ not pm~bil a 1~ ~t of ~ove~cnt ~m ~t ~ ~~ or ~nd
~v~g~ or a ~cr ~t of~h or s~fi~ ~e minim~ ~~ent for p~f
of ~n~n~ ~n~ ~y ~. ~vcn by
(I) a ~tc ~ ~ E h cff~ for ~c h~ ~ ~ ~~ ~h~ or
~1 pw~s at I~ i50,O~ of ~vcmgc ~ of~y h~ ~y one ~n
... ?~X~ne ~=, ~ 1 ~,~ ~u~ of~y hj~ w ~ ~ mo~ ~ h
one ~~ i 10,~ ~ of ~ W or d~o~ ~ ~ do~
one ~~ ~50,~ for 1~ of m~ of ~ oZ ~y ~c ~n h ~y
~n~, ~d $1~,~0 for 1~ of m~ of~n of~o ~ mo~ ~ h
one ~~; · . ....
(2) a ~nd ora ~ ~y ~ mi~im~ ~v~ ~ pm~ ~ ~ (1~
bs~orfor~~~am~a~ofll~,~..... ' ... .,
by ~bi~ ~ion ~ ~mb~on ~ o~cr ~~ ~. '"'
. - .. · ....
~ ~ ~tC ~ llmlt for ~ ~ ~~ of not l~ ~
~r ~h~ y~ may ~ ~dud~ ~ ~e ~ pw~o~
~ ~ fo~ . ... -
(1) ~y =~, ~t for nonPa~t of p~,,~ ~ ~er ~e ~
(2) nonpa~nt of p~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ gv~ t~ ~'~
no~ ~ ~g to ~e ~g au~o~ of ~ ~ ~ ~e ~. .. -
Su~ 2. ~ket ~si~ ~e ~mmi~on~ of ~mm~ ~
~b~ion I of ~ose p~ offing ~~ ~ve~e. ~e ~mmi~ion~ of'~.l
~e pro~ sh~ ~clude a ~~ ap~ by ~e ~mmi~on~ of ~mm~ .]
~at is r~n~ve of ~~ ~ ~d p~u~, ~quor vendo~ ~d
pub~ No l~s ~ on~h~ of ~e ~mmi~ m~ s~nll ~nl ~.
~s~= ~d s~l~ ~ ag~n~ or broke=. ~e ~mmi~on~ of ~mme~ or ~g J
~mmlssioner's d~i~at~ ~p~n~tive s~ ~e ~ ~ ~ offi~o mem~ of
no~ ~e app~t ~ ~g ~ a f~ ~p~on ~d ~mmen~on for
es~bHsh ~ ~si~ Hsk pl~ p~nt to m~~ 3. . ' .
For June 27, 1989 Council Meeting
June 22, 1989
LICENSE RENEWALS -- EXPIRE 6-30-89. New License Period 7-1-89 to 6-30-90.
Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance,
etc. being turned in, plus the approval of Police Chief
Harrell and where necessary the appropriate department.
Off-Sale Beer
A1 & Alma's
Brickley's Market - The Sales Tax Number was changed as Chris Brickley
is the applicant without William Brickley(Ex-Husband)
PDQ Food Store #0292
SuperAmerica #4194
On-Sale Beer
A1 & Alma's
D'Vinci's - See note after On-Sale Wine
House of Moy
Mound Lanes - 1st 1/2 of Taxes not paid. See Sec. 810:30 Subd.
"No license...granted...taxes ........ unpaid."
On-Sale Wine
A1 & Alma's
D'Vinci's - Two partners bought out as of Nov 88 and new partner
New partner to be investigated. See Sec-. 800:20 Subd. 3
and Sec. 800:35 Subd. 3
House of Moy
Set-Up
A1 & Alma's
Club License
American Legion #398
VFW #5113
On-Sale Liquor
Mack's Jock Club
For June 27, 1989 Council Meeting pg. 2
June 22, 1989
LICENSE RENEWALS - Cont'd
Sunday On-Sale Liquor
Mack's Jock Club
VFW #5113
Dinner Dance
Mack's Jock Club
NEWLICENSE REQUESTS
On-Sale (Intoxicating) Beer - License Period 7-1-89 to 6-30-90
D'Vinci's - Se~ ordinance ~llowing this on agenda
Juke Box - License Period 7-1-89 to 4-30-90
1--Mack's Jock Club l
Games of Skill - License Period 7-1-89 to 4-30-90
8-- Mack's Jock Club
Our Lady of the Lake Church requests the following Licenses for the
Incredible Festival July 29 & 30, 1989.
Public Dance Permit
Charitable 3.2 Beer Permit
/~ouud City Code Sec:ion 810:30, Subd. 2
Subd. 2. Theaters~ Recreation Halls~ Dance Halls~ Ball Parks. Except as
provided in Section 810:05, Subd. 3, no license shall give permission to sell
beer in any theater, recreation hall or Center, dance hall, ball park, or other
place of public gathering for the purpose of entertainment, amusement, or
playing of games, except bowling alleys.
Subd. 3. Limitation on New Locations. No license shall be granted for any
place outside of the central business district as defined in :he City Zoning
Code unless such loca:ion Was either:
(a) Validly licensed for the Of.f-Sale or the On-Sale of beer on August 22,
1974, or
Cb)
The applicant has received the wri:ten consent of at least a maJorit~
of the property owners within 500 feet (as :he crow flies) of the
proposed licensed premises.
Subd. 4. Six Mon:hs Prior Elistbility. No On-Sale license shall be ~anted
for a business or club which has not been in regular operation and eligible
to receive a license for a: leas: six mon:hs imedia:ely preceding :he
application for a license.
Subd. 5. Unpaid Taxes or Assessments. No license shall be granted for
operation on any premises upon which taxes or assessments or other financial
claims of the'City are delinquent.and unpaid,
Section 810:35. Conditions of License.
Subd. 1.' General Conditions. Every license shall be ~ranted subject to the
conditions in the following subdivisions and all other provisions of this
S~ction 810 and of any other applicable ordinance of the City or. state law.
Subd. 2. Sales to Under Age or Intoxicated Persons. No beer shall be sold or
served to any intoxicated person or to any person under the minimum age allowed
by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes.
Su~d. 3. Consumption byUnder Age Persons. No person under the minimum age
allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statures shall be permitted to consume
beer on the licensed premises unless accompanied by his or her parent or legal
guardian.
Subd. 4. Employment of Under A~e Persons. Except as authorized by Chapter
340A of Minnesota Statutes, no person under 21-years of age shall be employed
on the premises of a beer s~ore.
Subd. 5. G-mhling. No gambling or any gambling device shall be permi:ted
on any licensed premises.
Subd. 6. Interest of Manufacturers or Wholesalers. No manufacturer or
wholesaler of beer 'shall have any ownership of or interest in an establish-
ment licensed to sell at retail contrary to the provisions of }~nnesota
Statutes, Section 340A.308. No retail licensee and manufacturer or wholesaler
of beer shall be parties to any exclusive purchase contract. No retail
licensee shall receive any benefits contrary to law from a manufacturer
or wholesaler of beer, and no such manufacturer or wholesaler, shall confer
any benefits contrary to law upon a retail licensee.
JUNE z7, 1~8~
BATCH
BATCH
9061
9062
87,950.76
39,h97.73
Total Bills
lZ7,448.49
.3
0
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
ND. INVOICE
B0549
INVOICE Dt~ HOW
DATE I)ATE STATUS
PRE-PAID
6121189 6/21/~
B ~ELLBOY CORPORATION VENDO~ TOTAL
B0580 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
BILL CLAF~ OIL COMPANY VENi~]R TOTAL
B0730 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6~1/89
BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS VE),E)OR TOTAL
C0888 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION VENI)DR TOTAL
C0720 PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE'PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
VENI)DR ll]TAL
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
CITY OF MOUNI)
C0999
CD~CIAL LIFE INS CD VE~ TOTAL
C1001 PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAIl)
6/'21/89 6/21,AB9
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
D1219 PRE-PAID
6/21/89
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY DF MOUND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
722.39 LIQ
7'22.39 dRNL-CD
722.39
1,041.35 GASOLINE
1,041.35 JRNL-CI}
1041.35
84.50' RED ROCK
84.50 dRNL-CD
84.50
2,868.00 CR UNION 5/27 PR
2,868.00 JRNL-CD
2,605.00 CR UNION 6/10 PR
2,605.00 dR~.-CI)
5473.00
23.52 REPLEN P/C-LIQ
23.52 ut~NL-CD
47.52 REPtE~ P/C-POLICE
47.52 dF-e~.-Cl)
71.04
49.50 LIFE INS-6/IO PR
1.80 LIFE INS-RETIREE
51.30 JR~.-CD
51.30
2,211.80 SIT 5/27 PR
2,211.80 JRf~.-CI)
7B.11 .MAY SALES TAX
6,4?6.52 MAY SALES TAX
45.00 dUNE EST SALES TAX
3,315.00 JUNE ESq' ~ALE~ TAX
3,360.00 dRNL-C1)
2,337.25 SIT 6/10 PR
2,337.25 ~ J P~4.-CD
IaA83.68
342.00 37.5 CI]NIIUSCT HOUR~
71-7100-~10
I010
PRE-PAIl)
AMO~(I' CHECK..
01-1250-0000
1010
1041.35 2"~20
73-7300-~,.~40
1010
84.50 ~4
01-2040-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
71-7100-2200
1010
01-4140-2200
1010
23.52 2~55
47.52 2954(
01-~)40-0000
01-4190-1520
1010
51.30
01-2040-0000
1010
73r3592-0000
71-3572-0000
1010
73-35?2-0000
71-3572-0000
1010
6574.63 2~J4:
01-2040-0000
1010 2337.2~ 2955.
81-4350-3100
1010 342.00 2953'
PAOE 2 PURCHASE JOURNAL OAT
AP-C02-01 CITY DF MOUND TI)
VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE-PAID
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STAll.tS AMOUNT BESOtIPTI(]N ACCOUNT NUMBERAMOUNT ~CK
DELEERT RUDaLPH VENDO~ TOTAL :~2.00
D123S
PRE-PAID 1,187.00 JUNE DENTAL PREM 01-2040-0000
14.40 dUNE DENTAL PPUEM-~I~ 01-~{190-1510
37.25 JUNE DENTAL PREM-RETI~,E 01-4280-1510
37.2~ JUNE DENTAL PREM-I~TIREE 01-4140-1510
51.65 JUNE DENTAL PRE]i-RETIREE 71-7100-1510
6/21/89. 6/21/89 1,327.55 JR,-CD 1010
1327.55
IL~LTA DENTAL
VENDOR TOTAL 1327.55
D1.328
FI~E-PAID 89.9 PIZZA-VOLbFFR-CI~ DAYS 01-23~)0-02_21)
6/21/89 6/21/89 89.25 dRNL-CD 1010
DOMINO'S PIZZA
VENDOR TOTAL 89.25
E1429
PRE-PAID 164.40 WINE 71-7100-~520
1.~- Dt~ 71-7100-95~
6/21/89 6/21/89 162.76 JRNL-CD 1010
162.76
El} pHILLIPS & SONS
RE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
VENDOR TOTAL
1,145.15 LIQ 71-7100-9510
~:}8.48 WINE 71-7100-9520
32.01- gI~ 71-7100-~60
I3.34 MIX 71-7100-9540
2,123.96 JR)~.-CD 1010
2286.72
2123.96
G1750
PPJE-PAID
6121189 6/21!~
165,00 CERTIFICATE PROGRAM APPL 01-4090-3130
50.00 CERTIFICATE PROG~AMAPPL 71-7100-3130
50.00 CERTIFICATE PROGRAM APPL 73-7200-3130
50.00 CERTIFICATE PROGRAM APPL 78-7800-31~
315.00 J~_-CD 1010
315.00
GFOA
VENIXiR TOTAL 315.00
G18~0
GLE~DD INGLEWOOD
Gl~r~O
PPdE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
VENDOR TOTAL
FIUE-PAID
6/21/89 6/2!/89
26.55
40.50
12.04
4.93
4.93
MAY WAT1ER ~
MAY WAllER COOLEB
MAY WATER ~
MAY WAT1ER CDDL]BR
· MAY WATER (]3DLI~R
dRNL-CD
ECON []EVE]. SEMINAR
JRNL-CD
01-4140-4100
01-40~0-2200
01-4280-2200
73-7300-~00
78-7800-2200
1010
01-4020-4110
I010
88.95
GOVT TRAINING SERV!~S VENI)DR TOTAL
320.00
01955 PRE-PAID I, 2Y~3. O0
6/21/89 6/21/89 1,363.00
PiUE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
1,363.00
1,363.00
DEF COMP 5/27 PR
J{~-CI)
DEFCDI'~~ 6/lOPe
J~N'L-CI)
01-~)40-0000
1010
01-2040-00(X)
1010
PAGE 3
AP-C02-O1
VE]tDO~ INVOI~ DUF. HOLO
~.INVOI~ ~BR DA~ DA~ ~ATUS
GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA~'4CE VE'r~,~ TOTAL
G1971 F~-PAID
6/21/89, 6121/89
PRE-P~ID
6/21189 6121189
GROUP HEALTH PLAN ',~,tl}OR TOTAL
G1972 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
~-PAID
. 6121/89 6121/89
GRIGGS CO01~ & C01~¥ VENOOR TOTAL
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6121/89
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
HENN CO SUPPORT & COLLECT* VENDOR TOTAL
H2150 PRE-PAID
6/21!8~ 6121/89
HENN CO TREASURER ~ TOTAL
12301 PRE-PAIl]
6121189 6121189
PRE-PAIl
6/21189 6121189
ICMA RETIREMENT '[RUS'T-4~ VENI~ TOTAL
I~04 PRE-PAIl]
6121189 6/21189
PRE-PAID
6/21189 6121189
J2421 PRE-PAIII
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOL~ID
19.10
19.10
235.60
235.60
254.70
80.91
1.62-
1.35
80.64
4~9.76
443.03
19.59-
9.00
968,76
1049.40
185.53
185.53
185.53
185.53
371.06
110.00
110.00
110.00
478.18
478.18
478.18
478.18
87.25
87.25
87.25
87.25
174.50
HOSP lEI) 5/27 PR
~-CO
HDSP 6t10 PR
dRNL-CO
WINE
DISC
FRT
dRNL-CD
LIQ
WINE
DISC
FRT
MIX
5~27 PR
JRNL-CO
6/10 PR
JRNL-CD
FILE EASE]lENT 13-117-24-I10107
dRNL-CD
ICltq-4b'7 5/27 PR
,.Sl.-C~ ..
m~ ~ 6/10 PR
dRNL'CO
IC~A-401
atNL-CI)
JANITDR SL~t~LIES
JUI.-CI)
01-~40-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
71-7100-~520
71-7100-~60
71-7100-9600
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9560
71-7100-9600
71-7100-9540
1010
01-2040-0000
1010.
01-2040-0000
1010
01-4320-4100
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-4320-~1~X)
1010
~E-PAID
AM~
19.10
185.~
185.53
110.00
478.18
478.18
87.25
TI~
CHE~ )
~512
2951
.)
PAGE 4
AP-C02'O]
NO. INVOICE ~BR
d & $ CLEANINB (~;O,
dO~ TAFFE
d257~
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY DF MOU)$
INVOICE DUE HOLD
BAlE [',ATE STAll~ AMOUNT
VI~'DOR TOTAL 27.50
PRE-PAID 4~. O0
6/21!81 6/21189 468.00
PRE-PAI]) 791.71
I ,~01.75
6/21189 6/21189
PRE-PAl])
6/21189 6/2-1189
JOHNSON BRDS WHOLESALE LI* VENDOR TOTAL
1 ,'"817 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/B9
M3090 PRE-PAl])
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
I'~ ~ HE~TH PLAN V'LNI)OR TOTAL
M3170 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
METRO WASTE CONTROL Cl]qMI* VENDDR TOTAL
M3268 PRE-PAI])
6/21/89 6/21/89
MN BE]~EFIT ASSN VENDOR TOTAL
M3401 PRE-PAI])
6/21/89 '6/21/89
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
MN RETIREMENT SYSTE]4 VENDOR TDTAL
M3438 PRE-PAD)
6/21/89 6/21/89'
MN STATE BOARD OF ELECTRIc VENDOR ll]TAL
M3455 PRE-PAD)
1,688.17
810.21
41.86-
2,45~.52
3858.27
89.00
39.00
39.00
87.36
87.36
1,175.49
1,175.49
1262.85
1,138.50
1,138.50
1138.50
140.05
140.05
140.05
576.00
570.65
DESCRIPTION
72 CONTRACT HOURS
d~NL-CD
LIQ
WINE
DISC
JRNL-CD
LIQ
WINE
WINE
dRhL-CD
UNION DIED 5/27 PR
JRNL-C])
HOSP DF.I) 5/27 PR
JR)~.-C])
HOSP 6/10 PR
,JRI~.-CO
MAY SAC
d~NL-CD
~ I]E]) 6/10 PR
dP, I~_-CO
DE]: COMP 5/27 PR
dP, NL -C])
DEF COMP 6/10 PR
dRNL-CD
ELEC PERMIT .A~L FOR~
dRhL-CD
UNION DIED 5/27 PR
AO:X]UNT NUMBER
01-4340-3100
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9560
'1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-,~-a60
I010
01-204.0-0000
I010
01-2040-0000
1010.
01-2040-0000'
1010
78-2304-0000
I010
01-2040-0000
I010
O1-2040-(XXX)
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-3512-0000
I010
PRE-PAIO
A~OUNT O-K~
1~!.75
24.",6.52
87.36
1175.49
1138.50
140.05
PAGE 5
AP-C02-O1
VENIX)R I~ICE IXJE HOLD
NO. INV~)lrCE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
6/21/89 6/21/2r9
MN TEAMSTERS LOCAL 32,0 VENDOR TOTAL
M3520 PRE-PAIl)
~ ~/21/~ 6/21/~
MOL~~ VEI~ORTOT~
M3631 PRE-PAIl)
.. ~!21/89 6121/89
MUTU~ BENEHT LIFE VENDOR TOTAL
N3699 PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
~TL REC~J~TI~ & Pi~J~J( ~ ~ TOTAL
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
PERA
0
9
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/8V 6/21/1)V
VENI)OR TOTAL
PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAIl)
6/21/89 6/21/89
PHY$ICIA{~9 DF MN
VENDOR TOTAL
P4115 PRE-PAID
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MiX)ND
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
57O.65 diUql.-Cl)
5'70.65
13.15 ~ POSTO METER
55.05 REPLEN POST({ METER
8.55 REPLEN POSTG METER
31.00 REPLEN POSTG METER
4.15 REPLEN POSTG MElER
6.55 REPLEN POSTG METER
20.50 · REPLEN Pi]ST({ METER
~,~ ~ POgTG METER
55.14 REPLEN POSTG METER
11.27 REPt.EN POSTG METER
11.28 R~PLEN POSTG MEI1ER
21.70 REPLEN POSTG METER
.50 REPLEN POSTG METER
412.36 REPLEN POSTG METER
6.90 REPLEN POSTG METER
87.60- REPLEN POST({ METER
552.9<) LTD 6/IOPR
552.~ JENL-CD
552.99
225.00 REG ISTR-PLAN,MA I NT-FACKLER
~"5. O0 J:OVL-CI)
5,986.66 PERA 5/27 PR
6,245.§~ PERA 6/10 PR
6,2t5.57 ,.~t.--Cl)
1ZZ32.25
43.90 dRNL-CI)
6,563.10 HDSP 6/10 PR
266.00 HOSP-RE[IREE
6,829.10 JRNL-Cl)
7268.00
191.00
191.00
1~1.00
SLPPPLL[FE'6/IO PR
ACCOUNT t~
1010
01-4070-3210
01-4020-3210
01-4040-3210
01-4(Y9~)-3210
22-4170-3210
71-7100-3210
01-4L:~.0-C~210
81-4350-3210
01-4190-3210
73-7300-3210
78-7B00-3210
01-4140-3210
O1-4L'~0-3210
01-4270-3210
01-4090-3210
01-4320-3210
1010
01-2040-0000
I010
01-4340-4110
1010
01-2040-0000
.1010
01-2040-0000
'1010
01-2040-0000.
1010
01-2040-0000
01-4140-1510
1010
1010
PRE-PAID
570.65
5986.66
6245.59
43 , o
&~'2~,I0
191.00
C~-CK t
29514
29511
PAGE 6 PURCHASE JOURNAL
AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND
~. INVDI~ NMBR BATE BATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
g4171 MUE-PAID
711.89 LIQ
69.00 WINE
15.28- DISC
~.90 MIX
7~.51 ~NL-CD
6~1/89 6/21/89
PRE-PAID 1,,'2'20.09 LIQ
602.80 WINE
30.6,5- DI~
6/21/~ 6/21/6'9 1,8,02.24 . JRNI.-CD
QUALITY WINE ~ SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 2601.75
R4200 MUE-PAID 300.00 INS PREM-FISH AY
6/21/~ 6/21/89 300.00 JRNL-CD
R L YDL~qGDAt4. & ASSDCIAllES VE)41~3R TOTAL 300.00
R4259 PRE-PAID 520.56 54 CONTRACT .HDU~U2
19.28 2 CONTRACT HOURS
6/21/89 6/2!/~ 539.84 JRNL-CD
ROBERT E ,JD~(SON VEND(]~ TOTAL 539.84
S4378 PRE-PAID 2'qiK2.62 LODGING-PLAN SCHOOL-FA~
6/21/6'9 6/21/6'9 2'82.62 JRNL-CD
SHERATON HOTEL VENDOR TOTAL 282.62
84500 PRE-PAID 10,072.9 FIT 5/27 ~
6/21/89 6/21/89 10,072.9 JP, NL-CD
PRE-PAID 10,470.05 FIT 6/10 PR
6/21/89 6/21/89 10,470.05 ~Nt.-CD
STATE BAN)< DF ~UND VENDOR TOTAL ~542.~4
S4511 PRE-PAID 41B.60 ~ UNION 5~7 ~
6/21/89 6/21/89 418.60 J~]~I.-CD
PRE-PAID 418.60 'CR UNI~ 6/10 ~
6/21/~ 6/21/69 418.60 JR]~.-CD
STATE C~ITI]. CFUEDII ~I~ VENDOR TOTAL ~7.20
PRE-PAID
6/21/~ 6/21/89'9
TODD ~X VE)4D[~t TOTAL 248.00
US110 PRE-PAID
6/21/89 6/21/89 *
V5196 PRE~AID
2~8.00
248.00 JRNL-CD
~,.,0.00 MMCI-3, STRONG
250.00 ,J{RAH.-CD
~.26 REFlJh~}-W'il~-PD ll4I~-HJ:~'~ll~ RI)
71-7100-~10
71-7100-~20
71-7100-9560
71-7100-~J40
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-95~
71-7100-9560
I010
P~-PAIO
AMOUNT[~
7~.51
1802.24
22-4170-3610
1010 300.00
01-4340-3100
73-7300-3100
1010 539.84
01-4340-4110
1010 2f~2.62
01-2040-0000
1010 10072.~
01-2040-0000
1010 10470.05
01-2040-0000
1010 418.60
OI-2tq40-O00~
1010 418.60
01-4140-4110
1010
01-40~0-4110
I010
79-I191-0000
248.00
PAGE 7
AP-C02-01
INVOICE
NO. INVOICE ~ l'~T~ I~TE ST~TLlS
6/21/8~ 6121/8~
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY DF ROUND
AMOUNT
75,26
75,26
534,84.
534,84'
534,84
87.50,76
DESCRIPTION
~)I.-CD
BUY BACK 2 CEMETERY LOTS
JRhL-CI)
REIMB-FAN FOR KITO-EN
dRNL-CD
ACCOUNT ~MBE)~
1010
00-.'~,41-0000
1010
~-4170-38~
1010
~E-PAIO
AMOUNT
..)
qo ¢/
PAGE 1
AP-C02-O1
INVOI~ IEE HOLD
NO. INVDICE NMB~ DATE DATE STATUS
AOiO0
AOI~O
B0540
6122189 6122/8~
VENDOR TOTAL
61221B9 6/22/8~ _
VENDOR TOTAL
6/22/8~ 6/22/B9
VENDO~ TOTAL
6/22/89 6/22/89
PURCHASE ,JOURNAL
CITY DF MDU)~
18.72
12.01
37.09
18.15
16.??
14.97
6.01
13.39
6.01
4.21.
16.~
163.03
163,03
18.81
11.97
11.97
6.84
I8.81
11.97
25.65
171.00
171.oo
· 262.50
262.50
262.50
7,50
7.50
12.50
27.50
DESCRIPTION
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPP1.IE.q
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE 9UPt:q. IES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUF'PLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
JP~-CD
JUNE RADIO SE]~V
JUNE RADIO SERV
JUNE RADIO SERV
J_INE RADIO SERV
dUNE RADIO SERV
dUNE RADIO SE)iV
JUNE PUCIDIO SERV
JJNE RADIO SERV
GALS TAO(
,JRI~.-CD
MAY OXYGEN
MAY OXYGEN
MAY OXYGEN
JI~I_-CD
CONTRACT
~T
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
CDNTRACT
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
ACCoukrF NUM]
01-4040-2100
01-4090-2100
01-4140-2100
01-4190-2100
01-4340-2100
01-4280-2100
71-7100-2100
73-7300-2100
78-7800-2100
81-4350-2100
01-4270-2100
1010
01-4250-39,50
01-4340-3950
01-4190-3950
01-42x]0-3950
01-4140-3950
73-7300-3950
78-7800-3%0
22-4170-3950
1010
01-4280-2340
1010
73-7300-2200
78-7800-~---"~30
Ol-&%X)-2200
1010
P~-PAID
BA~ CDiI~ANY
BO600
VENBOR TOTAl.
6/22/89 6/22/89
~ TOTAL
27.50
35.00
40.00
50.00
34.50
159.50
159.50
MAY GARBAGE-STREET
· MAY EqP3AGE-PW
MAY GARBAGE-I. IQ
MAY GARBAGE-FIRE
diaM.-CD
01-4280-3750
01-4~0-3750
71-7100-3750
22-4170-3150
1010
.3
BOB L¥CKHOLM
6/22/89 6/22/89
VE1NDOR TOTAL
175.00
325.00
150.00
150.00
1,220.00
2,020.00
01-4290-4100
01-42~0-4200
73-7300-3800
78-7BOO-38(X)
73-7300-4200
1010
-}
PAGE 2
AP-C02-O1
VEN~
NO. INVOICE NMBR
B0660
BOi~qAN DISTRIBLFFION
C0990
INVOICE lie HOL~
DATE BATE STATUS
6/22/89 6/22/89
VENDOR TOTAL
6/~/89 6/22/89
C1079
6122/~ 61221~
-' CONTINENTAL l~ ~ ~ TOTAL
Dl170
6/22/~ b/22/8~
...) DAKDTA RAIL INC VENDOR TOTAL
D1210
6/22/89 6/22/89
B1332
~ INIIJSTRIES, INC.
F1660
VENIX]R TOTAL
FLOYD SECI~ITI
TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MDL$O
~OLBFT DESCRIPTIDN
196.12 PAINTS,PA~TS
45.60 DEOD
241.72 JPJ~.-CD
241.72
907.00 MAY LEASE
S38.00 MAY MAINT
38.17 Fq]STCARD STMTS
1:483.17. dRNL-CI)
1483.17
67.70 TELEPHDNE-~
67.03 TELEPHONE
20%18 TELEPHDNE
318.00 TELEPHO~
2.64 TELEPHONE
4.85 TELEPHONE
3.49 TELEPHONE
i.17 TELEPHONE
.14 TELEPHONE
119.43 TELEPHONE
32.18 TELEPHONE
140.18 TELEPHONE
1,093.97 dRNL-CI)
1093.97
4O8.65 R~ LEASE TO 7/15
kX)4.35 RRLEASE TO 7/15
613.00 J~J~.-CD
613.00
42.3,5 BLACK LETTERS
45.90 BATTERIES
88.25 ,.~.-CD
27.00 C~LO~INE
27.00 ,.q~.-CD
27.00
27.75 3 QTR SECURITY
27.75 3 gl'R SECtEITY
27.75 3 OTR SECURITY
27.75 3 QTR SECURITY
Ill.(X) ,JRN.-CD
Ill.(X)
01-4270-2310
78-7BOO-Z300
1010
01-4095-5000
01-4095-3800
01-4095-2200
1010
22-4170-3220
22-4170-3220
01-4140-3220
01-4320-3220
01-41~-3220
01-40~-.3220
01-4340-3220
01-4040-3220
01r4090-3220
01-1190-0000
01-4280-3220
73-7300-3220
7B-7800-3220
71'7100-3220
lOlO
40-6000-3910
01-4320-3910
1010
01-42q)0-,'7360
01-4280-2300
1010
73-7300-2260
I010
01-4Z80-3100
01-4290-3100
73-7300-3100
78-7B00-3100
I010
RE-PAID
A~OUNT
CHECX I
')
P~E 3
I~¢OlCE DL2 h'OLI)
NO, INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STAT'J~
F1710
FRANCENE CLARK
F1720
61~/m. 6/..~/~9
~SN..m, gR TOTAL
6122189
VE]',tDOR TOTAL
PURCHASE
CITY DF MOUN~
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
17.80 EI. JECTION MT6
11.74 ~C ~ PHONE MTG
',.,~. 54 ~NL-CD
968.50 CONTRACT REVIEW
,°68.50 ,JPuNL-CD
968.50.
JOURNAL
01-406,0-4120
01-4040-41~
1010
01-4~9-4100
1010
PRE-PAID
I~T
TI~
CI'~CK
G!730
6/22/~ 6/22/89
~.00 INTERVIEW ~CHN-NI~
95.00
01-4140-4110
1010
GOVT 1TCAINING SE~ICEB ~)ID(]R TOTAL
61970
61.~. 1~ 61~189
~.00
12.32 MILEAGE
12.~ JRNL-CB
73-7300-3340
1010
.._)
~ SKINNER VENDOR TaTAL
H2160
HENN CO .TP, EASUFER ~ TOTAL
J2421-
6122189 6/~1~
d & S CLEANING CD. VENI)DR TOTAL
d2440
6/22/89
J B DISTRIBUTING VEht'qOR TOTAL
6/~,/89 6/22189
JOEL )~"I~M VENI)O~ TOTAL
dOE'S AUTO BODY
J2535
~ BREITNER
6/22/89 6/22/89
VIENDDR TOTAL
6/22?./89 6/22/89
~ TOTAL
6/~/89 6/22/89
12.32
1.072.50 APR BOARD
1,072.50 JRNL-CD
1072.50
590.00 JUhE JANITO~ SERV
590.OO dRNL-C~
590.00
109.09 CLEANERS
109.09 JP,~_-CD
1~.09
7.15 MILEAGE
7.15 JRNL-CI)
7.15
~o~B.55 REPAIR 87 CHEV PI[](UP
479.40 PLMB INSPECTIONS
479,40 J~NL-CI)
479.40
21.00 MAY
419.00 b~qTI.
59.50 CSI
499.5O JRbl-CI)
01-4110-4250
1010
01-43~-4210
1010
01-4~0-~----n50
I010
71-7100-2200
· 1010
01-4280-~10
1010
01-4190-3100
1010
01-4090-4120
01-4090-4110
01-4095-4110
1010
P~GE 4
AP-C02-O1
VENDOR
ND. INVOICE
JOHN L NOR~.AN
K2651
KAR PROI)UCTS
1.27(,0
~ COUNTRY L'I-I~OTER ICaO
L2811
INVOICE ~ HOL~
DATE ~TE STATUS
TOTAL
~/~/~ ~/~t~
V'r-q'~ORTOTAL
b/22/89
V.~J~OR TOTAL
LARSON PRINTING & GRAPHICS ~!rJ~!)-j~ TOTAL
L~lo
LINDA SltU]NG
L2940
LUTZ TREE SERVICE
~YS CORPDRATI~
6/22/8~ 6/22/8?
VENDOR TOTAL
TOTAL
VENi)OR TOTAL
6/22/87
VENgOR TDT6L
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOUND
DESCRIPTION
49?.50
92.33 TUBING & ~LADES
18..53 FOP, I) IGNITN WIRE SET
110.86 JRII.-CO
110.86
100.00 BL~ ~INAR-BERTR~-,ND
100.00 .~N1.-CI)
100.00
26.78 ~ C~,IL~-MCKINI.EY
103.00 NO PARK SIGNS
129.78 JRNL-CB
129.78
15.00 CRACK SCHOOL EXP
129.09 llJlTIDN REIMB
144,o~' JRNL-CI)
1~4.09
8.16 MII_EAGE-PHDIk~ETRIP
8.16 JRNI_-CO
8.16
2,610.00 TIUEtE~
~0.00 TREEREMI~¢~
2,~.00 JRI~.-~
135.00 E]~rOR$ ~INT-JULY
135.00 JRM.-~
135.00
660.00 MAY ENGR-S~ & I10
514.00 MAY ENGR-DENI)IGH
678.00 MAY ENGR-CO 15 & CROSSWALKS
tuo.oo MAY EN~R-WATE~,~
?~2.00 MAY ENI~-~NSP,P~Z
76.00 MA{ ENGR-~I) LANE
540.00 MAY ENGR-C HALL AI)DN
30.00 MAY ENOR-TAX FD{~'EIT LOTS
76.00 MAY ENGR-SHAW/NIELSON ESCROW
150.00 MAY ENGR-CATALYgT ESCROW
120.00 MAY ENOR-CBO
ACCOUNT
01-42~0-~50
78-7800-~00
1010
01-4190-4110
1010
01-4140-~
01-4140-2120
1010
01-4140-4110
01-4140-4110
lOIO
01-4040-~40
1010
01-4340-5110
73-7300-4200
I010
01-~-2~)00
1010
01-421)0-3100
01-4280-3100
66-6000-3100
73-7300-3100
01-41~0-3100
01-41~-3100
01-4.'420-3100
0!-4320-3100
01-2~J00-~71
01-2200-~05
O1-Lx3(X)-Oir28
40-6000-3100
60-~-3100
26-~00-3100
PRE-PAID
A~
DATE
TI~
PAGE 5
APoG~-01
NO. INVOICE ~ DATE
PURCHASE
CITY DF ~bl'$
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
JOURNAL
ACCOUNT NUMBER
?RE-PAID
DAI!,
TI~
5,3O4.O0 dFUl.-¢O
1010
YCCI].IBS F~,tANK ROOB ASSOCI* ?Eh.'T~"~ TOTAL
MI CHJ-~E1. BRD~
M3200
MID-CEN~L, I~
6/22/B9 6/22/89
k'E)~.'"~O~ TOTAL
6 t22189
TOTAL
5304.00
181.50
181.50
181.50
169.60
169.60
CABLE TV SERVICES
· HELI~S =FL~,VIS~RS
J~JL-CD
169.60
01-4030-3100
1010
22-4170-~00
1010
16.41
17.35
20.41
13.26
7.97
2B.47
103.87
MAY GAS
MAY GAS
MAY GAS
MAY GAS
MAY GAS
MAY GAS
JR~I-CD
01-4320-3720
01-42B0-37~
73-7300-3720
78-7800-3720
71-7100-3720
~-4170-3720
1010
i
MI N)c'Tsq..q[~ ~ TOTAL
6/22/B9 6/~/~
MOUND ELECTRIC, INC VENIX]R TOTAL
N3740
6/22189 6/22189
NEWI'iAN SI~ VEht")DR TOTAL
103.87
345.00
345.00
345. O0
175.40
175.40
175.40
WIRE ~,A/C,FAN
JRNL~CD
22-4170-~00
10!0
1010
6122/8~ 612218~
NDR~ STAllES POWEtR VE)il]OR TOTAL
6/22/B9 6/22/8~
ORKIN EiCFERMINATING COMPAN ~ TOTAL
P4031
6/22189 6/22/89
"~ PHYSICI~ DF MN VEIVDOR TOTAL
4,722,64
4,722.64
4722.64
43,00
43.00
43.00
183.65
183.65
183.65
~ ELECll~IC
J~-CO
JUNE PESI' CONTROL
JR~.-CD
01-4280-3710
1010
01-4320-4200
1010
0I-~140-1510
1010
.3
R4240
RED-RAJ KB~S
6/22/89
VE),IX]R TOTAL
KEN)EL FEES
JRNL-CD
WRENCHES
01-4140-4270
1010
7B-7BO0-2300
01-4290-5000
,D
PAGE
AP-C02-OI
INVOICE DUE, HOLD
NO. INVOICE I~ DATE. DATE STATUS
SEARS ROEBUCK & CO
S4380
SHIRIi'Y HA~S
Sq390
PLAZA
VENDOR TOTAL
6/22/89 6/-'~-/89
VENDOR TOTAL
b/,"?/89, b/22/89
VENDOR TOTAL
~I~Y GLOTTER ASSOCIATES ~ TOTAL
S4415
S45~0
STEPH~ GRANO
&/22/~
TOTAL
6/22/89
~ TOTAL
e/22/
ELECTRIC CO VEI~OR TOTAL
PURCHASE JOURNAL
CITY OF MOL~
AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
212.73 ~J~.-CO
212.73
10.00 NCIC SEMINAR-HAW, S
10.00
2,300.6.6. JULY ~
2,300.~ JRNL-CD
2300.66
4,00 PRINTS
4.00 ~-CD
4.00
I$1,00 54 SUBSCRIP-S~
181.00
88.?~ ~ SCHOOL EIP
~2i~ RE]_OC~TE FL~
152.~8 ~NL-CD
1~2.48
I010
01-414~-4110
1010
71-7100-3Sr20
1010
01-4170-2200
1010
22-4170-4130
1010
01-4140-4110
01-4140-4100
1010
01-4280-4200
1010
PRE-PAIl}
StJPEP, P~'R I C~
6/22/~
~ TOTAL
26.95 MAY GASOLI~
114.08 MAY DASOLI~E '
14.~3 MAY OASOLI~
714.83 MAY ~II~E
25.31 DIL
896.00 ' ORII.-CI)
B%.O0
01-41~0-2210
01-4280-2210
73-7300-2210
01-4140-2210
78-78(X)-2300
1010
&/22/~ ~/22/~
~ 5LP8~ CY[].E VENDOR TOTAL
2,975.00 MAY RECYCLE SERV
2,975.00 dRNL-CD
01-4270-4200
1010
54~12
.:?."' 6/22/~ 6/22/~
73-7300-4L"~
1010
01-4270-1300
1010
PAGE 7
PURCHASE
mOt.BT DESCRIPTION
JOURNAL
PRE-PAID
l)Al'
TEI'IPORA,~I~ l'O GO
T4780
VENDOR TOTAL
6/22/8~ 6!~!~
ll-)~IFTi SNYDER DRUG NO4
T4890
TOOLS UNLIM!IED
T4~O
VENI)OR TOTAL
6/,':")/89 6/22/89
VENDOR TOTAL
6/~/89
VENI]OR TOTAL
WESTO~,A FOODS
~.~30
WI~ INC
WF:~70
~/22/~ &/22/~
VENI)DR TOT~
6122/8~ 6/22/8~
~ENIX]R TOTAL
&/22/~ ~/2:2i~
-VENDOR TOTAL
6/'22/B9 6/22/89
VENI)DR TOTAL
6/22/B9 6/22/89
150.~
72.~ FIL~
~.20 TAPES
101.13 J~U~.-CD
101.13
171.10 TOOLS
171.10 JI~E.-CD
171.10
50.00
50.00
50.00
102.01
14
3.29
18
50.S8
189.23
189.23
10~.00
97.50
175.00
3?7.50
397.50
MBiB MCFOA-CLARK,STRONG
dRNL-CD
FDDD-AUCTIDN,CITY DAYS-RESRV
MAY SI.el:tiES
MAY SDPPLIES
MAY SUPPLi~
MA~"CH TD~S,CLPS
,JF'J~.-CD
SEA HORSE
DUG DITCH
EI)GE~D
d)~-Cl)
63.96 SHIRTS, PATDES-RESEA'V
63,96 JRN.-CI) '~"
37?. 1& · PORT-O-LETS
797.50 PI]RT-O-LETS---CITY DAYS
1,17&.66 JR~.-CI)
1176.66
118.00
2,008.50
625.00
2,751.50
1ST QTR P~DF SRV-HRA
MAY PRO--ION
APR,MAT-P~P, BOR !.~ ESC~]W
dt~-CI)
576.76 ~I' Cll~I~ ~INT-S&(X)
5'/6,76 JR~L-CD -.*'
01-4190-2200
01-4020-~"~0
1010
01-4340-7700
'1010
01-4040-4130
1010
01-23(X)-0220
78-7800-22(X)
73-7300-4100
01-4320-2200
22-4170-~X)
1010
73-7300-3800
01-42t:K)-4200
73-73(X)-38(X)
1010
01-2300-0220
1010
01r4340o3<)00
01-434-0-~
I010
64-5600-3100
01-4110-3120
01-2300-0970
1010
01-4320-3800
1010
AP-C02-01
VENDOR
NO, INV{]I~
XEROX 03RPORATION
Z5850
II~VI3ICE D{JE I-H3LD
~TE ~TE STATUS
TOTAL
ZACK'$ INC
~851
6/22/8~ 412218~
YIDqI3OR TOT~
4122189 6~!89
Z.N-L EIAIIPI'HDqT C[){'IPGdqY VE]q!)GR TOTAL
TOTAL ~ YEIiI3ORS
PURCHASE ,.JOURNAL
CITY OF 1'fl3UND
PJ~CIt}qT ~SCRIPTI~
576,76
342.25 CLEOANER, BFIL,OHE$
70.40 SHOVELS
4,00 BRUSH
12.00 ROPE
428.65 ~-CD
428.65
131.25 R~3~AIR OUEFH.E~d3 PALLS
131,25 ~NL-CD
131
~, 4':27.73
ACCOUNT
01-4290-2250
01-4280-2200
73-7300-2300
78-78(X)-~00
1010
1010
PRE-PAID
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Intergovernmental
Business Licences
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
Charges for
Services
Court Fines
Charges to Other
Departments
Other Revenue
REVENUE
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
DOCKS FUND
.CEMETARY FUND
BUDGET
984315
965800
9410
86700
38800
100000
16500
51850
2253375
CITY OF MOUND
1989 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
MAY 1989
MAY YTD
REVENUE
41.67%
PER CENT
REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED
0 69513 914802 7.06%
548 23865 941935 2.47%
200 1649 7761 17.52%
8532 25116 61584 28.97%
2676 7697 31103 19.84%
5187 20223 79777 20.22%
1632 8434 8066 51.12%
3253 3851 47999 7.43%
22028 160348 2093027 7.12%
880000 61922 312090 567910 35.46%
330000 28200 125005 204995 37.88%
580000 45433 238418 341582 41.11%
65300 1440 58779 6521 90.01%
3050 800 800 2250 26.23%
CITY OF MOUND
1989 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITUREs
MAY 1989
41.67%
MAY YTD PER CENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council
Cable TV
City Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance
Computer
Legal
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspections
Recycling
Streets
Shop & Stores
City Property
Parks
Summer Recreation
Contingencies
Transfers
46030 2967 22937 23093 49.83%
9980 0 8230 1750 82.46%
143210 17012 60010 83200 41.90%
650 1 186 464 28.62%
43930 88 472 43458 1.07%
152760 18296 65126 87634 42.63%
20000 3851 10812 9188 54.06%
97100 3704 21634 75466 22.28%
677770 72677 294906 382864 43.51%
1880 0 0 1880 0.00%
128400 14047 45706 82694 35.60%
67400 8921 48273 19127 71.62%
391140 40011 240317 150823 61.44%
57760 6781 30709 27051 53.17%
81860 33900 56737 25123 69.31%
149320 31196 63934 85386 42.82%
11090 0 0 11090 0.00%
30000 0 1066 28934
126150 9859 49393 .76757 39.15%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
2236430 263311 1020448 1215982 45.63%
Area Fire
service Fund
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Docks Fund
Cemetary Fund
209230 19039 79278 129952 37.89%
158810 16107 70478 88332 44.38%
322550 33582 163226 159324 50.60%
634160 51556 249003 385157 39.27%
72240 3761 56306 15934 77.94%
3950 128 712 3238 18.03%
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF ~IE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION
dUNE 8, 1989
Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners C~thy Batly,
Tom Casey, Nell Weber, Nancy Clough, Steve Burke, Shirley Ander-
sen, and Brian Asleson; Council Representative Phyllis Jansen;
Park Director Jim Fackler; Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph~ and
Secretary Peggy James.
The following persons were also in attendance=
Hetchler, Jan M. Kraemer, and John Tarfa.
Kevin and J~ryne
Chair Byrnes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes
The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of Hay ]I, ]989 were
presented for changes and/or additions.
MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey, to approve the
Park C~tssion Minutes of May 11, 1989 as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hearing for late applications for abuttinq docks.
The following persons missed the cut-off date for submitting
their dock applications:
Gretchen Smith
4705 Island View Drtve
Dock #421]7
Kevin Hetchler
4913 Island View Drive
Dock #43B00
MOTION made by Bailey, seconded by Asleson to extend the
application cut-off date for Gretchen Smith and Kevin
Hetchler. Motion carried unanimously.
Maintenance Permit: Michael Kraemer? 5500 Breezy Road? 8 steps
down to dock on Waterside Lane.
The Commission clarified the location of the steps noting that.
the channel extends Furthe¢ down Peabody Avenue than shown on the
plat map. The channel extends down to lot 16. The Park Director
added that lots 14 through 20 are owned by the City.
Park Commission Minutes
June 8, 1989
Page Two
Applicant, Jan Kraemer, added that the hill leading to their dock
is very steep and dangerous.
MOTION made by Bailey, seconded by Casey, to approve the
construction of a s~atrway with eight steps and a hand-
rail be allowed at 5500 Breezy Road. Motion carrted un-
antmusly.
This request will appear before the City Council on June
1989.
Request from Jerry Henke and John Taffe to change the name of
Brookton Park {Clover Circle Park) to Philbrook Park.
John Taffe of 4435 Lamberton Road spoke on behalf of changing the
'name of Brookton Park to Philbrook Park. In addition to the
reasons outlined in the letter to the Park Commission, Tarfa
added that the Phllbrook's are actively involved with Memorial
Day decorating graves and thee'take part in the food distribution
program. Tarfa also added that Gerry Henke has talked to the
neighbors of the park and they are in favor of the name change.
'-The Commission discussed the history of the park, and how chang-
ing the name would positively or negatively affect the park. It
was noted that the park does not have existing signage.
MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by Jessen, to change
the name of Brookton Park to Phllbrook Park dedicated to
Mary Lou and Jetty Phllbrook. Motion carried unanim-
ously.
The Commission discussed having a ceremony dedicating the park to
the Philbrooks. Anderson suggested that Vicky Pederson would
probably be willing to he]p arrange a ceremony. [t was also
agreed that the park will have signage, and a notice of the name
change should be printed in the paper or newsletter.
proposed revisions to Section 437.- 15 Maximum Dimensions?
Prohibited Designs of Docks.
The Park Director explained that the revisions made in Section
437:15 wlll limit the size of a 'L' or 'T' dock section/platform
to ?Z" x 72". The revision also includes wording for channel
dockage requirements.
MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Asleson to recommend
approval of the revised section 437=I5, contingent upon
City Attorney's approval. Motion carried unanimously.
Park Commission Minu~es
June 8, 1989
Page Three
Discussion regarding commons and City owned property being far
tiltzed.
Casey raised this issue due to the weed problems in Lake Min-
netonka and how fertilizer can harm the lake. Casey stated that
abutting property owners to the commons and/or City owned
shoreline should not be using fertilizer on the City proper~.
HOTION made by Casey, seconded by Bailey, to recommend
that fertilizer not be used on City properby. Hotion
carried unanimously.
The Commission discussed the need to make people aware of the
problems fertilizer creates for lakes. Weber added discussion
about the run-off problems the City of Mound has.
City owned property at Lots 13 & 14~ Block II, Devon.
Casey raised the issue Pertaining to this lot which was Eot sale
to an abutting owner, however, was retained per the Park
Commission's recommendation as a nature conservation area. The
decision to retain the lot was made to ensure the lot would not
be .developed. The City Council had approved the Park
Commission's recommendation, and also requested the Park Commis-
sion to develop signage and possibly a name for the park. Casey
suggested the Commission determine what the sign should read, and
if the property should be named.
MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Jessen, to recommend
the signage on Lots t3 & 14, Block 11, ,Devon read
"Nature Conservation Area, No Dun~ing". Motion carried
unanimously.
Winter motorized vehicle accesses.
The City Council's conclusions regarding the closing of Pembroke
Park's vehicle access was discussed. The City Council recognized
that this access should be closed June ! through September 15,
~ and this should be enforced. The Council will await a recommen-
dation from the Park Commission regarding the closing DE the win-
tar access in September.
The Commission discussed the meeting to take place in August
regarding winter motorized vehicle accesses in Mound. The Issue
of snowmobiling was raised. The Commission agreed that they need
to accommodate snowmobiler.'s with accesses, however they would'
like to control the accesses used by supplying signage to those
designated Eot use. It was determined that a map showing the ac-
cesses should be supplied Eot the meeting in August.
Park Commission Minutes
June 8, 1989
Page Four
Park Tour on July 13~ 1989.
The Annual Park Tour was discussed, and a meeting time oE 5=00
p.m. was set. It was determined that the winter motorized
vehicle accesses will be visited on the tour. The Planning Com-
mission and City Council wlll be Invited on the tour, however
their is a problem with space on the bus which only seats Z0.
Cathy Bailey will reserve the senior's bus for the tour. The ac-
cesses will be discussed after the tour to prepare for the meet-
lng in. August.
Park Director's Report
Fackler announced that a new superintendent Eot the Su~er Park
and Lifeguard Program has been hired to replace Martha Meyer.
The deadline Eot the 1990 Budget has been setback and will now be
submitted to the Commission at the August meeting. He updated
the Commission on the tnstallatlon of.the new playground.equip-
ment.
Dock Inspector's Report
'Dell Rudolph reviewed the status of the dock applications and
spections. He has written a letter that is being considered for
the City newsletter regarding the low water and commons main-
tenance, and dock requirements.
The Dock Inspector commented on the problems which arise from
people using tires as bumpers on their docks. Tires are Found tn
the lake, on shore, and abandoned on City property. He would
like to see tires banned on City docks.
MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Batley, to recommend
that effective January l, t990, tires will not be al-
lowed on City docks. Motion carried with 8 tn favor,
opposed (Clough).
Fishing Pier at Mound Bay Park.
Jessen questioned tf fishing pier could be Installed at Mound
Bay Park. The Park Director explained that a pier had been ap-
piled for through the CORE program once before and the applica-
tion was denied. He added the cost oE a pier is approximately
$Z5,000. Me will look into the possibility of applying for a
pier through CORE again.
Park Commission Minutes
June 8, t989
Page Five
Wetlands Recreational Plan
Nell Weber has volunteered his services to collect data on the
wetlands in Hound. Such data will include= ownership, wlldltfe
habitat, and background information. This data will be helpful
in the development of a recreational plan for the wetlands.
Weber added that a Naturalist from Lowry Nature Center has .volun-
teered to walk the wetlands with him and help collect data.
HOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Casey, to adjourn
the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Hotton carried unanimously.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
June 12, 1989
Present were: Vice Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Brad
Sohns, William Thai, Frank Wetland, Vern Andersen, and Jerry
Clapsaddle, Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Hanager Ed
ShuRle, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James.
Absent and excused was Chair mil 1 Meyer and Commissioner Ken
Smlth.
Also present were the following interested citizens: Bernie Mai-
cheskt, LynDe]]e Skoglund, 0aniel Johnson, Cheryl Johnson, Elsa
Watson, Percival Jacobson, John Bierbaum, C. Dudley Fi:z, June
Fi:z, Buzz Sycks, Dennis Sand.in, Gary .Peterson, Melvin Zuckman,
Sharon Zuck~n, Pau! Reis, and Richard Jacobson.
.~Vice Chair, Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:30
p.m.
MINUTES:
MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Weiland, to approve
the Planning C~ission Minutes of May 22, 1989 as sub-
mitted. Motion carried unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Case No. 89-815: Scott Hill, 4984 Three Points Blvd. & 4978
Three Polnts Blvd., Lots ti, t2, 13, 14, Block 25, Shadywood
Point: PID #13-]17-24-1! 0105 & 0106. MINOR SUBDIVISION:
chan~lng lot line.
The City Planner reviewed the application for a minor subdivi-
sion. Both homes have conforming'side yard setbacks with the ex-
isting and proposed lot configurations. Staff recommended ap-
proval of the division as described on the applicants survey
dated 5-22-89.
MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to recommend
approval oF staff recommendation For approval of a minor
subdivision at 4984 and 4978 Three Points Blvd. Motion
carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Counc'tl on June 27, I989.
t
Planning ¢0~lssion Minutes
June 1Z, 1989
Page Two
Case No. Bg-B21: JRW Properties, Inc., Con~nerce Place~ PID
#t3-117-24-33-0074~ 13-117-24-32-0144 & 0145. PRELIMINARY
AND FINAL PLAT (PUBLIC HEARING).
The City Planner explained that the applicant is seeking approval
oF an easement agreement as well as the preliminary plat and
final plat. The Ffnal plat portrays a total oE six lots divided
as Follows:
Lot I - Bank
Lot 2 - Parking and Circulation
Lot 3 - Snyder Drug
Lot 4 - Retail Shops
Lot 5 - Clinic
Lot 6 - Parking and Circulation
The easement agreements provide shared parking and access between
the bank and the shopping center· Koegler explained that the
City has not received any type. of documentation guaranteeing that
signage will be maintained as one consistent theme. He recom-
mended that some sort of agreement be drafted and executed as a
condition oE the approval oF the plat.
The City Planner Further reviewed the City Engineer's report·
The City Engineer recommended approval upon the Followlng
conditions:
Documentation be provided prior to plat approval showing
that the proposed lot ltnes are located within the common
walls.
Prior to plat approval, the plat must be revised showing the
existing easements running in Favor oF the City oF Mound
along the south side adjacent to Lynwood Blvd.
Prior to plat approval, an easement must be required on the
Final plat relating to a six-inch water main installed
through Lot 6 between Lynwood Blvd. and Church Road, which
provides service to the rear oF the main complex. The ease-
ment must be suFFicient in size to cover the main, curb
stops, and hydrant.
The trash enclosure encroaching Into the City right-of-way
at Fern Lane must be removed, or the issue addressed.
The City Engineer and City Planner recommended approval of the
preliminary and Final plat.contingent upon the above Four Items
being completed and the stgnage be addressed.
Plannlng Commtssfon Mtnutes
June 12, 1989
Page Three
The Commission questioned Mr. John Bierbaum, who was representing
the applicant, tf he had any objections to an agreement relating
to the signage continuity. Mr. Bierbaum stated that they are
willing to sign an agreement relating to the stgnage.
.Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There was no one
present to speak on the issue. Vice Chair Michael closed the
public hearing.
The Commission discussed the problem relattng to the encroaching
trash 'dumpster. Mr. Bterbaum stated that the dumpster is
enclosed by a masonry wall, therefore is a permanent structure,
and would prefer not to move It. The Commission agreed that the
dumpster does not cause any problems as it exists, however tf the
street were improved, or Commerce Place sold, problems relating
to the dumpster could arise. Therefore, the Commission discussed
drafting an easement type agreement which states the dumpster
will move with the property.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Thai to approve the
City Planner and City Engineer's recommendations 6or ap-
proval of the preliminary and final plat 6or Commerce
PI'ace contingent upon the City Attorney researching the
need for agreements relating to the encroaching dun~oster
and slgnage continuit~. Motion carried unanimously.
This Case will be heard by the City Councll on June 27, ]989.
Case No. 89-822= E.W. B1anch.~ Jr. and Patricia K. Blanch~
LanQdon View~ PID #Z3-ii7-Z4-13-O003/O004/O005/O006/O008~
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT (PUBLIC HEARING).
The City Planner reviewed the City Engineer's recommendation.
The proposed plat is the same plat which was approved by Resolu-
tion No. 86-85, however this resolution was never recorded,
therefore requires City approval again. The City Engineer recom-
mended approval of the preliminary plat and Final plat For
Langdon view including the conditions listed in resolution 86-85,
with the Followlng modifications:
A.2. Eliminate (soil report has been submitted to city staFF).
A.3. The Bond amount should be Increased From $12,000 to $15,000.
Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Bernie Maicheski of 5820 Bartlett Blvd., Gary Paterson of 5872.
Bartlett Blvd., and Buzz Sycks of 5900 .Beachwood Road expressed
their concerns regarding the slope and erosion problems at the
site.
Planning Commission
June !Z, 1989
Page Four
Oenn~s Sandtn, who was representing the applicant E. W. Blanch,
stated that development plans for the site do not exist yet, they
are awaiting C~ty approval.
LynDelle Skoglund of 5823 Bartlett Blvd. expressed a concern
about heavy traffic. She explained that traffic is already heavy
at Beachwood and Commerce, and there are a lot of kids and
bikers. She added that people park their cars and trailers along
Beachwood where the proposed plat will be, and is concerned with
~nere they will go when the area is devel-oped.
Vice Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
The Commission discussed the existing and potential soil erosion
problems. Dennis Sandtn stated that it is possible this land
could sit vacant for another year before it is developed. The
City Planner informed the Commission that a time limit can be es-
tablished through the development contract.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Andersen, to re-
adopt Resolution #86-85 with the ~x~tfications listed tn
the City Engineer's recommendation includtngJ
a)
b)
c)
The park dedication fee referenced in A.5. of
Resolution #86-85 should meet requirements in the
current fee schedule.
Staff is to implement a time table into the
Development Contract.
Staff is to inspect existing soil erosion and storm
sewer sediment conditions to determine IF future or
further action Is necessary.
Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
dm
Case No. 89-823= Craig Watson~ 4610 Tuxedo B1vd.~ Pembroke?
Block 7~ Lot il PID #]9-]]7-23-33 0039. VARIANCE= Existinq
Nonconforming Setback.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request. The
applicant's home lies 3 feet from the property line, therefore
requires a iZ foot variance to the rear yard. They plan to con-
struct an addition which wtll require a 3 foot variance to the
rear yard. This particular property has two rear yards due to
the triangular shape. Staff recommended approval of the 12 foot
variance to recognize the existing rear yard setback and a 3 foot
variance to allow construction of an addition to the home. In
addition, before a building permit will be issued, the inspection
department will require a new survey to be completed and sub-
mitted.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Five
Elsa Watson, applicant, explained that she has contacted McCombs
Frank Roos who had staked out their lot in order to improve
Tuxedo Blvd. in front of their home, and they wi11 be sendtn9 her
a survey of her lot. Mrs. Watson asked if this would be a suffi-
cient survey. The City Planner informed Mrs. Watson that the
survey needs to pass the buildtng inspector's approval prior to
permit issuance.
MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Cl~saddle to approve
staff rec~nclation for approval of a IZ foot rear yard
variance and a 3 foot rear yard variance at 4610 Tuxedo
Blvd. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
Case No. 89-824: Daniel Johnson~ 1766 Shorewood Lane,
Shadywood Point, Block 3, Lot 4; PID #13-1I?-24-)1-0135.
VARIANCE: Front Yard Setback Variance.
The City Planner reviewed the applicants request for a 19 foot
front yard variance to construct a two car garage and second
floor living space addition. Koegler stated that he feels place-
ment of the garage in the rear yard is Impractical due to limited
space to the side lot lines. However, there is room for a living
space addition on the lakeside of the home.
Staff recommended approval of a 19 foot front yard variance for
the construction of a new garage and entry area on the first
floor of the home. Second story construction within the 20 foot
required setback area is specifically prohibited since other al-
ternatives for the construction of additional living space exist.
Dan Johnson, applicant, submitted pictures to the Commission
showing some of his neighbors garages, and how close to the curb
they sit. Mr. Johnson further explained the need for the second
story addition. He stated that the home has no basement, and the
lakeside portton of the home has vaulted ceilings. He does not
want to add onto the lakeside .of the home because it would
destroy the view from the living area.
The Commission explained to Mr. Johnson the need to be consistent
with their decision pertaining to second story additions being so
close to the front property Itne.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Andersen to accept
staff recommendation for approval of a 19 foot front
yard variance for the.construction oF a garage and entry
way. Motion carried unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, 1989.
Planning Commission Minutes
June t2, 1989
Page Six
Case No. 89-825: Percival Jacobsont 4700 Wilshire Blvd.~
5eton? Block 31, Lots 1,2,3,16,17, & 18; PID #19-117-Z3-Z3-
0)12 & Oil9. VARIANCE: Fence Height.
The City Planner reviewed the applfcant's request to place a 6
Foot high fence tn his Front yard, the maximum allowable height
is 4 feet. The Building Official and City Attorney's office have
been involved in trying to clean up this property over the. past
two years. As a condition of dropping prosecution of the
property owner, it was agreed that the site would be totally
cleaned up and the remaining storage would consist of wood to be
used for fuel purposes. This wood is stacked on a rack, which
it was agreed would be lowered to a height consistent with the
height of a wooden fence. Koegler added that a 6 foot high fence
would improve views from the abutting residences.
Staff recommended approval of the fence height variance due to
the elevation of Mr. Jacobson's property relative to the sur-
rounding homes. This approval recommendation ts contingent upon
maintaining all storage at a height below the height of the
fence. This will require modification of the existing rack
storage system.
Jansen stated that she believes this property at a disadvantage
because it has double street frontage and abuts an unimproved
right-of-way. Weiland commented that he did not feel Z feet
would make a difference to the neighbors view.
Richard Jacobson, the applicant's son, spoke on Percival Jacob-
sons behalf. Richard Jacobson informed the Co,mission that his
father has a bad back and therefore would like t° have the wood
rack extend to 6 feet in height to make it easier for him to
retrieve wood. Since the wood rack cannot exceed the height of
the fence, they are requesting a 2 foot variance in fence height.
MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Clapsaddle, to ap-
prove staff recommendation for approval of a Z foot
fence height variance. Hoti.on carried 5 - 2. Those in
favor= Andersen, Thal, Hichael, Jensen, and Clapsaddle.
Those opposed: Wetland and ~hns.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June Z7, 1989.
ge
Case No. 89-826: Melvin Zuckmant 5012 Tuxedo Blvd.~ RL$
1150t Tract Al PID #24-]17-24-43-0034. VARIANCE~ two prin-
cipal structures on one zoning lot~ side yard setback and.
lakeshore setback variances.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of this case.
The applicant is requesting recognition of an existing noncon-
forming I3 foot lakeshore setback to the summer cottage, result
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12, 1989
Page Seven
lng in a 37 foot variance, and a 4.5 foot existing nonconforming
side yard setback to the second principal building at the south
end of the lot. In 1966 the City granted a variance to recognize
the existence of two principal uses on one zoning lot (Resolution
#66-77).
In 1979 there was a fire in the cottage at the north end of the
lot (home closest to the )akeshore). The owner applied for a
variance to repair the building, however, the variance was denied
due to finding the building to be more than 50% damaged
(Resolution #79-213).
The Planner reported that he did not find any "new facts" relat-
Ing to this case. Staff recommended denial of the variance
request based on the reaffirmation of the the finding in 1979
that the structure was more than 50[ damaged by fire. Section
23.404 (2) of the Mound City Code specifically prohibits restora-
tion of a nonconforming structure when it is found that the
repairs will constitute more than 50[ of the fair market value of
the structure. If the ortglna) action is upheld by the Planning
Commission and City Council, the City should initiate proceedings
to guarantee removal of the nonconforming structure.
The Commission questioned why the City never followed through
with removal of the structure after Resolution 79-213 was
adopted. No answers were supplied, present staff was not here
when the resolution was passed.
Me) Zuckman, applicant, reviewed the history of his case. He im-
plied that the house was never 50% destroyed. Hr. Zuckman
presented a letter to the Commission dated May 30,: 1989 signed by
Barry Palm of 4879 Wilshlre Blvd. who was a fireman at the fire
in 1979. The letter stated that he did not feel the house was
structurally damaged. Mr. Zuckman explained that this letter is
a duplicate of a letter written ten years ago which they cannot
locate.
Mr. Zuckman informed the Commission that the County Assessors
report dated 3-30-79 is Incorrect. The dimensions listed are For
a home 22' x 24' totaling 528 square Feet, when in actuality
their home Is 32.2' x 30' totaling 966 square feet.
Mr. Paul Reese of 4120 Htghwood Road, St. Louis Park, stated he
has been a friend of Mr. Zuckmans since before the fire in 1979.
He informed the Commission that he saw the home both before and
after the Fire and does not believe the home was 50% destroyed.
Howard Barrett, of 5000 Tuxedo Blvd., .Mr. Zuckman's neighbor,
stated that he would like to see new siding on the home.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 12. 1989
Page Eight
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Wetland, to approve
staff recommendation For denial of the variance. Motion
carried 4 - 3. Those in Favor: Sohns, Weiland, Thal,
Jansen. Those opposed: Andersen, Mlchael, C1apsacldle.
This case will be heard by the City Council on June 27, ]989..
DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL=
City Hall Building Improvements
Thal questioned the Commission if they would be interested in
touring the Mound Police Department at the June 26th Workshop
Meeting. It was agreed the tour would take place From ?:00 to
7:30 p.m. prior to the scheduled meeting. The City Manager will
contact the Police Chief to make proper arrangements For the
tour.
Letter From the Cambridge Group regarding a proposed Fence behind
the Balboa Business Center.
The C'ity Planner reported that since the cottonwood trees have
died, the management company For the Balboa Business Center,
Cambridge Property Management, has proposed to erect a 6 foot
high privacy Fence to screen the Toro semi-trailers from the
neighboring houses and street.
Sohns commented that the neighbors ~y be interested in reviewing
this proposal, since they expressed a strong concern about this
matter previously. AFter Further discussion, the City Planner
determined that a 6 Foot high Fence may not be allowed in the
proposed location, he stated he wi11 research this possibility.
City Council Representatives Report.
Jansen reviewed the City Council meeting'of May 23, 1989.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Wetland to adjourn the
meeting at 10:15 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Attest:
Vice Chair, GeoFf Michael
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m. Wednesday,Hay 24,1989'
Tonka Bay City Hall
1. Vice Chair Reese called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
JUN 1 5 1989
2. Roll. Call
Members present:
Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; Marvin Bjorlin,
Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonka
Beach; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster,
Deephaven; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata; Robert
Slocum, Woodland; John Malinka, Victoria (arrive
during the meeting). Also present: David
Arndorfer, Consultant; Charles LeFevere, Counsel;
Lt. Larry Peterson, Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen,
Executive Director.
Absent:
JoEllen Hurr, Chair, Orono; James Grathwol,
Excelsior; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista;
Robert PillsbUry, Minnetonka; Robert. Rascop,
Shorewood.
Oath of Office
Charles LeFevere administered the Oath of Office to Douglas B~bcock,
to the Board by the City of Spring Park and Babcock was welcomed.
declared a quorum present.
appointed
Reese then
3. Readinq of Minutes
Bjorlin moved, Boswinkel seconded, that the minutes of 4/26/89 be approved
as submitted. Motion carried unanimously.
4. Public Comments
There were no comments from the public.
5. Reports
A. Vice Chair Reese
10, 8:15
Committee.
1) Reese announced the Board's Lake inspection tour will be held.June
a.m. This will follow the regular 7:30 a.m. meeting of the "Dock"
Members were asked to confirm their attendance with the LMCD office.
B. Treasurer/Finance
1) In the absence of Treasurer Lewman, Strommen presented a financia'
condition report as of 4/30/89 showing Operating Fund with a Balance of
$88,868; Save the Lake with a Balance of $63,980 and Eurasian Water Milfoil
with a Fund Balance of $571,921.
Slocum moved, Cochran seconded that the Financial Condition report of 4/$0/B9 be
approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. "
Audit of Vouchers for Payment
Bjorlin moved, Slocum seconded that the payment of bills in the
amount of $32,222.23, check numbers 5457 through 5494, be approved as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously.
C. Standinq Committees
1)WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Cochran
a) Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) density and new dock
increase 6 BSU on Browns Bay. and 42 BSU on Tanager Lake;
recommendation for approval based on amenities as submitted.
b)Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata)variance, density, and
new dock license to add 12 permanent BSU; committee recommendation
for approval based on.amenities as submitted.
license to
committee
Cochran rePorted the Hinnetonka Boat Works have asked that both items
be moved forward to the June meeting. ,'
Cochran, moved, Foster seconded that the Minnetonka Boats Works agenda items
advanced to the June 28 Board meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
c) St. Alban's Bay Marina Special Density Permit and New Dock
License
be
Applicant requests further consideration at the June Board meeting to present
additional facts for clarification of their application.
The motion to approve the Special Density Permit and New Dock License failed to
pass at the 4/26 Board meeting. LeFevere submitted a Memorandum on the mppli-
cation providing background, effect on fishing and public access to the lake,
impact of the proposed facilities on nearby land uses, impact of the proposed
facility on recreational use of the lake, nature of the proposed facility, and
evaluation of amenities agreed to by the applicant. This was done in advance of
-the Findings and Order due to the prospect of litigation the applicant has
suggested may be necessary in their case as a result of the non-approval.
LeFevere then reviewed Robert's Rulws of Order on voting requirements necessary
to rescind the Board action in response to roster's question on the item. A
majority vote of the entire Board is required (eight votes) to rescind the
action without an advance notice. A majority of Board members present are
required if there is notice of intent given in advance of the meeting that such a
motion would be made.
Foster signified his intent to make a motion at the June 28 Board meetipg to
rescind the Board's previous action on the St. Alban's Bay Marina application.
d) Wayzata Yacht Club Environmental Assessment Work Sheet (EAW)
Board received Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order in the matter
of the determination of need for an Environmental assessment worksheet for the
Wayzata Yacht Club Marina on Lake Minnetonka, Wayzata, Minnesota.
Duane Markus, 405 Bushaway Rd., Wayzata, petitioner to the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) for an EAW on the Wayzata Yacht Club Temporary Dock and District
Mooring Area (DMA) Extensions, questioned LMCD's interpretation of EQB Rules
Part 4410.460,subpart 2B. The executive director called Markus' attention to
the rules statement which provides that projects for which all governmental
decisions have been made are exempt from environmenta! review. It is on this
basis that the Conclusions to the Findings of Fact base its Qrder that the LMCD
will not prepare an EAW. The executive director further pointed out that in the
Conclusions, Item 2 makes reference to a discretionary EAW recommended to be
done in advance of any future application for a similar or greater temporary DMA
extension.
Cochran moved, Slocum seconded that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Qrder
in the matter of determination of need for an environmental assessment work
sheet for the Wayzata Yacht Club be approved as presented. Motion carried
unanimously. .~
e) Temporary extension/low water variance
Cochran moved, Foster seconded that the following temporary extensions/low water
variances be approved as recommended:
(1) Lafayette Ridge Homeowners Association subject to a conforming
site plan showing no encroachment into the east setback area
(2) Minnetonka Power Squadron for extension of 10 docks from 96~, to 5
docks at 175' and 1 dock at 90'
(3) Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (Shorewood) from 275'to 400'
Motion carried unanimously.
f) Suspension of permits for residential temporary dock extensions
for 90 days, recommended for approval subject to guidelines prepared by staff.
Strommen submitted Guidelines for
Extensions without a formal permit application.
per the revised copy, attached.
Temporary Residential Dock
Discussion resulted in changes
Cochran moved, Slocum seconded that the Guidelines for Temporary
Dock Extensions Iwithout a formal permit application) be approved
Motion carried unanimously.
Residential
as amended.
g)1989 Dock License Renewals
It was moved by Cochran, seconded by Boswinkel, to approve
following 1989 dock license renewals including Orders and stipulations:
the
Bean's Greenwood Marina
Excelsior Bay Yacht Club
- continued
Excelsior Bay Associates,Inc.
The Harborage
Lakewinds Association
Libbs Bay Boat Club
Maple Crest Estates
Meadowbrook Boat Club,Inc.
Methodist Lakeside Assembly
Minnetonka Boat Rentals and Edgewater Marina
Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata)
Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono)
Minnetonka Edgewater Apartments
Minnetonka Portable Dredging
Minnetonka Yacht Club
Mound~ City of
North Shore Drive Marina
Schmitt's~Marina
Seton Village Association
Walden Tract X Owners
Wayzata, City of
Motion carried unanimously.
h) Gideons Point Homeowners Association
Multiple dock temporary dock extension Iow water variance approved 3/ll/Bg was
reconsidered because LMCD license Order restricts any dock reconfigurations,
permitting extension only.
Bjorlin reported Gideons Point Homeowners Association have
for a temporary dock extension permit in lieu of the previous
reconfigurate.
re-applied
request to
Bjorlin moved, Cochran seconded that the Temporary Dock Extension/Temporary Low
Water Variance for Gideon Point Homeowners Association to allow an extension
into the Lake of 180', BO' more than presently, be approved. Motion carried
unanimously.
i) City of Deephaven temporary DMA extension permit requesting to move
southern 4 buoys'to northern edge~ to al]ow for the temporary dock extension
granted previously.
Cochran moved, Foster seconded that the temporary DMA extension for the City of
Deephaven be approved. Motion carried'unanimously.
Board agreed to amend the Agenda to move forward to the Lake Use Committee
report to accommodate the public.
4) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Foster for Chair Pillsbury
a) Water Club West Spbrt & Marina~ Inc. special event permit.
Action to approve after-the-fact was not recommended by the executive director,
the. City of Wayzata advising that they have no intention of permitting this or
any future use of city docks for exclusive show sponsor uses. The Board
concurred in the recommendation.
b) A1 & Alma's Charter License Review The Board action of 4/26/B9
approving the temporary wine and beer license, included with Lambin and
Corporate Charters temporary liquor/wine and beer license applications.
No further action needed.
c) Charter Boat Registration Renewals
Board received eighteen applications for charter boat renewals, two
new registrations and two late applications. The Board discussed home ports and
commercial docking for charter boats at residential docks. The
executive director advised the Code defines commercial docks as those used
in conjunction with a commercial or revenue producing business enterprise.
Lt. Peterson added that the Water Patrol receives complaints from commercial
places that charter boats use their docks, and their passengers use their
parking.lots.
Fred Bame, A1 & Alma's, said they dock two boats at a residential property
adjacent to the restaurant but do not load there. He stated some of the listed
ports-of-call do not have parking space for customers, this being a problem at
the City of Excelsior municipal docks, where charter boats also circle in the
Bay waiting to load.
Foster moved Cochran seconded that the LMCD staff organize an
docking considerations for charter b'oa[s starting in September.
unanimously.
evaluation of
MotiOn carried
Foster moved, Cochran seconded that the fo]lowing charter boat license renewals
-be approved contingent upon passing Water Patrol safety checks:
A1 & Alma's I, II, III, VI, X, XI
Colossus
Small World
Godfather II
Lady of the Lake
Miss Deduction
Music Man III
Queen of Excelsior
Seanote
Halfnote
Sunboat I
Sunboat II
Whyknot III
Motion carried unanimously.
The Board received registrations for two new charter boats,
III to be docked at North Star Marina and Private Parties I, whose
location was changed from Crystal Bay to Harrison Bay.
Godfather
berthing
Foster moved, Bjorlin seconded that the new registrations for Godfather III and
Private Parties I be approved, contingent upon passing Water Patrol safety
checks. Motion carried, Cochran, BjorIin and Babcock voting nay.
5
LeFevere pointed out that the registration of charter boats was intended as a
multi-step project with the purpose, originally, to gather information. That
has been done and the Board is now in the position to go further and perfect the
application process.
The Board further received late appJications from Karob I berthed at
Tonka Bay Marina and Miss Minnetonka, berthed at Bean's Greenwood Marina, both
renewals.
Foster moved, Boswinkel seconded that the charter boat renewals for Karob I and
Miss Minnetonka be approved, contingent upon passing Water Patrol safety checks.
Motion carried unanimously.
d) Special Event Inspection Report and Deposit Refunds
Foster moved, Boswinkel seconded to approve the Special Event inspection report
and approve the deposit refund for the Holiday-Johnson Crappie Contest April 22.
Motion carried unanimously.
e) Lt. Larry Peterson reported there have been six BWI
all buoys are in place.
Board returned to the agenda order
arrests
and
2. EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese
a) The MN DNR permit for acreage of weeds to be harvested was
reviewed by the Executive Director. An initial permit of 500 acres has been
approved, with the provision that an assessment of the experience will be made
three to four weeks into the program. Expansion of the acreage wil! be open to
further consideration according to the DNR's Ecological Services representatives
on the Task Force.
b) Reese reported the estimation of weeds which can be cut with six
harvesters (5 LMCD and 1Hennepin County Parks) will exceed the amount of
acreage the DNR is comfortable with for the first year. Reese visited the
factory in Waterloo, N. Y. and after conferring with the manufacturer a change
was approved to extend the cutting swath to fifteen feet. The fixed wings were
changed to a hydraulic activation at an additional cost of $550. per machine.
The manufacturer will mi]ow cancellation of the fifth harvester, the penalty
being minor, based on the contractor's out of pocket expense. Reese indicated
he was impressed with the operatio~ but does anticipate a slight delay in
'delivery.
Bids have been received for an additional 52' shore conveyer for more shallow
areas. Reese recommends acceptance of the bid of UMI at $18,000.
Cochran moved, Foster seconded that the cancellation of one harvester be
approved, change in the win~s at $550 per machine and purchase of one shore
conveyer at $18,000. Motion carried unanimously.
c) Promotional Plans. Strommen reported the Public Service video
tape will be ready in about ten days.
There will be a Prairie Home Carriage Classic show in Hame] on June
24, 25. The entire admission proceeds of $4.00 per person will be given to the
Eurasian Water Milfoil Fund. Without objection from the Board, tickets wil! be
sent to them for sale to support the fund.
The Heilemann Brewery is giving 10 cents per case for all beer sold in Minnesota
this summer to the Freshwater Foundation for EWM research on alternative weed
treatment methods. The potential value is over $50,000.
The Legislature has approved $250,000 to the DNR for Eurasion Water Milfoil
education programs control as a state wide infestation problem. The Legislature
eliminated line items in the "water resources bill" which would have benefited
the LMCD but the DNR received $2,200,000 for water projects and the LMCD expects
it will include funds for the comprehensive management plan.
d) Subcommittee Reports
The Board was given an Eurasian Water Milfoil Fund 1989 budget and
financial condition report showing budget and expenses to 4/30/89 including
encumbrances for equipment on order. Adjustments will be made for the
cancellation of the one harvester, wing changes on other harvesters and purchase
of an additional conveyer. The d'ifference between the latter equipment changes
will be placed in reserve for equipment.
Minnetonka Boat Works will sell a work boat at its cost to the District for
$8,600 for use during the summer - a 1987 Larson 165 h.p. 1.0., and are willin,
buy it back for $6000., with the District's option to keep it at the end of the
season. The Board concurred in this acquisition arrangement.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer.
a) Management Plan Report. Arndorfer submitted a status report of the
various plans as of May 1 and a schedule of meetings in June. He stressed the
beginning of the Intergovernmental section of the Stakeholders Studies. This
includes development of Memorandum of Understanding with other agencies,
wetlands management to be important segment. He solicited members of the Board
to serve on this Committee. Reese requested a firming up of dates for sub-
committee meetings ,suggesting at least a two month projection.
5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
a) The 1988 Audit has been completed.
letter will be available at the June meeting.
The audit and management
b) Diana White has give notice that she will
employment in June, after six months, for family reasons. A
bookkeeping position replacement is underway.
be terminating
search for the
c) Strommen supplied the Board with a follow up letter to the Chai
of the System Committee of the Metropolitan Council following their May 9 PubliL
Hearing on the Lake Minnetonka Park. Specifically the letter addressed
statements made at the Hearing regarding the number of public accesses on the
Lake and parking availability, statement in variance with other public
statistics.
d) Strommen submitted a list of events scheduled during ~une 'and
asked the Board to observe the activities when possible. He also submitted his
contact summary for April and May.
6. Unfinished business
Boswinkel requested the staff do research on the parking of charter boats
on private property, including the history of charter boat licensing.
7. New Business
There was no other new business
8. Adjournment
It was moved by Bjorlin, seconded by Malinka, to adjourn. Motion
unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
carried
Submitted by:
Jan Boswinkel, Secretary
Approved by:
JoEllen L. Hurr, Chair
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
' 'GUIDELINES FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL DOCK EXTENSIONS
" (without a formal permit application)
LHCD Code §2.01, Subd. 2 d) requires that during periods when the Lake level
falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the
Executive Director may issue permits for temporary dock extensions beyond
the authorized dock use area subject to certain limitations.
Residential docks may be extended beyond the authorized dock use area
(DUA) (the DUA being the area bordering on the Lake which extends into
the Lake a distance equal to the site Lake frontage measured at right
angles to.the side site lines, and not extending into the Lake a dis-
tance greater than 100 feet measured on a line parallel to the site side
lines as extended into the Lake) on the following conditions:
a. Dock is extended only to the extent necessary to meet the normal
navigable water depth the location had at 928.6 feet.
No additional watercraft may be docked than permitted prior to the
extension as authorized by the LMCD Code. If two or more neighbors
combine docks, landowners are advised that up to four restricted
(over 16 'feet long, or use motors of over 10 hp) watercraft may be
stored at a dock, provided the watercraft are owned by the owners
of the combined docks.
c. The extension shall be permitted only during the 1989 season.
d. The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock.
ee
Adjacent dock use area shall not be encroached. Dock must maintain
required side setback (10 feet for first 50 feet, 15 feet for next
50 feet, 20 feet over 100 feet) from the extended property line to
the dock or watercraft, without written permission of the neighbor
involved.
fe
Subject to inspection by the Henneptn County Sheriff's Water Patrol
to assure no hazard to navigation exists.
g. Apply red reflective material to'end and all sides of dock when ex-
tended beyond 100 feet in open water.
Residential docks in restricted channels will continue to require exten-
sion permits to assure interference with navigation is avoided.
Adopted by the LMCD Board of DireCtors this 24th day of May, 1989.
llen 1.. lturr, Chair
June 12, 1989
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
" NEWS RELEASE
Contact:
II1 JUN 1.51989
Gene Strommen
473-7033
SUBJECT:
Temporary Residential Dock Extensions Allowed Without Permit
Recognizing the need for immediate response and the potential for the
increased requirement for extensions of residential docks, the LMCD Board
agreed to waive the formal written application for a period of 90 days,
according to LM;D Chair JoEllen Hurt, Orono. It is also anticipated that
any repeat of further lake level drops experienced in the summer of 1988
could precipitate an unmanageable response for permits.
The Board is confident that residents will only extend their docks
necessary to reach the water levels needed to support their watercraft at
docks. The expense of dock extensions is a self-limiting factor in the
observations of some directors-
Persons interested in specific information may receive a copy of the
guidelines by calling the LMCD, 473-7033, or stopping in at the Wayzata offices,
402 E. Lake St., at the Wayzata Depot.
///
EDITORS NOTE:
Please pick up the GUIDELINES on the attached sheet, item l, a thru g,
and item 2, to assist your readers at this time with the new GUIDELINES.
Thank you[
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GUIDELINES FOR TE}~ORARY RESIDENTIAL DOCK EXTENSIONS
(without a formal permit application)
LHCD Code §2.01, Subd. 2 d) requires that during periods when the Lake level
falls below 929.4 feet and when so declared by resolution of the Board, the
Executive Director may issue permits.for temporary dock extensions beyond
the authorized dock use area subject to certain limitations.
Residential docks may be e~tended beyond the authorized dock use area
(DUA) (the DUA being the area bordering on the Lake which extends into
the Lake a distance equal to the site Lake frontage measured at right
angles to the side site lines, and not extending into the Lake a dis-
tance greater, than 100 feet measured on a line parallel to the site side
lines as extended into the Lake) on the following condttions~
a. Dock is extended only to the extent necessary to meet the normal
navigable water depth the location had at 928.6 feet.
No additional watercraft may be docked than permitted prior to the
extension as authorized by the LMCD Code. If two or more neighbors
combine docks, landowners are advised that up to four restric~ed
(over 16 feet long, or Use motors of over 10 hp) watercraft may be
stored at a dock, provided the watercraft are owned by the owners
of the combined docks.
c. The extension shall be permitted only during the 1989 season.
d. The extension shall be a temporary, seasonal type dock.
Adjacent dock use area shall not be encroached. Dock must maintain
required side setback (10 feet for first 50 feet, 15 feet for next
50 feet, 20 feet over 100 feet) from the extended property line to
the dock or watercraft, without written permission of the neighbor
involved.
f. Subject to inspection by the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol
to assure no hazard to navigation exists.
g. Apply red reflective material to end and all sides of dock when ex-
tended beyond 100 feet in.open water.
2. Residential docks in restricted channels will continue to require exten-
sion permits to assure interference with navigation is avoided.
Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this 24th day of May, 1989.
(~JoEilen L. lturr~ 'Chair
June 12, 1989
SUBJECT:
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
NEWS RELEASE
Contact: Gene Strommen
473-7033
1 "0 JUN ! 5 1989
Initial Schedule Announced on Eurasian Water Milfoil
Weed Harvesting
The first two weeks of Eurasian water milfoil weed harvesting have been
set according to Task Force Chairperson Tom Reese, Mound. This initial
schedule will be used as a guide for forecasting the remainder of the' summer
program. "Since the equipment capability and extent of the weed density are
inter'related, we want to get at least two weeks of experience before we
project the entire summer," Reese added. "Once we can verify how many acres
per day each machine can cut, we can then better project our bay-by-bay
schedule," he concluded-
The first full week of cutting is now scheduled to start June 26. That
begins after two days of planned training once the harvesters are launched.
The equipment is expected to arrive the week of June 19, the mid-week being the
likely arrival time.
The weed harvesting schedule projected for the first two weeks beginning
Monday, June 26, is as follows:
June 26-27 -- East Upper Lake in the vicinity of Shady,
Spray and Goose Island
" 28-29 -- Phelps Bay
" 30 -- West Upper Lake
July 3 & 5 -- Cook's and Priest's Bays
" 6 -- LaFayette Bay & Tanager Lake
'.
7 -- Brown's Bay
All harvesting will take place i.n the open water beyond the docks.
The areas initially selected are among those where the weed growth is most
advanced at this time, and boat traffic is significant in the areas.
It was interesting to note in the schedule planning that the Eurasian
water milfoil is several weeks to a month behind its normal growth pattern,
particularly compared to 1988~ A number of reports of weeds on the lake
surface have proven to be curly leaf pondweed which dominates in June and
then recedes as its cycle is complete by the end of the month.
The LMCD and its participating agencies thanks everyone for their support
and encouragement as'the program reaches its auspicious start on Lake Minnetonka.
BUREAU OF PUBLIC SERVICE
A-2309 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0239
Phone [612] 348-6509
NOTICE
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMPOST SITES UPDATE
SITE CLOSINGS
o The Hopkins site will close at 6:00 p.m. Monday, 3un, 5.
o The Eden Prairie site will close at 6:00 p.m. Monday, June 5.
SITE OPENINGS
i.~The Eagle Lake Park site in Plymouth will open Tuesday, June 6 at
~/~6:00 a.m. The site is on County Road 10, about 7/8 of a mile west of
IU.S. 16~. The site will be open Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.
o This site is for bulk {leaves and grass clippings) yard waste only.
No plastic bags, brush, tree limbs, or debris will be accepted.
o Lawn service companies should use this site and private homeowners
can use this.site provided they meet the above conditionsJ
The Maple Grove site will be opened TEMPORARILY Tuesday, June 6 through
Saturday, June 10. The site will be open 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The
site is located on ??th Avenue, about i mile west of 169.
o The site will accept bags only. No bulk, brush, or tree limbs.
~The Hassan Township compost site will open Monday~ June at a.m.
12
6:00
he site will be open Monday through Saturday 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
o The site will accept bagged and bulk yard waste. No brush or tree
limbs.
Access to the site is restricted by the Township. The time of day
will dictate the route that you must use to get to the site. The
enclosed map shows the access to the site. Remember, the incoming
route of lO1 to 144 to Willandale can only be used between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. The County will be monitoring
compliance, and if you are caught using 144 during the wrong hours,
you will not be permitted to use the site.
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal oppodunlty employer
Hassan
": Roger,s.
)rcoran
Dayton ,,
In-Coming Routes
Commercial hauleCs can use CR30 to CRll6 to Willandale
from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Commercial haulers can use 194 to .101 to CR144 to
Wi llandale only between the ~hours of 9:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. If you arrive before 9:00 a.m. or after 3:30
p.m., you must use CR30 to CRll6 to Wi llandale.
Ex i t ~ ng ,Route
A 11 comma r c i a 1
to 101.
haulers must exit Willandale to CR144
zzo2,
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
1612} 472-1155
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
June 22, 1989
Em Shukle, City Manager
Jim Fackler, Park Director
Removal of Aquatic Weeds From Shoreline
Currently, the Park Department is removing only those weeds that
accumulate on the swimming beaches. OF the six beaches that are
in use, we only see a need For weed removal at four areas, they
are: Mound Bay, Wychwood, Chester, and Pembroke. The other two
beaches, Canary and Centerview, normally have wind current that
keeps the weeds away.
To remove these weeds on a normal day it takes two maintenance
workers with a bobcat and a Five-yard dump truck From 7:30 a.m.
to lO:O0 a.m. This includes transportation between sites and the
trucking of 10 to 20 yards of weeds (2 to 4 trips to dumping area
at the Mound Union Cemetery).
I have received questions From residents regarding the City's
plans for removal of accumulated weeds on the shoreline. My
response is that we do not have the manpower or equipment to per-
Form this task. The topography, access, ground condition, and
disposal site pose enormous problems. Even if the material was
brought to the curb by the resident, we would still need an in-
crease in manpower, equipment, and a disposal site.
These weeds, when removed from the shoreline are quickly
replenished by the winds with increased boat traffic. This means
that the problem will be evident throughout spring, summer and
fall.
To-date we have not required that the aquatic weeds be removed
from the water. However, if the dock site holOer has raked the
weeds up above the water line, we require they remove them.
Memorandum
June 22, 1989
Page Two
The weekly trash collectors will not pick up weeds, even if they
are in bags. To dispose of them, the residents must take them to
the City of Minnetrista's compost site. There is no drop Fee,
but they are only open Monday through Friday ?:00 a.m. to.3:30
p.m. The City of Minnetrista said they would allow a Saturday
drop off if the City of Mound would provide supervision. They do
not want contractors of large scale operations to use the site.
The LMCD is recommending to shoreline residents who have a gar-
den, to use their gardens as a compost on-site.
The contractor that will be doing the MilFoil harvesting For the
LMCD on Lake Minnetonka, informed me ~heir equipment will only
harvest weeds in a water depth of ;~~ to ~4~' or deeper. All
weeds in lower depths to the shoreline would have to be main-
tained by the lakeshore owner. The areas that show locations of
MilFoil are adjacent to many Mound dock sites. Attached is a map
with the effected areas in Mound highlighted in pink.
.The LMCD is offering a seminar on July 8, i989 at a cost of
$25.00 per person. This seminar will be at the Gray Freshwater
Biological Institute on Lake Minnetonka (a program is attached).
Myself and one other member of the Park Commission will be at-
tending.
JF:pj
Enclosures
· Date:~: Saturday, July 8, 1989
Cc~c
$25/person (Freshwater Foundation members FREE)
Membership information below..
Place: Gray Freshwater BiologiCal Institute on Lake Minnetonka
PROGRAM
9:00 - 9:30 A.M. Registration (Coffee and donuts provided.)
9:30- 12:00 NOON
WHAT IS IT?. Learn about the history of Eurasian water milfoil.
HOW WILL IT AFFECT MY LAKE?. )ack Skrypek, Chief of Ecological Services for the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, will tell how Eurasian water milfoil can
affect recreational activities and lake water quality.
HOW HAS THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT-RESPONDED?
Up to 30% of the littoral acreage (less than 15 feet deep) of Lake Minnetonka is now
experiencing Eurasian water milfoil growth. Gene Strommen, Executive Director of
LMCD, will speak about their efforts in dealing.with this weed.
WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING iN MINNESOTA?
· A task force consisting of government agencies, private industry, and the Freshwater
Foundation has been formed.
· The 1989 Minnesota Legislature provided funding for Eurasian water milfoil control.
The bill's author, Senator Gen Olson, will provide information on its purpose.
WHAT CAN YOU DO? Gene Geller, a member of the Lake VVaconia Lake Association,
will tell what their lake association is doing to try to keep milfoil out of their lake.
12 NOON -3 P.M.
Exhibits, demonstrations and information sharing by experts in chemical, mechanical,
. aeration, and other methods to control Eurasian water milfoil..(Also open to people
not attending the seminar.)
DIRECTIONS TO FRESHWATER FOUNDATION &
GRAY FRESHWATER BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE
(not to ~ale)
~unty Rds. 15 & 19 are cuwing roads around
~ke Minnetonka, and these cu~es are not shown on the map.
Join the Freshwater Foundation
NOW and attend FREE
Join now for as little as $50 and receive
additional member benefits and discounts
throughout the year, including the
monthly water newspaper, U.S. Water
News, and other membership
publications.