The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-07-25 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 25, 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11, 1989, REGULAR MEETING, AND THE JUNE 18, 1989, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Pg. 2321-2325 PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS. Pg. 2326-2327 CASE ~89-828: ROBERT HARDING, 5238 SEABURY ROAD, LOTS 8 & 14, BLOCK 24, WHIPPLE, PID #25-117-24 21 0078. Request: VARIANCE (RECOGNITION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK). Pg. 2328-2338 CASE ~89-829: STEVEN SEVERSON (4500 WILSHIRE BLVD.), CAROL STODOLA (4510 WILSHIRE BLVD. ), & GORDON C. ANDERSON (2757 ANGLESSEY LANE, LOTS 3,4,5,6,7,8, SEly 1/2 OF LOT 2, AND 1/2 OF ADJACENT CAR_NARVON LANE, BLOCK 6, AVALON, PID #'S 19-117-23 31 0018/0019/ 0014. Request: MINOR SUBDIVISION· Pg. 2339-2350 CASE ~89-831: JAMES & SANDRA RUUD, 2233 LYNWOOD BLVD., LOTS 35, & PT OF 34, LYNWOLD ADDITION TO MOUND, PID #14-117-24 43 0045. Request: SETBACK TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Pg. 2351-2359 REQUEST FROM SKIP JOHNSON TO MOVE A HOUSE FROM ONE LOT TO ANOTHER. ISLAND VIEW DRIVE TO MANCHESTER ROAD. Pg. 2360-2363 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1988. 10. FENCE VARIANCE - BEHIND BALBOA BUSINESS CENTER. Pg. 2364 Pg. 2365-2369 Page 2319 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. PRESENTATION OF A REPORT ON THE FUTURE UPGRADING 0F CITY HALL FACILITIES AS DEVELOPED BY THE CITIZENS TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES, PAT MEISEL, CHAIRPERSON. Pg. 2370-2386 BID AWARD: CURBSIDE COLLECTION OF RECYCLABLES. Pg. 2387-2398 RESOLUTION ESTIMATING GENERAL LEVY FOR 1990 TO HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR. Pg. 2399 FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - 1989 SEAL COAT PROJECT - $33,731.58. Pg. 2400-2401 PAYMENT OF BILLS. Pg. 2402-2416 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: ae Financial Report for June 1989, as prepared by the Finance Director, John Norman. Pg. 2417-2419 Be Thank you note from Mary Lou & Jetty Philbrook. Pg. 2420 C. LMCD Mailings. Pg. 2421-2427 D. Planning Commission Minutes - July 10, 1989. Pg. 2428-2435 E. Park Commission Minutes - July 13, 1989. Pg. 2436-2439 'F. of Cities to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, November 25-29, 1989. Please let Fran know before August 28th if you are interested in attending. (You received this brochure separately.) Page 2320 112 JUly 11, 1989 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 11, 1989 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 11, 1989, following the Board of Review, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ah- rens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: city Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building offi- cial Jan Bertrand, Finance Director John Norman, Water & Sewer Superintendent Greg Skinner, City Insurance Agent Earl Bailey, and the following interested citizens: Thomas & Arlene Green, Jack Diesing, Bill McNamee, Daniel & Cheryl Johnson, Mike Muel- ler, Vern & Shirley Andersen, Will & Phyllis Johnson, Jerry Longpre, Paul & Pat Meisel. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten- dance. The meeting began at 7:00 P.M. with a discussion on the Central Business District Parking Program. There was discussion on the parking lots owned by Dakota Rail and ways to finance the pur- chase of these lots. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize the city Manager to negotiate an option to purchase the 3 park- ing areas owned by Dakota Rail. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MINUTES MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve the minutes of the June 27, 1989 Regular Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #89-830: THOMAS & ARLENE GREEN, 1725 SHOREWOOD L]%NE, LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINTw PID ~13-117-24 11 0022/0023/0018, MINOR SUBDIVISION The Building official explained the request and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition that Parcel A be a conforming lot size of 10,000 square feet. The applicants were present and asked that the Council approve their subdivision with the lot area in Parcel A of 9,000 square feet. The Council discussed the case and were not in favor of creating 113 July 11, 1989 an undersized lot. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #89-81 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOTS 2 & 3, BLOCK 5, AND LOT 18, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0022/0023/0018 (1724 & 1725 SHOREWOOD LANE), P & Z CASE %89--830 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REOUEST FROM MR. ARCHAUMBAULT, 1676 AVOCET LANE TO APPEAR BEFOBR TaE COUNCIL REGARDING EXTERIOR STORAGE Mr. Archaumbault was not present. No action was taken. DISCUSSION: DRAM SHOP LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS IN T~ CITY CODE - EARL BAILEY, R. L. YOUNGD~WL & AS- SOCIATES City Insurance Agent, Earl Bailey, was present and explained to the Council why the amount of dram shop insurance required for liquor license holders was lowered in 1986. There was discussion on how much dram shop insurance should be required and the pos- sibility of dropping the requirement for public liability in- surance which is also required by ordinance. MOTION made by Johnson seconded by Ahrens to lower the dram shop liability insurance requirement from $300,000/$300,000 to $100,000/$300,000 and remove the requirement for public liability insurance in the ordinance. Mr. Bill McNamee, owner of the Jock Club, and Mr. Jack Dies- ing, Mr. McNamee's Insurance Agent were present and requested that the Council drop the dram shop liability in- surance requirement to the Minnesota State minimums required by Statute. The Council discussed what other communities were charging. The seconder withdrew her second and the make%of the motion withdrew his motion. MOTION made by Johnson seconded by Ahrens to direct the Staff to check with other communities of our size to see what they are charging and bring this back to the 1st meet- ing in August. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. "NO PARKING ANYTIME" SIGNS FOR COUNTY ROAD 110 114 July 11, 1989 BETWEEN COUNTY ROAD 125 & 300 FEET WEST OF HIGHLAND BLVD. The City Manager explained that a resolution is needed to have the Council install more signs in this area. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 989-82 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO ERECT "NO PARKING ANYTIME" SIGNS ON A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 110 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT COMMERCE BLVD. & LYNWOOD BLVD. The City Manager explained that the City needs to authorize the Mayor and city Manager to execute an Agreement with Hennepin County for the installation of this traffic signal. RESOLUTION 989-83 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR & CITY MANAGER .TO SIGN A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR A TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEM - CSAH 110 at CSAH 15 (NORTH JUNCTION) (COMMERCE BLVD. AND LYNWOOD BLVD. ) The vote was unanimously in favor. MotiOn carried. CASE #89-824: DANIEL JOHNSONt 1766 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 3t SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID ~13-117-24 11 0135~ FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following: RESOLUTION #89-84 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 3, SHADYWOOD POINT; PID %13-117-24 11 0135, (1766 SHOREWOOD LANE), P & Z CASE 989-824 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 115 July 11, 1989 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $254,442.78, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: B. C. D. Ho Dept. Head Monthly Reports for June 1989. LMCD Mailings. LMCD Budget. Notice from the Department of Public Service on our applica- tion for a Community Energy Grant. Our application has been approved in the amount of $25,765. LMCD Representative's monthly report. Planning Commission Minutes of June 26, 1989. Annual National League of Cities Congress of Cities to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, November 25-29, 1989. Please let .Fran know before August 28th if you are interested in at- tending. (You received thisbrochure separately.) REMINDER: Meeting with CBD Parking Committee at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, July 11, prior to the Council Meeting. REMINDER: Dedication of Philbrook Park - 10:00 A.M., Satur- day, July 8. Please make every effort to attend. Legislative Contact Alert from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities regarding Dutch treat breakfasts that will be held in the metro area to seek input on issues for the policy development process and the yearly work program and agenda. REMINDER: Committee of the Whole, 6:30 P.M., July 18, 1989, City Council Chambers. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk I INUTE COMMITTEE OF. THE WHOLE JULY 18, 1989 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7 PM. Members present: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Jessen, Jensen, Johnson, Ahrens. Absent: none. Also present: City Manager, Ed Shukle; City Engineer, John Cameron; Water and Sewer Superintendent, Greg Skinner; Street Superintendent, Geno Hoff. A request to address the Council came from Mrs. Dee Rae Smith and Mr. Tom Sabin. They wanted to talk to the Council about the need for a teen center in the City of Mound. They indicated that there are youth hanging around downtown Mound with nothing to do and creating problems that they would like to see resolved. They felt that a teen center would be a great solution to resolving these problems. The Council offered moral support. Sabin and Mrs. Smith indicated that there would be a basketball game between the Mound Police Department and City Officials and these kids from downtown on Sunday, July 30th at 7 PM, at the high school. They invited the Council to attend. They also announced that there will be a softball game between the police department ahd city officials and the kids from downtown on Saturday, August 5th, at 2 PM. A discussion was then held on Public Works Outdoor Storage and alternative sites. John Cameron, City Engineer, outlined the latest investigation of the site east of city hall. A very lengthy discussion occurred, it was determined that this option was very expensive and that the City ought to consider leaving the storage of materials at Lost Lake. The Council did not make an official decision on this, but asked that the Staff develop a rough plan for "hiding" piles at Lost Lake and to have a cost estimate prepared on doing this for the next Committee of the Whole meeting. It was also the consensus to have the preliminary draft of the City Manager Performance Evaluation System reviewed at the next meeting as the first item. There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting of 'the Committee of the Whole will be Tuesday, August 15, 1989, 6:30 PM, at City Council Chambers. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ed Shukle City Manager ES:is 33 4150 153 33 4210 021 33 4270 032 33 4270 211 33 4390 031 33 4390 721 33 4390 991 33 4392 272 33 4392 847 33 4570 063 33 4600 123 33 4630 212 33 4630 781 33 4750 513 33 4750 751 33 4750 962 33 4840 901 33 4.842 ~83 33 4844 182 33 5000 301 33 5180 331 33 5180 392 33 5450 031 33 5510 211 33 5630 451 33 5690 421 33 5780 121 33 5870 692 55 5870 841 33 5900 091 33 5930 081 33 5960 872 33 5990 094 33 6200 961 33 6202 873 Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 85.90 75.26 104.96 97.03 285.15 76.36 262.41 102.92 133.91 299.97 110.23 88.53 150.08 50.00 161.53 143.90 155.65 117.46 90.37 127.42 82.96 251.58 151.98 143.79 129.58 71.96 172.77 151.51 94.74 132.16 123.72 189.03 171.95 114.53 104.86 7/18/89 33 6204 241 33 6204 542 33 6204 603 33 62O4 932 33 6206 031 33 6206 091 33 6206 211 33 6230 397 33 6410 091 33 6470 091 41 1990 091 $ 99.85 108.21 80.46 202.64 213.64 157.11 134.68 149.78 74.29 123.11 264.32 $6414.25 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-828 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOTS 8 & I4, BLOCK 24, WHIPPLE; PID #25-117-24-21 0078, (5238 SEABURY ROAD); P&Z CASE NO. 89-828 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 3 Feet to the west side property line, a 8.1 Foot side yard setback to the east, and a 15.5 Foot Front yard setback to the south to allow a ]1.6' x 8' kitchen addition for Lots 8 and 14, Block 24, Whipple; PID #25-117-24-21 0078; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a 6,000 square Foot lot area, ]0 Foot and 6 foot side yard setback, 20 Foot Front yard setback, and 15 foot rear yard setback, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations n~y be made to a uilding containing a lawful, noncon- forming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming principal structure setback to the west property line of 3 feet, a setback to the east 'property line of 8.1, and a ]5.5 foot front yard setback at 5238 Seabury Road, PID #25-117- 24-21 0078· e The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violations and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, spbject to all of the provisions and ' restrictions of Section 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 89-828 It is determined that the livabilfty of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the Fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. To construct a one story II.6' x 8' kitchen addition continuous with the east side of the building, setback 8.1 Feet From the property line. This variance is granted For the Following legally described property: Lots 8 and 14, Block 24, Whipple, PID #25-1]7-24- 21 0078. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property 'may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of Filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs For such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been Filed with the City Clerk. c. .Case No. 89-828~ Robert Hardtn~? 5238 SeaDury Road~ Lots 8 14, Block 24~ Whtppl'e~ PID #25-117-24-21 0078. VARIANCE: reco~nltion of nonconForf,,ln~ setback. " The City Planner explained that the applicant is proposing to construction a conforming addition to an existing nonconforming dwelling. He ad~ed that the proposed addition will greatly prove the roof line and =he home. Thal questioned the applicant if he plans on fixing up the Front of= the house. Mr. Harding stated that they plan on removtng the Front porch and will reside on the SeaDury Road stcle. AFter. Fur- ther questioning, he also stated that the t=oundation Is only 20 years ond ancl the house has been rew freO ancl now has ]00 amp electrical I~ower. MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by Clapsaclclle to prove staf=f= recon~enclatton f=or appr. oval of the variance to allow a kitchen addition of ti.6' x 8'. Hotion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July -~5, 1989. CITY of MOUND 534* MAY~,OOD ROAD (6*2, 472-~$5 CASE NO. 89-828 TO: FROM: DATE: CASE NO.: APPLICANT: ~OCATION: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of July tO, I989 89-828 Robert Harding 5238 Seabury Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 8 & 14, Block 24, Whipple PID #25-117-24-21 0078 SUBJECT: Variance (Recognition of Nonconforming Setback) EXISTING ZONING: R-3 One & Two Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance to do struc- tural repairs to an existing nonconforming dwelling setback in the R-3 zoning district to remove an existing kitchen portion of the home and remodel. COMMENTS: The R-3 zoning district requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet of lot area for a single family home, 10 foot side yard and a 30 foot front yard setback. For lots of record the side yard setback may be reduced by Ici'width to a 10 foot side yard and a 6 foot side yard setback. The front yard setback of 30 feet may be averaged with the adjoining structures but no closer than 20 feet. This request does require a 3 foot side yard setback variance to the west, a 1.9 foot side yard setback variance to the east, and a 4.5 foot front yard setback to the south. The lot size is 6,400 square feet which is conforming for a single family home. On December 12, 1978 this property received a street front and side yard variance, however, the resolution did stipulate that no further encroachments be allowed on said. property Lots 8 and I4, block 24, Whipple. Page Two CASE NO. 89-828 RECOMMENDATION: To afford the owner reasonable use of his land, as well as the topography conditions of this lot, staff recom- mends approval of a continuation at the east side at the 8.1 foot side yard setback to allow the owner to construct a one story kitchen addition of 11.6' x 8'. The blueprint submitted does in- dicate a patio door on the north end of the 8 foot projection, however, this Future deck would be less than 30 inches fro~ the grounO and would be allowed to be constructed within 2 Feet of the side yard at a Future date. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on July 25, 1989. :TY OF MOUND PART I l Address of Subject Property Addition Fee $50.00 ¢ VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Block ~ Day Phone Owner's Name Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address ~xisting Use of Property: Zoning District Day Phone HaS an application ever been made For zoning, varian~ ~tional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? y~)/(l~o.. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolu~T~n number(s) of: previous- resolutions must accompany this appl icatJon.) ] 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 requ,re, d by law. ~ .~ ~/~/~jE~x/~ · ' ' ure ~/~4¢~¢~/~-~--~ Applicant s $1gnat ~ Date I~11 IIit1111111111111111111111111 ///////////////////////////////////// //// FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: .Planning Commissio~ Recommendation Date :ouncil 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 located? 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 tn which it is located? Yes O~), 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 (~) topography ( ) soil · ( ) to<) sma]i ( ). drainage ( ) sub-surface ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) 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 Se Wa~ the hardship created by any other n~an-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (~C), No~)-. If yes, explain 33H IANCE APPLICATION Case No. Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance peculiar only to the DroDerty described in this petition? Yes ( ), No ~). if no, ho~ 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 explanat ion. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property tn the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All 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"xIl", and IS larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough For clarity show- ing the Following information: Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveway(s)/Street access, off-street parking, and utilities. Existing and proposed elevations. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and prlnc'ipal 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. December 12, 1978 , Coui~cilmember Swenson moved the following resolutlon, o/ RESOLUTION NO. 78-571 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO GRANT THE STREET FRONT AND SIDE YARD VARIANCE AS REQUESTEb WHEREAS, owner of property described as Lots 8 and 14, Block 24, Whipple has requested a two (2) loot"street front variance and a three (3) foot side yard variance on a Non-Conforming Use, and WHEREAS, said request is for the building'of a storage area and a different roof on garage. NOW,.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, M0.UND, MINNESOTA: That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does hereby authorize and direct the granting of a 2 ft. street front variance and a 3 ft. side yard var- iance. Further, the stipulation of no further encroachments be allowed on said property lots 8 and 14, Block 24, Whipple. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Polston and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in.favor thereof: Fenstad, Polston, Swenson, Lovaasen and Withhart, the follow- ing voted momln~t the ~mm~: none, h .... Ir~.. sa "~*~ "':on and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature at:ested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ~oX D RD 64 59 -o 60 PHI i! "'-/ 9 Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-829 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, AND 1/2 OF LOT 2, BLOCK 6, AVALON, PID #19-117-23-31 0018/0019/0014 (4500 & 4510 WlLSHIRE BLVD. AND 2757 ANGLESLY LANE) P&Z CASE NO. 89-828 WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 6, Avalon, PID #19-1]7-23-31 0018/0019/0014, 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 Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision require- ments contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been 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: All of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, the Sely ]/2 of Lot 2, and that part of vacated Carnarvon Lane, Block 6, Ava]on, PID #19-117-23-31 00]8/0019/0014. Page Two Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-829 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the Following descriptions as shown on Exhibits A, & C. (surveys): Parcel A: Lots 5 and 6, except that part thereof lying Northeaster)y of a )ine drawn From a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant ]6 feet North- easterly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 Feet Southwesterly From the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; Lot ?; Lot 8 except that part thereof )ying Easter)y of a line drawn From a point in the Souther)y line of said lot distant 16 Feet Southwesterly from the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 Feet Northerly From said Southeasterly corner; All in Block 6, Avalon, AND that part of the .Easterly half of Carnarvon Lane, vacated, lying Southerly of the Southwesterly extension of the northerly )in, of Lot 8, Block 6, Avalon. Parcel B: Lots 3 and 4, except that part thereof lying Northerly of a 1 ine drawn From a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 Feet Southerly From the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly I ine of said Lot 3 distant 25 Feet Northerly from the Southwester)y corner of= said Lot 3; That part of= Lots 5 and 6 lying Northeasterly of= a )ine drawn From a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 dis- tant 16 feet Northeaster)y From the Southwesterly cor- ner of= said Lot 5, to a point in the Northerly line of said Lot 6 distant 16 Feet Southwesterly From the most Northerly corner of= said Lot 6; That part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line drawn From a point in the Southerly Iine of said lot distant 16 feet South- westerly From the Southeasterly corner of said lot to a point in the Easterly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly From said Southeasterly corner; A11 in Block 6, Avalon. Parcel C: That part of Lot 2 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn From a point in the Northeasterly line of said lot distant 23.33 feet Southeasterly From the most Northerly corner of said lot to a point in the South- westerly line of said lot distant 25.29 feet Northwesterly From the most Southerly corner of said lot; AND that part of Lots 3 and 4 lying Northerly of a Page Three Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-829 line drawn From a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 Feet Southerly From the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 25 Feet Northerly From the South- westerly corner of said Lot 5, all in Block 6, Avalon. It is determined that the Foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant For Filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. This lot subdivision is to be Filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. de Case No. 89-829? Steven Severson of 4500 Wilshire BIvd.t Carol Stod°la of 4510 Wflshire Blvd.? and Gordon Anderson of 2757 Anmlesly Lane. Lots 3 - 8 and part of Lot 2T Block 6T Avalon,. PlO #19-117-23-31 0018/0019 & 19-117-23-24 0014. MINOR SUBDIVISION. The City Planner revtewed the request for subdivision. In 198] the same request was approved by the City, however, was never properly filed with the County. The proposed subdivision in- Planning Commission Minutes July 10, ]g89 Page Four volves realigning lot' lines to allow conforming setbacks to ali structures Involved. The Building Offictal'stated in her recommenOatton that if all of the persons with financial Interest do not sign the application, staff recommends a written letter from the financial institutions prior to the City Council hearing For. the subdivision. .Staff recommended approval of the minor subdiVision as shown on the at- tache~ Exhibtts A, B, and C. Two of the parties involved were present, they were M!chelle Severson and Mrs. Gordon Anderson. They commented that they did not know why the subdivision was never filed in 1981, that they were under the Impression it was already in effect. Severson commented that this subdivision would actually benefit her mortgage company since they are creating conforming lots. Mrs. Anderson stated that she lives on Anglesey Lane and there is no street sign. She requested a street sign be installed label- ing!Anglesey Lane. · MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to approve staff recommendation for approval of the minor subclivi- sion. Staff is also directed to erect a street sign for Anglesey Lane. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on duly 25, ]989 CITY of X I()L'ND 534: MA r",Z,/OOD a, OAE MOUND ¥!NNESOTA 612 CASE NO. 89-829 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of July 10, CASE NO.: 89-829 APPLICANTS: Steven Severson, Carol Stodola, and Gordon C. Anderson LOCATION: 4500 Wilshire Blvd., 4510 Wilshire Blvd., and 2757 Anglessey Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Sely 1/2 of Lot 2, and 1/2 of adjacent Carnarvon Lane, Block 6, Avalon SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-3 One & Two Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: In 1981 an application was received to subdivide this property in the same manner as presently being requested, this would remove a nonconforming side yard setback for Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon. The neighbors have agreed to realign the platted lots of record to allow Parcel A: Lot ?, 8, 1/2 of the vacated carnarvon Lane, and part of Lot 6 to allow a lot area of approximately 11,626 square Feet; Parcel B: part of Lot 4, and 5 and 6 with a lot area of approximately 8,236 square Feet; and Parcel C: Sely 1/2 of Lot 2, part of Lot 3, and part of Lot 4 with approximately 6,984 square Feet. The surveys that were sub- mitted at the time were never Filed with City for the legal descriptions, nor with the County. Staff suspects that there may have been mortgage companies that did not agree with the realign- ment of these lots, thereby we have suggested to the applicants tt~at all owners with financial interest sign the application for the subdivision. If all of the persons with Financial interest do not sign the application, staff recommends a written letter From the Financial institutions prior to the City Council hearing for the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor realign- ment of lot lines to allow conforming setbacks for all the struc- tures as well as conforming lot sizes as shown on the attached Exhibits A, B, and C. Platting requirements is granted for the minor subdivision. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on July 25, 1989. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property ~ be divided: 4500 W$1shire Blvd.: PIeD 19-117-23-31-0018, Lots 4 & 5, Block 6, Avalon 4510 Wilshire Blvd.: P][D 19-117-23-31-0019, Lots 6, 7, & 8 incl ½ ad.i Carnarvon Ln vacated, Block 6, Avalon 2757 Anglesey Lane: PID 19-117-23-24-0014, Lot 3 and Sely ~ of Lot 2, Blocl~-6 Avalon , To be. divided aa follow~: _All supportln~l documentsr such as sketch plans~ surveys, attachmentst etc. must be 'ubml tted In 8½" X ' 1" ' ~a:wdi/ng°rsh<~w~ ~i4°~]~: tP:tUr~ 8n~~ llp;'ol~.dY ,attach survey or :cla~:, n ,:::i ,OnXXo building sites', square foot area of each new parcel design°ted by number) S .EaUESTED FOR: Rla$on. APPLICANT {signature) Applicant's interest in the preper~y: I'y~OL~,v~C~/ f~,~ ~-~..~g This applicatie~ must be signed by all t~e OWNERS of the pre~erty, or an explan- ation given v/ny this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION 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 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE R~SOLUTIONOR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID.., A list of residents and °veers of pro~rty within~50 feet must be attached. Certificate of Survey for Carol E. Stodola Lots ~-~, BlOck 6, Avalon Nennepin Oounty, Minnesota ~I hereby certify tb~t this is a true and correct reoresentmtion of a survey of the bcuundaries of: Lots 5 and 6, except that dart thereof l!in-~ !,Jcrtheasterly of a line dr~u f~m a point in the Southerly line of said Lo~ 5 dis~n~ 16 feet Kortheas~erly fron the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 5, uo a ~int in the l~crtherly l~ne of said Lot 6 dis~t 16 feet Southwesterly froz ~ne ~st Northerly corner of said ~t 6; ~t 7; ~t 8 except tbmt part thereof lyfng ~steriy of a line dra~m f~m a point 'in the Southerly line of said lot dis~nt 16 feet Southwesterly f~m the Scuth- ~sterly corner of said lot to a ~int in the ~sterly line of said lot dis~nt 25 feet Northerly f~m said Southeas~rly corner; A~ in Block 6, Avalon, A~D that ~rt of the ~terly half of Carna~on ~ne, ~c~ted, lying South- erly of the Southwesterly extension of the ~ortherly'llne of Lot S, Block 6, A~ralcn, an~ the location of a~ e~st~ng b'~ldings thereon. It foes not pur~rt to show other i~.provements or e~c~ach:nents. ~~ ~ C-crdcn 2~. Ccf'fin P.e~o. 6564 Scale: 1" = 30' D=~ : 6-3-~! b~r.d S~elcr ~r.~ Pl~r~:er N : Iron ,marker Certificate of Survey for Linda Sanford in Lots 3-6'and 8, Block 6, Avalon Hennepin County, M~nnesota I hereby oerti~' that this is a true a.n.d correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lots 3 and ~, except that .Dart thereof lying Northerly of a line"dra~ from a point in the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 25 feet Southerly 1 from the Northeast- erly corner of said Lot 4, to a point in the Westerly line of said 'Lot 3 distant 25 feet Northerly from the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 3; That part of'Lots 5 and 6 lying Northeasterly of ~' a line dra~ from a point in the Southerly line of said Lot 5 distant 16 feet Northeasterly from the'South- ~esterly corner of said LOt 5, to a point in the Northerly line cf said Lot 6 distant 16 feet Southwesterly from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 6; That part of Lot 8 lying Easterly of a line dra~m from a point in %he Southerly line of said lot distant 16 feet Scuthwester!y from the-Southeasterly corner of said lot to a poin~ Ln the F~s-~rly line of said lot distant 25 feet Northerly from said Southeas%erl? corr~er; All in Block 6, Avalon, and the looation of all.existing buildings thereon, it does no~ purport to sho~ other improvements or encroachments. Scale: I" = 30' b~te : 6-3-81 o : Iron rarker Gordon R. Coffin Rec/~.c. 6064 L'~nd ~ ............ : Planner Long Lshe, ,._~r..,=~o~a Certificate of Survey for C~rdon Anderson . in ~ots 2-4, Block 6, Avalon Hennepin County, ¥~nnesota i hereby certify that this is a true and correct reoresen~tion of a s~ey of the boundaries of that part of ~% 2 lying Sout~.easterli of a line dra%~ f~m ' ~_eo Southeasterly a ~int in the Northeas~rly line of said lot dis~nt 23.3~ ~= * f~m the rost Northerly co,er of said lot ~ a point ~ the Southwesterly line cf said lot ~l_~nt 25.29 feet Northwesteri2? fror. the ~s% 3cutherly corner of said lot; ;2~D t?mt part of ~ts 3 and 4 lyLng l;crther!y cf a line dra~ frcm a point in the Easterly line of said ~t ~ dis~nt 25 feet ~utherly from the ' ~;o~thcasterly co,er of said ~t 4, to a ~int in the :,.esterly line of szid ~t 3 dis~nt 25 feet Northerly from the Southwesterly co,.er of said ~t 3, all in ~lock 6, Avalon, and the location of all existing b~!dlngs thereon. It does not p~rt to show other ir. prove~nts or encroachments. Scale: 1" = ~'te : ~--~-~.1 o : Iron ~rker \ ':51 $0 8 9 'g 9~.' 90'~ 8g 88 : F Jr t \ ~B~ ''~',, 6 \. '1' ~,\ 5' 6 7 II 12 I PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 89-831 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH NO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND TO ALLOW A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 35 AND PART OF LOT 34. LYNWOLD ADDITION TO MOUND,. PID #14-]]7-24-43 0045 (2233 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD), P&Z CASE NO 89-83I WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow construction of a detached garage with no designated public- right-of way within 20 feet from the east/front property line and 4 feet from the north/side property line for Lots 35 and Part of Lot 34, Lynwold Addition to Mound, PID #14-117-24-43 0045; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-! Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires for accessory structures a !0,000 square foot lot area, 4 foot rear yard setback, 4 foot side yard setbacks, and a 30 foot front yard setback, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon- Forming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as roi lows: The City does hereby authorize the construction of a detached accessory building .with no designateO public right- of-way with a lO foot front yard (east side) setback variance at 2233 Lynwood Boulevard, PID #14-I17-24-43 0045, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant submit a ~~i~ land survey of Part of Lot 34 ONLY on which the proposed detached accessory building will be constructed. Consideration fo~ future setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval due to the lack of public right-of-way frontage. PROPOSED RESOLUT ION Page Two Case No. 89-831 Ce The applicant must supply documentation to the City proving right-of-way access· The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth Oelow, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. it is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the fol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. a. To construct a 2~' x .2~' detached garage 20 feet from the east property line and 4 feet from the north/side property line· This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 35 and Part of Lot 34, Lynwold Addition to Mound, PID #]4-li7-24-43 0045. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Henri.pin County pursuant to Min- nesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, I989 Page Six Case No. 89-83I: James & Sandra Ruud~ 2233 Lynwood Blvd.? Lots 35 & part of Lot 34~ Lynwold Addition to Mound~ #]4-]17-Z4-43 0045. VARIANCE: setback to place an accessor~ building with no I~Jblic right-of-way. The City Planner reviewed the Building OFFicials recommendation for approval of the request to place a Oetached garage within 20 feet from the east and 4 feet from the north property lines upon the following conditions: l) The City of Mound grant the applicant a permanent driveway easement 14 feet in width across their property separating Lot 35 from part of Lot 34 all the way to Lynwood Blvd. The applicant submit a registered land survey of the parcel located in Part of Lot 34 ONLY on which the proposed detached accessory building wi 11 be placed. 3) 4)¸ Consideration for future setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval due to the lack of puOlic right- of-way frontage. The applicant shall set up an escrow account to pay for the costs of legal, engineering, and administrative fees to draft and record the easement documents. Applicant, James Ruud spoke on his behalf. He informed the Com- mission that since the application was made, he had located the Abstract and it states that from 1914 through 1974 that the property has a right of way on the 14' wide strip. He further stated that he has no problems with condition items 2 and 3, however feels that items I and 4 is now obsolete. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve staff recommendation for approval, including the follow- ing conditions: I) The applicant submit a registered land survey of Part of Lot 34 ONLY on which the prc~oosed detached ac- cessory building will be placed. 2) Consideration for future setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval doe to the lack of poblic right-of-way frontage. 3) The applicant S, upply documentation to the City proving right-of-way access. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, t989. CITY of MOUND CASE NO. 89-831 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 553:,54 (612) 472-1155 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of Ju~y 10, 1989 CASE.NO: 89-831 APPLICANT: James M. and Sandra K. Ruud LOCATION: 2233 Lynwood Boulevard LEGAL DISCRIPTION: Lots 35, and Pt. of 34, Lynwold Addition to Mound PID# 14~117-24-43 0045 SUBJECT: Setback to place an accessory building ~th no Public Right-of-Way EXISTING ZONING: R-1 single family and R-2 single family PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing to constrUct a detached accessory building 20 feet from the east and 4 feet from the north on a portion of Part of Lot 34 which is detached land from Lot 35. There is a strip of city-- owned land 14 feet wide along and in front of Part of Lot 34 which has been used by four of the neighbors; however, the neighbors detached buildings are on contiguous land with frontage on public right-of-ways. COb~MENTS: The property being considered is in two zoning districts, R-1 and R-2. The setbacks for detached accessory buildings are 30 feet and 20 feet, respectively from the front property lines abutting a public right-of-way, The land to the rear of Lot 35 (west) is one tax parcel with Part of Lot 34, but probably has two deeds. The area has had fill placed fora tocation~f the proposed garage to raise the area above the driving surface. The north side is proposed to be 4 feet from the property line which is a rear yard setback requirement. The more this garage is moved to the south the lower the ground level becomes. R~COMMENDATION: Staff would recommend approval of the request to place a detached garage (accessory building) within 20 feet from the east and 4 feet from the north property lines upon the following conditions: 1) the City of Mound grant the applicant a permanent driveway easement 14 feet in width across their property separating Lot 35 from Pt. of Lot 34 all the way to Lynwood Blvd. 2) The applicant submit a registered land survey of Part of Lot 34 parcel ONLY on which the proposed detached accessory building will be placed. 3) Consideration for future setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval due to the lack of public right-of-way frontage. 4) The applicant shall set up an escrow account to pay for the costs of legal, engineering, and administrative fees to draft and record the'easement documents. The abutting neighbors have been notified. /Y. is case will be referred to the City Council on July 25, 1989. ]TY OF HOUND' [ ,JU[~ ~ U ...... ' PART ! I ...~ , : .... '__ .... · Fee $50.00 VAR I ANCE APPL I CAT I ON PLANN I NG & ZON I NG COHH I SS l ON (Please type or print the t=ol lowing information.) f,_/: - __ .... Lot .-~'b-- ~-~$ ~/ Applica~'~ Name (iE other than o~ner) Block Address [xistino'Use o6 Property: Day Phone Zoning District Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, co~onal use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~yes [~o";_~ If yes, list Oate(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution ~umber(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this app)ication.) I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any reQuired'papers or plans to De 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 i~specting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may Applicant's Signature (/~r~d ~ ?._ Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date ,uncil Action: Resolution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ). IF no C · , specify each non-conforming use: Do~he.~~tng str-ur.J:ures comply with ali area· height, bulk· and ~tsbact~/ regulations for the zoning district: in which it is located? ' '~, 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 zon{'ng d i str i ct ? ( ) too narrow ( ) too smal 1 ( ' ) too shallow topography ( ) sot 1 drainage ( ) sub-surface shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordiDance was adopted? Yes (/~), No (). If yes, Wa's ~he hardshfp crea~ed by any o~her man-~de change, such as re]oca~fon oF a road1 Yes ( ), No~). If yes, explain ANCE APPLICATION Case No. ~.~_~Yjt/ 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" mortification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that wi i 1 permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, usina maps, s an, s.with dimensions and writ- Will g~anting o~ ~e variance be made, iA! ly detrimental ~o p~ope~y in the same zone. or to the enforcement of this or~inance~ PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch ~lans, attachments, etc.~ must be submitted in 8-1/Z"xll" size. If larder drawings are submitted~ one must be 8-1/2"x11"? and 15 larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough For clarity show- ing the Following information: Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), 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 lots· Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate "north" compass direction· Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. i ! i ! J I j ; I i J J I'/ '1 , ,.Ca J I !. '.1 : 2O ELM RD .5o0oo/L),'..~. ~. S F LYNWOOD BLVD I ,RT ~F LOT :~4 ~ I Planntng Commission Mlnu~es July 10,' 1989 Page Seven Request from Skip Johnson to move a house from one lot to another .(a~dtttonal inEormatton will be supplted at'th~ meeting). The reason Eot this request appearing before the Planning Co~fs- sion was reviewed. It was determined that the Planning Commis- sion is to determine if this house will aesthetically fit Into the character oE the proposed location, and hear if any neighbors object. There were no citizens present with a concern to this ~tter. Applicant, Skip Johnson, stated that since the house is being moved within the neighborhood, It should fit into the character of the area. He informed the Commission that the Building sPector has looked at the house and she stated the home was okay ~tructurally~' .He added that the house will be on lower ground on the new lot, thereEore wi1! not. look so high. · house moving onto Lots 7 & 8, Block 17, Ava!on. cart 1 ed unan I mous i y. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Michael, to approve the Motion Sk.tp Joh~o,~ jau I ~ proposing to move ~ house fro~its present location to a~ther lot in the sa~ ax~a, This lot i~ located as the second lot fx-o~ lslandview D~o on the ~orth side of ~anchester Rd. The house has been updated recently. It has a ney roof,comBination stox~ a~d ecree~,no ~intence siding. ~iring & plumbing in house im to code. New plumbing and wL~ing i~ base, st will, of ooux~ebe needed. Some Joist repair is required. All ite~ will be dow to code. There will be a site pla~ showing hov~e and garage location. Please put me on the next planning coaission adgenda. 5 / ] 6t ~, 6Z'"" $5 gg'-~ £1. ',,. .; ..':- , -)'. i. -'0 % I '1 L~/l~pur~l p/o L ...... I' · July 25, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1988 WHEREAS, Abdo, Abdo & Eick have completed and submitted the Audit for the year ending December 31, 1988, for the City of Mound and a copy is on file in the City Offices; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Audit that Abdo, Abdo & Eick have done for the City's system of internal audit control. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby accept and approve the Audit and Financial Report for the year ended December 31, 1988, as submitted by Abdo, Abdo & Eick. Planning Commlsslon ~lnu~es July lO, 1~8~ Page Eight DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL: Proposal to erect a fence behind the Balboa Business Center (abutting neiqhbors within 350' have been nottfleU). The City Planner reviewed the request to install a 6' high wooden fence to supply screening of the trailer storage area in the northwest corner of the Balboa site. He Further explained that the current Zoning Code does not adequately adOress allowable heights For Fences In industrial areas, therefore, if the p~oposal is found acceptable it ts suggested that a variance be granted. S0hns raised this issue of the trailer storage and stated that they are storing more than the allowed t2 trailers. He requested ..'that the City enforce this requirement. MOTION made by Michael, Seconded by Andersen, to allow the proposed 6' high wooden fence to be erected in the proposed location, and grant a fence variance until the fence ordinance is revised accordingly. Motion carried .unanimously. HEHORANDUH TO: FROH: DATE: SUBJ: Planning Commission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner July 3, 1989 Screening along Lynwood - Balboa The City has received the attached plan for improving the screening of the trailer storage area in the northwest corner of the Balboa site. Last year, the owner installed a number of spruce in the a-rea-which subs~q,.jently died. Because of the heavy canopy of the existing cottonwood trees, screening using plant materials in the area is unrealistic. Because of this fact, only two approaches are workable, 1) remove the existing cottonwood trees and plant an evergreen barrier or 2) install an architectural barrier such as a fence. Balboa has chosen the second alternative an is proposing a 6 foot high wooden fence in the area. The Mound Zoning Code does not adequately address allowable heights for fences in industrial areas. The code addresses commercial and residential fences but references industrial fences only in the context of the installation of barbed wire. Therefore, if the Planning Commission and City Council find the fence proposal to be acceptable, it is suggested that a variance be granted. When the zoning code is updated to clarify allowed maximum height, the issue of industrial fencing should be addressed. 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis; MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Plannfng Commission Minutes June 12, lga9 Page Eight MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by WeIland, to approve staff recommendation for denial of the variance. Motion carried 4 - 3. Those in favor: Sohns, Wetland, Thal, Jansen. ~l~se opposed: Andersen, Michael, Clapsacidle. 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 dune 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 Busfness 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-trai lets 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. City Council Representatives Report. densen reviewed the City Council meeting:of May 23, 1989. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Welland to adjourn the meeting at 10:IS p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: CA BRIDGE GRO May 18, 1989 Mr. Mark Koegler VanDoren-Hazard-Stallings 3838 Harbor Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 Dear Mark: Enclosed is our proposal from Outdoor Environment to construct a fence in the back of the Balboa Business Center. This fence will cut the visibility between the Toro semi-trailers and the houses across the street. The use of a fence may be more practical and effective than trees. We will remove the dead pine trees plants last year. Mark,' please call me if any other information approval of this plan. i- r~qulred for Sincerely, Cambridge Property Management President BCN/tlt Enclosure RECEIVED VAN DOREN HAZARD STALLINGS CAMBRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC. CAMBRIDGE INVESTMENTS, INC. · THE CAMBRIDGE GROUP 12301 WHITEWATER DRIVE * SUITE 110 · MINNETONKA, MN 55343 · (612) 933-0042 - FAX (612) 933.5148 roposal ' Page No. of Pages OUTDOOR eNVIRONMENTS INC::. 8810 13th Ave. Ees%, Sh~,kol:m~, MN 6537g 496.1000 PRJ~'OSAL SUBMITTI~O TO J/ / ~'} PHON[ I DAT[ . . [3 + 4- .i- ~t' ~t'O~l~J~t' hereby to furnish material and labor- complete in P~yment to be made as lollow$: accordance with above specifications, for the sum of: dollars ($ ). Ail material il. guaranteed to be as specified. All work to b~ completed in a workmanlike manner according to Standard practices. Any alteration or devilS*on Item above speed,ca, involving ex,.ri costs will be azecutld only upOn written orders, lnd will become eft charie over ind abOvl the estimltl. All agreemfnts contingent upOn Itri~'l$. iccidant$ days I)eyonCI our COntrol. C~nlr to clrry hrl. tOrnldO and othlr nlClSSary inlurlncl. Our workers Ire tully covlrld by Workmen's Compen~ltion Insurance. ition$ are' satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized work as specified. Payment will be made as outhned above. Date of Acceptance: Authorized Signature Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by Ua if not accepted within days. Signature Signature May 26, 1989 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL CITIZENS TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES ED SNUKLE, CITY MANAGER RE: ENCLOSED REPORT AND JOINT MEETING Enclosed is the report requested by the City Council with regard to the future expansion of city hall as prepared by the Citizens Task Force on Public Facilities. This report will be discussed mt the joint meeting of the Council and Task Force on Thursday, June I, i989, 7 PM, City Council Chambers. Please mark your calendar and come prepared to discuss the report. If you have any questions please contact me. ES:is eric CITI OF MOUND A REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF CITI HALL PREPARED BY THE CITIZEN'S TASK FORCE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES JUNE 1, 1989 ,s71 TABLE OF ¢ORTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL LIST OF EXHIBITS INTRODUCTION ASSESSMENT OF NEED STRATEGIES TO RESOLVE NEED CON CLU SION/RE COMME NDAT ION EXHIBITS A - F CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 JUNE 1, 1989 MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Dear Mayor and City Council: presented herein is a report on the future expansion of the City of Mound city hall facility as prepared by the Citizen's Task Force on Public Fac~lities. As y6u recall, you appointed us to serve in an advisory capacity to analyze the possible future expansion of the city hall. You also instructed us to look at the proposed need for an additional bay within the existing fire station. The report contained herein presents our findings and conclusions. We request that you review this report thoroughly prior to the joint meeting of the Task Force and City Council which will be held June 1, 1989, 7 PM in the City Council Chambers. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. look forward to the joint meeting on June 1st. We Respectfully submitted, Fat Meisel Chairperson Stan Drahos Bob Morgan Jerry Tasa Bill Thal Bob Tomalka City Staff: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Jim Faekler, Parks Director Len Harrell, Police Chief Ed Shukle, City Manager An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, na:ic-~! or 2~q, cr handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its pro_c"am., anC LIST OF EXHIBITS A ... Site Plan dated April 14, 1989 B ... Lower Levels, including Present Basemen. t Level, Present Police Department Level and Proposed East End Addition Lower Level dated April 14, 1989 and Revised April 27, 1989 C ... Main Level including Existing Building and Proposed East End Addition dated April 14, 1989 and Revised April 27, 1989 D ... Upper Levels including Present City Offices Level, Present Council Chambers Level and East End Addition dated April 14, 1989 and Revised April 27, 1989 E ... Elevations dated April 14, 1989 and Revised April 27, 1989 F ... City Hall Addition Preliminary Cost Estimate and City Hall Remodeling Preliminary Cost Estimate Revised April 27, 1989 and Received April 28, 1989 -2- I~TKODUCTION · Purpose In early 1988, the City Council indicated that it would like to establish s citizens task force on the future expansion of public facilities; specifically, city hall, police and fire,facilities. The City Council felt strongly that these facilities be looked at so that future planning for possible expansion could be undertaken and would have'input directly from local citizens. Once the task force was appointed, the Council indicated to them that they would like to see a final recommendation made within one year. They basically followed a guideline of the first six months assessing the need and the second six months developing strategies to resolve the need. Upon appointment it was the task forces' understanding that they would be an advisory committee to the City Council on this particular issue. They saw themselves as an arm to the City Council and working with the Council in a partnership to analyze needs and develop solutions. FOCUS The task force began meeting in June of 1988. The first item of business for the task force was to request specific information -from' the staff that would pr. critic background to the task force regarding the city hall facility and fire station. Included in this information was: 3. 4. 5. Operation and maintenance costs for the city .hall and fire station. Handicap accessibility requirements for public buildings. Existing plans for city hall. What the city staff would like to see regarding their space needs and requirements. Outdoor storage plans for the site adjacent to the west of city hall. This in'formation was distributed prior to the July meeting of the t'a s'k force. At the July and August meetings the task force toured the city's fire station, Island Park Hall, the old Island Park public works garage and the Depot at Mound Bay Park. Following this tour, the needs were prioritized for the purposes of establishing goals: - Police Department space - City Hall inadequacies - Fire Department space - Council meeting space - Parking - Handicap accessibility -3- - Storage - At its October meeting, ~he task force decided that further study of city hall and the police department was necessary. The fire department needs were important, but their priority was not as high at this time. The fire department basically requires a new repair bay with sprinkler systems in the building. The repair bay area entails an addition of approximately 24' x 80', at an estimated cost of $121,000. ASSESSMEMT OF MEED Background of Facility The City of Mound city hall was constructed in 1974. The building was a very necessary solution to the city hall inadequacies at that time. The city hall had been located in downtown Mound at the' building to the west of the present Arco/ Century Auto Body Shop and east of the House of Moy Restaurant. City hall was designed by an architectural firm in Minneapolis, who apparently had designed the Hennepin County Library in Mound. It was an architectural design very unique 'to municipal facilities and aesthetically pleasing to the site located on Maywood Road. ' Over' the years, the f~cility has experienced a number of problems. These are essentially inadequacies that were apparent initially with the construction of the building or as the years went by. They include: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. '8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Structural defects - handicapped accessibility Sound Control Mechanical system Skylight breakage ~ Window leakage Fogging and dirt between double glazed windows Cedar siding expansion/contraction Weight capacity as it pertains to file storage Fire sprinkling system Alarm/security system Exit lights Redecorating - ceramic tile, carpet ~nd mop boards Emergency operating equipment Office space shortage - poor office design and space requirements for existing staff and any future additions to staff Computer room Conference rooms Council Chambers File storage Employee lounge Lower parking lot improvements Steepness of driveway -4- 22. 23. Landscaping Po1 ice Department - structural defects (handicapped accessibility, sound control and security) - office space shortage investigator/sergeants offices - property area - files - risk free booking area - conference room - "quiet room" - holding cell' - sallyport Space'Requirements The staff looked very closely at the existing facility and at a task force meeting distributed a document listing the existing square footage and what additional square footage would be needed for the building. These figures were based upon some of the i.nadequacies that were listed above. At this point in time, it was necessary for the task £orce and staff, to have professional assistance in determining the actual square footages necessary as well as to review various options that would address the inadequacies listed above. We hired .Steve Jantzen, architect with u^~-~ Frank ROos. ~*~,,e had ~oo~ *h~ architect for the recently constructed public works facility in the City of Mound. The staff was very confident that Mr. Jantzen could prepare some conceptual draWings of various options so that ideas could be put on paper and analyzed. He was a~sisted by John Cameron, City Engineer. STRATEGIES TO RESOLVE NEED Separate Facilities For Police Early on, discussion was held with regard to possibly building a separate police facility adjacent to the existing fire station. By doing this, we would have police and fire together which are t'wo very related types of services. The space that would be given up by the police department could be occupied by the city hall with some remodeling. This option, however, was deemed too expensive. It was determined that an excessive amount of money would be spent on a new facility and remodeling would still have to be carried out in the existing city hall. Existing Structure Since the task force decided they wanted to look at the existing structure in terms of expansion for bOth city hall offices and police, concept drawings were prepared for each direction. In other words, drawings were analyzed for expanding north, south, west and.east. It was the consensus that the expansion of the building to the east prov. tded the best option. East Option Factors which contributed to the consensus that the task force reached with regard to the east facility were as follows: The east end option was economical· This is primarily due to reducing the amount of remodeling that would have to be done to the existing facility· The site plan provided for removing a steep grad'e that currently exists in the driveway area, which has been a safety factor from time to time· The existing parking lot would be retained to provide approximately 47 parking spaces. A minimum number of trees would have to be removed· 10. 11. 12. A larger city council chambers would be provided. At present the council chambers will seat about 65 persons. A new council chambers would seat approximately 120. Larger offices would be part of the remodeling project and would resolve th~ office space shortage that currently exists. The police facility, a very high priority, would be an up-to-date facility which would resolve the inadequacies listed within the existing police department. The handicapped accessibility issue wbuld be resolved due to the fact that an elevator would be installed which would service each floor· Additional space created by the remodeling as well as new space added from the addition would provide additional storage areas. Sound control measures would be utilized in order to reduce the noise level of the building· The city's computer processing unit would have its own r.oom that would be secured and wouId be free from dust, noise and other elements. Conference rooms would be added to provide meeting space for depa'rtmental meetings and staff meetings conducted by the City Manager. Other meetings of a smaller scale could be held within the conference rooms. 1~, The building would be brought up to code. Future expansion space is also included within the conceptual plan. Some of the ideas that were put into the east end plan were concepts which the task force had seen utilized at South Lake Minnetonka's new public safety building in Excelsior and the City of Chaska's police facility. The task force had a tour of both of these facilities and came away with a clearer understanding of how the special needs o£ police departments are being met in other cities. The tours were also taken to provide assistance in formulating recommendations with regard to the police department facilities. It is important to note that the task force came away from the · tours feeling that the city hall and police facility should make a statement about the type of community and the type of services that the City of Mound provides. The task force felt that because city hall is adjacent to a residential neighborhood that · the building should fit into the neighborhood and that all future buildings make a proper statement within the area that they are erected. The task force fel't 'it Was beneficial that 'they see other, police departments on how they make use of their space. Exhibits "A" through "E" Show the conceptual drawings as of )....4/27/89 prepared, by Steve Jantzen. The task force has reviewed these plans with the City Council. This was done at the task force meeting held on May 4, 1989. Further discussion with regard to the plan will be held at the June 1st meeting. Cost Estimates The cost estimate for the east end option is contained in Exhibit "F". Basically the useable square footage 0'f the existing facility as it presently stands is 4120 sq. ft. The remodeling of the existing structure would provide an additional 1200 square feet o.f useable space and the new addition of 5000 sq. ft. of useable space would bring the total square footage of useable space t.o 10,320 square feet. The architect has used the square footage cost of $80 .per square foot on the new addition and a s'li'ghtly less figure on the remodeling of the existing space. As you can see, the preliminary cost estimate for the addition totals $486,734. The preliminary cost estimate for the city hall remodeling is $216,770 for a total of $703,504. Financing We have identified basically two methods by which a project of this type could be financed: 1) Bond issue, 2) Capital improvement debt service fund. If the bond issue method was selected, a referendum vote would -7= have to be taken in order to get approval to go ahead wi.th the project. Based upon recent referendums with i.e.. City' of Mound public works facility and school district, etc., the task force would not recommend the bond issue financing method. The staff has suggested to the task force and has discussed with the City Council the use of the Capital Improvement Debt Service fund. This fund accounts for all assessment projects and bonds issued by the City of Mound before 1978. The cash balance at the end of 1988 is $2,269,000. This fund could be tapped for this project without placing additional tax burden on the local taxpayers. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION As ha's been stated, the task force was appointed by the City Council to assess the future expansion needs of the City of Mound with regard to city hall,' police and fire facilities. The task force spent many hours meeting, reviewing materials, touring existing facilities and area facilities. The task force believes that the expansion of the city hall is necessary to address the inadequacies that have been identified. It believes that 'the police department facility needs to be upgraded so it can provide .its services within a better working environment. Further, it believes that a new addition and 'remodeled facility will accomodate the needs of the City for many years to come. The task force understands that it is strictly advisory and has been 'formed to assess needs and propose solutions, in addition, it believes that it should work in partnership with the City Council to resolve the problems that have been indentified. It strongly recommends that remodeling of the existing city hall be done and an addition be placed on the building on the east side as Exhibits "A" through "F" have identified. It further emphasizes that delay will cause the problem to become worse. It is in the City's best interest to act now or face additional problems and increased costs. The .task force recommends that the ground be broken for the project in the spring of 1990, with occupancy in the fall of 1 990. The City Council is requested to give the Task Force's redommendations serious consideration. If the City Council has any questions, please feel free to contact any member of the Task Force or City Staff. _~o. --- ] l_ MOUND CITY HALL EXPANSION PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE AMENDED EXHIBIT F. City Hall Addition 1. Building 2. Site Work SUBTOTAL Contingencies (10~) TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Observation and Contract Administration (3~) Architectural Fees (9%) TOTAL PROJECT COST CITY ~%LL ADDITION City Hall Remodeling 1. Police Department 2. City Offices 3. Main Level/City Clerk, City Manager, Mail Room 4. Reception/Entry Area 5. P~uildi,,g Zns~cctor/Park Department 6. Miscellaneous Area 7. Sprinkler Systems 8. New Exterior Finish 9. Replacement of Existing H.V.A.C. System sUBTOTAL Contingencies (15%) TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Construction Observation and Contract Administration (4%) Architectural Fees (12%) TOTAL PROJECT COST CITY HALL REMODELING $ 392,000.00 76,000.00 $ 468,000.00 46,800.00 $ 514,800.00 15,444.00 46,332.00 $ 576,576.OO $ 50,000.00 26,000.00 21,000.00 23,000.00 11,000.00 15,000.00 16,000.00 35 ooo.oo 35,000.00 $ 232,000.00 34,800.00 266,800.00 10,672.00 32,016.00 $ 309,488.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST MOUND CITY HALL EXPANSION $ 886,064.00 Revised 07/19/89 Recycling Systems- BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES Minneapolis District Recycled paper ~'~ July 20, 1989 MS Joyce Nelson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Nelson, BFI Recycling Systems of MN, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for the collection of recyclables for the City of Mound. I am confident that after examining this proposal, that you will agree BFI Recycling Systems can provide the high level of service that Mound requires for a successful recycling program. You will notice our preference for a September 1st start up date. Our goal is to provide new equipment and thoroughly trained staff to service the City of Mound. We would be happy to continue our Saturday collection through August and even add more Saturdays to the schedule if needed. I am looking forward to the opportunity to discuss this proposal with you. Sincerely, ~John D. G. Moreland District Manager JDGM/ w 8661 RENDOVA STREET · CIRCLE PINES, MINNESOTA 55014 · (612) 784-3262 BF! RECYCLING SYSTF..NS OF H~NNESOTA, ZNC. PROPOSAL TO PROVZDE RECYCLZNG SERVZCES for I~UND, N~NNESOTA July 20, 1989 COI~ANY OYERVZEW BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. maintains offices at 9813 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota $5347. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc, {BFI), the parent company of BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc., has rapidly grown into one of the largest publicly-held companies in the waste services industry. The company maintains its corporate headquarters at the Browning-Ferris Building, 757 N. Eldridge at Memorial, Houston, Texas 77079. BFI and its subsidiaries and affiliates employ some 18,200 persons in 300 operating locations in the United States, Canada, Kuwait, Puerto RICO, SauU1 Arabia, Spain, Venezuela, United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands. BFI's primary business is the collection and disposal of solid waste for residential, municipal, commercial and industrial customers. Worldwide the company has approximately 4.3 million residential accounts, 500 municipal contracts and over 490,000 commercial accounts. BFI owns and/or operates 89 sanitary landfills where it annually disposes of more than 22 million tons of solid waste. The company is also engaged in municipal and commercial sweep- ing, recycling services, transfer station services, hospital waste services, portable restroom services and is active in the waste-to-energy field. BFI is at the forefront in the handling, treatment and disposal of chemical and hazardous wastes. Through a subsidiary, CECOS International, the company operates 8 facilities in 7 locations for the treatment, transfer or disposal of liquid industrial or chemical wastes. As of September 30, 1987, the end of fiscal 1987, the company had total assets of $I.9 billion and produced a net profit of $172 million on sales of $1 7 billion. ' As a leader in Browning-Ferris the solid waste industry in North America and the world, Industries, Inc. (BFI) has the experience and resources to help Mound fulfill its solid waste recycling needs now and into the future~ BFI's commitment to recycling and resource recovery extends into all levels of resource recovery technology. Currently, our projects include the "high tech" 2,100 TPD resource recovery facility in Hempstead, New York and the innovative "Recyclery" in San Jose, California, a unique integrated recycling facility which combines the recovery for secondary materials, composttng, wood fuel production, a public recycling buy-back center, education center and landfill operation for those materials unable to be processed or recovered. Our experience in the curbside collection of recyclables ranges from the 63,o00 homes being serviced under the Edmonton, Alberta contract, to the 9,200 home contract with Blaine, Minnesota. We have the ability to evaluate the needs of a municipality and "tailor make" a program to satisfy those needs. Due to our financial strength and outstanding performance record in the solid waste industry, Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. is able to meet virtually any bid or performance h~nd ~equ(~ment ~et by a mun(¢tp~lity. §urmds are prov~ueO to BF! through the Federal Insurance Company, a member of the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies. Federal Insurance Company is rate "A+" in the Best Ratings guide. P.' qO - Curbstde Collection Programs 6~lne~vllle, FL 1st curbstde recycling program in the state Phil Smith (904) 374-2239 or Car) Smart (904) 374-2215 6,500 homes Fra~kl!n Lakes, ~j Frank DeRosa (201) 891-0046 3,000 homes L_Aafaye, tte Paris,h,t L~AA Mayor - Bobby Guldry (3]8) 233-1130 Mayor- Lewis Kearn (318) 332-2171 _Rpmsey, N~J_ Ntck'Saros (201) 825-3400 5,000 homes 4,000 hmnes Edmonton, OntaKio Francis )lugo (403) 428-6748 Zan Ftgo (403) 428-5706 63,000 homes Bob Shannon (201) 891-7000 4,665 homes B~l~lne, HtQpesgta Roark Hayer (612) 784-6700 9,200 homes N~ew Hope~ MN Tom Bublitz, HRG Coordinator (612) 531-5440 5,000 homes BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. brings to the Mound Recycling Program national recycling experience and the financial resources of a major corpor- ation. The high standard of service and innovative promotional programs provided by BFI Recycling systems will make the Mound municipal recycling program a continued success from the very start of the reinstitution of curbside recycling. ~escriptton of the Program BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. is pleased to propose the following recycling program. Collection BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. will provide the collection and marketing of those recyclable materials outlined in the RFP, food and beverage glass and cans, and newspaper. Once the Mound Program is established and once stable plastic (PET) and corrugated markets develop, BFI Recycling Systems will work with the City to include these materials at a mutually agreed price. Collection Optto~s - Twice a week pickup - curbside. BFI Recycling Systems of MinnesJ~a, Inc. will collect the City of Mound on a two (2) day schedule according to the City boundaries. BFI Recycling Systems will work with the City to coordinate and publicize the collection schedule. This two-day schedule will be built around the same day as garbage collection as much as possible. The days we propose are Mo~nday and Tu~)day. ~tssed Pickup~ or Questions BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. has a full-time office staff to handle any calls from Mound residents. Any and all questions will be handled quickly and politely. All calls regarding missed pickups will be logged .daily. This log will be available for review by Mound on a monthly basis. Any missed pickup calls will be forwarded to the Operations Department and acted on by 12:00 p.m. The miss will be picked up before 4:00 p.m. the same day. All BFI Recycling trucks are radio dispatched. Any misses called in after 3:00 p.m. will be picked up the following day before lO:O0 a.m. Any corrective action taken due to a missed pickup or complaint will be documented and signed by the driver and supervisor. Service lS the number one priority of BF! Recycling Systems. H__olida~ Schedule BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. will adjust holiday pickups to best accommodate current refuse collection schedules. Equt.pment BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. is using 23 cubic yard Eager Beaver Recycters mounted on International chassis /picture included). These units allow source separated materials to be picked up and kept segregated until the materials are delivered to market. We realize quality of recyclable post consumer goods is critical to successful marketing. BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. has a fleet of over 35 units. The trucks that will hm ~cmH ~, M~,,.~ will L_ ................ u: less than three months old. Promotion and Education Promotion and education part of our service, informational brochure. residents what materials are to be collected, how the materials should be prepared, the benefits of recycling and a phone number for any questions the residents may have. are the key to any successful recycling program. As BFI Recycling Systems will develop and distribute an (Sample attached) This brochure will inform the BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. has developed a program which can be presented to civic groups, students, etc. BFI Recycling System will work with the City to develop advertisements and press releases to update the citizens on the progress of the recycling program, Attached to this proposal please find examples of literature used in other BFI Recycling programs. Documentation BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota, Inc. will provide to Mound all tonnage figures of materials collected on a monthly basis. This information will include scale tickets and a percentage breakdown of materials collected. BFI Recycling Systems of Minnesota is currently working with Turs$o Companies/Vertical System Inc. on a bar code system for recycling programs. The pilot program in Blaine, Minnesota has provided some very promising and accurate results in the area of participation information and marketing strategies. QUESTIONS 1 - 9 TO BE COMPLETED AND MAILED IN WITH COVER SREETS What collection cost for all units including businesses (bi-monthly). cost/ton $ $81.00 OR cost/unit collection $ $1.45 OR Flat/fee month $ $4640.00 What collection cost for all units including business (Weekly starting in January of 1990). cost/ton $ $115.00 OR cost/unit collection $ $2.05 OR Flat/fee month $ $6560.00 What preparation is required before recyclable materials are placed on the curb. (check all that apply) NEWSPRINT GLASS X Bag X Bundle Box container other (specify) ALUMINUM:a/id tin X X wash rinse remove labels smash other (specify) X rmnvm lids and rings Preparation of additional recyclable materials: In Jan~ry_~ add corruqated that should .be bundled in 3' x 3' wash rinse remove labels smash other (specify) Identify any aspect of this program which would cause a problem or present difficulties to your business to undertake this program. 11. 4. What is the extent of your current recyclables collection operation? 94,000 Number of units now serving OR 22 Number of municipalities servered ~.._e~y~li~g AND 7 rm~nth~ Number of years in CONTINOUS~business Recycling since January 1, 1989 Please furnish references of previous/current customers. Are your recyclable materials collection trucks/vehicles clearly marked and identifiable with your company's name? X Yes No Number of trucks/vehicles used for your recycling hauling servies. 7 o 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 the equipment, facilities and number of employees needed for your recycling operation. 8. Is your business for profit or not-for-profit? profit 9. Other comments: NAME OF COMPANY BFI Recyclin~ Syst~ns of MN, Inc. DATE 7/20~89 TELEPHONE 61 2-941-2860 12 BEI~yI:LE AMERICA 3003 Butterfield Road, Oak Brook, IL 60521 ® ('312) 572-8823 Minnesota Area Office Post Office Box 9 Circle Pines, MN 55014 Phone: (612)784-8349 July 19, 1989 Ms. Joyce Nelson City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, M~ 55364 Dear Joyce: Thank you for inviting Waste Management to participate in Mound's recycling program. Ye are very sorry that we would not be able to meet the September 1, 1989 deadline for service that you have requested in your RFP and still maintain our standards for efficient and reliable service. Our capacity may change rapidl3, however, and I will notify you immediately if we become able to accommodate your needs. Please accept our apologies. We hope that we will someday have the opportunity to work with your City. In the meantime, please let me know if we can be of assistance. Sincerely, L n~~Morgan Program Development Manager LM/jm Loss of newsprint market o darken'S recycling picture By $~eve B~ndt and Paul Custafson and Browning'Fen'is Industries Inc. SlaffWriters: ... - _-'_:'.,:': (BFI), have speeded up their efforts - - -' - - '~'~" .... to capture a larger share of the recy- The' rec~ycling 'Pi~lre':in';:the'~Twi~'. cling market in the Twin Cities. Cities hasn't been the same since '-' - May when the market for rec.vclable n. ewsprint collapsed. Consider. [] Costs paid by' t~unkipali'fie~i curbside collections of recyclable ma- terial have soared, in some cases more than doubLing. [] Super Cycle, the Twih Cities d6mi- Recycling costs are up in cities such as Roseville, where curbside collec- tion was'discontinued for a month. Super CYcle raised its charge to the city from $52 to'$90 a ton. St. Paul's Neighborhood Energy Consortium negotiated a new contract with Super Cyclethat Will increase its Costs from' $75 to $85 a ton... rant recycler, nearly folded. It has remained in business but at a third of" 'In Minneapolis, 'where Super Cycle its size, leaving many of the commu-, served half the households, recycling nities 'scrambling to find someone tO fees jumped from $38 to about $80 a pick up their materials. . ton under a temporary arrangement ' · involving city crews and a haulers' [] Two of the nation's largest waste hauling firms, Waste Management Recycling ~ontinued on page 6A ReCycling - Continued from page lA The Lake Minn'etonka C°mmtmit~i~' Shorewood was'forced to accept a sole bid from Waste Management of Minnesota lnc. after: Super Cycle dumped the city. Recycling will 'cost an estimated $45,140 annually, rath- Or than the $18,720 budgeted. ' Shorewood 'MIl'i3a~ sf.96"a h6use2,. hold for two pickups monthly. Next- door. Excelsior will pi3' only $1.25 for weekly service because it signed its contract last year. · The sharp price increases result from a collapse of !~o,~J newsprint markets' this spring that forced some recyclers to pay for disposal of a produ,t. they'd been able to s~ll 0nly a short- time earlier. Super Cycle was caught ~fith city contracts that didn't cover its costs and in the face of mounting losses told officials in 31 dries that'it ,~as suspending collecti6ns~ ' ~ :.:':~.. Waste Managementand"Brownmg' '~' Fen-is Industries Inc. (BFI); the tion's lwo largest garbage firms:' moved as quickly as they could to fill the void. NOV,,, after winning its first recycling collection contract only last J~inuarY, BFI is has nearly 90,060 homes in 27 communities in the region, according to Kevin Nordby, a division vice president. Waste Management began. ~ts first recycling pickups a year ago' and now serves 78.000 homes in cities, according to Lynn Morgan;' program development manager. The firms already were rapidly p~nding their recycling operations before Super Cycle stumbled. That's because counties were forcing cities to institute recycling programs in an Recycling ~.ontined on page gA .effon ~ m~~?of"~fis for.' M~em~ ~ wen, ~um~ BUt W~e M~iiement in ~c~ ~n~ fo~ Suer Cycle· ~tom- ~d ~" G~d~ Jeff S~ 'Pm not happy a~t new 'pn~ ~e muni~ifi~-are ~cling su~di~ ~m a bu~ W~ Minasement and ~H ~dy ~e l~'phye~ in a r~on~.' ~e .$75 a mn ~e mun~ ch~ ~ge-haffiing mrket mill chamc- haul~m m~ by ~y sma~ harem ' ~bage ~s~ Hoover, ~e ~fidpat~ o~n~g 6f Rob Fulto~ a Hennepin ~unty~m~ ~nter to heal~ direr, pr~s r~chbles, is exp~t~ to because the county will assume the. risk of marketing collected materials. A similar arrangement was devised in Dakota County this. spring. The new Super Cycle,. acquired in June by Recomp Inc., has shrunk to a third of its size before the newspa- per glut and has no curbside collec- tion contracts with cities, in Henne- pin County. It now serves most of SL Paul, the suburban Ramsey County cities of Falcon Heights, Roseville and Shore- view, and Fridley in Anoka County. In addition, Super Cycle is negotiat- ing with Ramsey County to continue to operate a processing center for recycled materials at 775 Rice St. in St. Paul The leaner SuPer.CYcle is a more effident oPeration and ready to com- pete favorably with its larger comPet- itor~ for new business in the eastern metro area, said Supper Cycle Vice President Tom Glander. "In Ramsey County, where we've e!ecled to operate, we've shown we cm compete agai.nst BFI and Waste "I.think Super Cycle had beed'under-. Cutting its costs.. Essentially, it costs about the same to nm up and down a street and collect things whether it's recyclables or somebody's garba~. And we think the n,w contract pri~s are about where (garbage collecti~ rates) are at," Fulton said. .... '~'-' One good outcome of Super Cycle's collapse in June is that more cities are exploring cooperative efforts to develop systems to collect garbage, recyclable materials, yard waste and household hazardous waste. In Ramsey Count)', the cities of Ar- den Hills, Mounds View, New Brigh- ton and Shoreview have agr~'d to consider creating a waste district and contract for collection services.- "We're interested in looking 'at ll}e whole waste management program m a broader context. We might be balk- ing about getting into composting and curbside collection of yard and household ba~"-ardous wastes along x~Sth garbage and recyclables," said New Brighlon City. Manager Dave Childs. RESOLUTION NO. 89- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ESTIMATED LEVY TO HENNEPIN · COUNTY ~UDITOR WHEREAS, in the 1988 Legislative Session the Legisla- ture adopted a Truth in Taxation law which requires the City of Mound to propose their levy to the County Auditor by August 1, 1989, for the taxes payable 1990; and WHEREAS, the 1989 Legislature proposed a change in the certification date from August 1, to September 15, 1989, but the Omnibus Tax Bill was vetoed by the Governor; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the current law 'which is the 1988 law on Truth in Taxation, the City of Mound must now notify Hennepin County by the August 1st date; and WHEREAS, under the current law the penalty for not notifying the County of the levy by August 1st would mean that the City could not levy more than the 1989 levy limit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby notify the Hennepin County Auditor of the following estimated levy: SPECIAL LEVIES Bonded Indebtedness Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds 108,510 _33,189 TOTAL SPECIAL LEVIES 141,699 ESTIMATED GENERAL LEVY LIMITATION .1,203,267 TOTAL ESTIMATED 1990 LEVY 1,344,966 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, reserves the right to change the City's levy amounts if a Special Legislative Session is called and the Legis- lature changes the laws governing Local Government Aid and Levy Limits. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55447 July 19, 1989 Telephone 612/476-6010 Facsimile 612~76-8532 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Mound, Minnesota 1989 Seal Coat Project Final Payment Request MFRA #6173 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Allied Blacktop Company's Final Payment Request in the amount of $33,731.58 for the 1989 Seal CoatProject. Since this work is fully complated, we do not recommend any amount be retained. We have reviewed the project with your Street Superintendent and find that the work was done in accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation 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 ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:aju Enclosures A ~t, O O An Equal Oppodun ty Empl~ .,er r~ Z Z ,=~ 0 Z 0 ~) o ~ ~0 (2. 0 0 ~ ,-4 0 0,-4 · ,-I 0 o (O 0 ro 0 0¢'" E .,,-I 4-) .,-I 4..) .c.d (7') Z b- r~ BILLS ..... JULY 25, 198.9 BATCH 9071 BATCH 9072 72,172.06 68,749.90 SuperAmerica Bob Lyckholm Blackowiak June gasoline' cement work June garbage-PW 1,121.34 945.00 134.00 Total Bills 143,122.30 :3 I~. INUDICE ~'E)R DATE DATE STATUS B0~49 PRE-PAID 7118189 7/18/89 BR ) nOT COi~TIOI( VEN~ TOTAL 747.30 747.~ 747.30 ~ PRE-P~qlD 2,~2.00 7/18/8~ 7/18/8~ 2,S62.00 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNI~ VENDOR TOTAL 2562. O0 C0920 PRE-PAID 41.47 7/18/8~ 7/18/89 41.47 CITY DF HDOND VENOOR TOTAL 41.47 CO~..YJ PRE-PAID 2~.~) 7/18/89 7/18/89 ~.50 CITY DF WAYZATA VENDOR TOTAL ClO01 PRE-PAID 2,274,46 7/18/~ 7/18189 2,274.46 CDFItlSSIONER OF REVENUE VENDOR TOTAL D11 S3 PRE-PAID 7/18/89 7/I8/89 VENDOR TOTAL D'VINCI'S PIZZA ~74.46 60.~ D1219 PRE-PAID 237.12 7/18/8~ 7/18/89 237.12 VENIK]R TOTAL R~E-PAID 7/18/B3 7118183 VENI~]R TOTAL PRE-PAID 7/18/89 7/18189 I'{IR[:IIA cF JOURI{AL CITY DF KN3L{H) PRE-PAID D128S DE1.TA I)E)ITAL E1429 " 7/18/I)9 7/15f89 PRE-PAIO 237.12 1,164.15 14,40 37.2S 37.2'3 51 1,304.70 1304.70 139.59 617.44 8.~- 748.08 ~SOUPTI~ ~-CD CH UNION 7/8 PR ~-CD REPLEN P/C--POLICE ,.~-CI) LIC-88CHEV,87P~,8~ -CD SIT 7/8 PR dRIq.-CD PIZZA-C.O.W. Mll] JRM.-CD 26 ~T ~ dFUi.-CD JdLy DENTAL . dULY DENTAL--RETIReE JULY DENTAL-RETIREE ,.U.Y DENTAL-nRETIREE JJLY DE)(TAL-RE'FIREE ,.M~L--CD LIQ WIG DISC dRNL-CD 401.98 LIQ 218.05 WI~ :_ :.-,::.. 33.45 MIX ' 642,94 dRN.-CD -',-. 2,239. b-/ LIQ ·¸% 71-7100-9510 1010 01-2040-0000 I010 FTE-PAID 747.~ 01-4140-2200 1010 01-4140-4140 1010 41.47' ~6, 01-2040-0000 I010 oi-4o20-~do 1010 2274.46 81-4350-3100 1010 01-2040-0000 "01-41fK)-I510 01-4280-1510 01-4140-1510 71-7100-1510 1010 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 71-7100-9510 :,:. 71-7100-9S20 ' :*~:' ' '71-7100-9560 _ · .71"7100-9540 :- ~ ":'- ""~;:' 1010 71- 1304.70 748.08 642.94 PAGE 2 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND JOURNAL 7/18/E~ 7118189 ~I.70 WI~ ~.2~- DI~ 2,5~2.~ JRM.-CD ED PHILLIPS & SONS VENDDR TOTAL 3934.00 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 61955 PtUE--PAID 1,3~3,00 DEF ~ 7/8 PR 01-2040-0000 7/18/89 7/18/89 1,~3,00 JRM_-CO 1010 GREAT WEST LIFE ~ VENDOR ll]TAL 1363.00 · 01971 PRE-PAID 19.10 ~ }LTH-7/8 PR 01-2040-0000 7/18/89 7/18/8~ 19.10 JI~.-CD 1010 19.10 G1972 PRE-PAIl) 320.68 LIQ 1,2~3.31 WIG 32.39- DISC ~9.70 FR'[ 1,611.30 dl~l.-CO VENDOR TOTAL 7/18/89 7/18/89 216.92 76.48 3.15 17.99 308.31 LIQ WI~ FRT MIX J~'I_-CD PRE-PAID ~ IIED 7/13 PR JRM.-CD MAT TAX SETTLEMENT-~ 7!18/89 7/18./89 GRIGG~ COOPER ~ CO. ANY VENDDR TOTAL H2145 PiUE~AID 473.99 7/18/89 7/18/89 473.99 ~ O) ~ & Ifil KCI', VENIX]R TOTAL 473.99 H2252' ~i; PRE-PAID ' 10,000.00 '. ? 7/18/8~ 7/18/8~ 10,000.00 HOWARD SIMAR PRE-PAIl) Lf5.99 11.36 7/18/89 7/18/89 4~7.35 VENDOR TOTAL- ~7.35 PRE-PAID 478.18 7/18/8~ 7/18/89 478.18 CEI~-TERY PLAINT CITY HALL MAINT I0'~ 457-7/8 PR JR~.-CI) *':' 12301 L:%'.: .1 12304 ' ' P~UE-PAIi) ~.25 lO'lA ~O1-7/B ..-,...:... r.!.-.?= 7/18/1~ /18 ~.25 ' : ; .:T'- "- IO~A Rtql~ JRUST--40! VEI~IR filiAL 87.2'5 -', :!:-'- PRE-PAID A~ DECK 4 1363.00 2962: 19. I0 2%3 71-7100-~10 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-7600 1010 71-7100-~10 71-7100-"~20 71-71ffi-OSAO 71-7100-960~ 71-7100-5~o40 1010 01-2040-0000 1010 308.31 2964 473.99 2962 80-8000-1300 01-4320-1300 I010 467.35 01-~40-0000 1010 478.18 O! · "' - 1010 87.25 PAGE 3 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE CITY IIr MOUND ~ DESO~IPTIDN JOURNAL PRE'PAID DAT TI) ~) I2400 PRE-PAID 7/18/B~ 7/18/'89 ISLAND PARK ~Kk'l_/Y VEN[~)R TDT~ PRE-PAID 7/18/~ 7/18~ ~ ~ ~ TOT~ ~-PAID 7/18/~ 7/18~ ~ T~ ~ TOT~ ~9 ~-PAID 7/18/89 7/18/~ PRE-PAID 7/18/~ 7/18/8~ ~£-PAID 7/18/~ ~ BROS )~-DI_ESALE LI* VENDOR T~AL d2580 PRE-PAID JOI.I'$ON PAPER COI~ANY VEIiDDRTDTAL L2817 PRE~AID 7/18/8~ 7/18/~ 18.00 483.85 501.85 501.85 7.15 7.15 7.15 468.00 468.00 468.00 1,613.42 1,287.0~ 45.19- 2,85S.28 1,042.~ ~.73 2~.71- 1,,502.~ 878.~ 17.~- 5218.36 L2740 PRE-PAIl) 4,1~.00 7/18/8~ 7/18/1~ 4,135.00 LLrFZ TREE SE~ICE VENDOR TDTAL 413~.00 PRE-PAID 7/18/B~ 7/18/1U/ ~170 .,..,~ PRE-PAID 7/18/t)9 7/18/89 87.36 87.36 1,13.50 I,I~,~ ~TORS-~' PINI~-#19 JRN.-CD 78-7800-~10 01-4190-~10 1010 MILEA86 71-7100-2200 1010 72 CONTRACT HOL~ ,.RN.-CD 01-4340-3100 1010 LIO WI~ DI~ ORNL-CD LIQ WINE DI~ ut~N~-tiD LIQ DISC J:U4.-CD 71-7100-~J10 71-7100-~520 71-7100-9F-----------------~0 1010 71-7100-9~10 71-7100-~20 71-7100-9560 lOlV 71-7100-9510 71-7100-~'~0 1010 UNION 7/~ PR. dR)L-CD 71-7100-2200 1010 I010 01-2'300-0969 I010 · i' ;' * ' .,- -. OI-20~-O(X)O 1010 '/8-2304-0000 1010 501.85 2~E 7.15 2%: 2855.28 298 · i~z.oO 860.~ 2~.78 4135.00 2%: 87.3& 2%~ PAGE AP-C02-01 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND ANOUNi ~gCRIPTION JOURNAL PRE-PAIl) OATE TI~ ~'TRO WASTE ~ CO~I* VENI]O~ TOTAL 1138,50 M3'l. O1 PR~-PAID 7/18/89 7/18f89 2",'~.00 OEFCO~P 7/SPR 288.00 OI~L-CB 01-2040-0000 1010 29622 MN RETIRE]~'NT S¥STE)i ~ TI]T~ M3455 P~E-PAID 7/18/8~ 7/18/89 595.65 UNIOI~7/8 PR 595.65 dRNL-CO 01'2040-0000 1010 ' 5~5.65 ~3471 PRE-PAIl) 7/18/~ 7t18/89 MN I~STEWATER OPERATORS AS VENI]OR TOTAL 595.65 130.00 130.00 130.00 PRE-REGISTR-ff~OA CDhF JRbL-~ 78-7B00-4110 1010 130.00 . 4,871.83 4,871.83 4871.83. 486.62 486.62 486.62' JULY FI~ RELI~ ,Jl~&-~ PO~T6 F~ ~ ,JFUi.-~ I010 01-4020-3210 1010 4~71 486.62 PRE-PAID 5,978.99 7/18/89 7/18/89 5,978.99 P E R A VENIX]R TOTAL .5978.99 01-2040-0000 I010 5978.99 i: ,J PHYSICIANS OF : Q4171 P~E-PAID 7/18/89 7/18/89 TOTAL PRE-PAll) 7/18/B9 7/18/89 PSE--PAIO 7/18/89 7/18/89 PRE-PAIO 7/I8/89 7/18/B9 R4259 ~AID .:. -. 7/18~. 7/18~.. 438.~ 438.90 438.90 2,973.76 l~.&O 61.38- 3,100.98 3,002.01 b'76.75 66..53- 67.80 3,580.03 2,304.97 46.12- 2,258.85 LIQ {4INE DISC LIQ WINE DISC MIX ,,~N.-CI) LIQ I)ISC O1-2040-O(XX) 1010 438.90 71-7100-~510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 3100.98 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 71-7100-~0 1010 3580.03 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9560 1010. 296 01-4340-3100 1010 __. PAGE 5 PURCHASE CIT)' DF I'IOJNO PJ'[IJkr[ ~IPTI~ JOURNAL PRE-PAID A,I,IO.JNT TI.., -? ROBERT E ,.~ VENIE)R TOTAL S4370 PRE-PAID s4.5o0 PRE"-PAID 7118189 7/18/8~ L~ITDO RENTAL SYSTEII VENI1)R TDTAL 77.85 8-9-10 HOSP-JH KRAUSE 77.85 dRNL-CO 10,338.41 FIT 7/8 PR 10,33B,41 ' JRN.-CD 10338.41 4~8.33 CA UNION 7/8 PR 4~.33 ,J~-CO 4~8.33 75.02 JUBE TDkqEL$ !5!._'22;. ._I..INE ~__IOE:. 9(,.67 dUNE UNIFDRI'i RENT 19.33 dUNE UNIFDRM RENT 49.41 dU{~E UNIFDFU't RENT 49.41 ,.line UNIFDF~ 3.28 JUME RA~ 444.37 JRM.-CI) 444.37 01-4280-1510 1010 01-2040-0000 · 1010 O1-2040-O(XX) 1010 OI-??"Y?-(X~ 1010 01-42"~'0-2250 0!-4__2~.-22_00. ol 01-4290-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-,~.. 40 22-4170-2200 1010 10338.41 4~.33 444.37 ~o7 / CO20l PtJ. I~ BLACKTOF AOX2 AI~ M FE)GON ~,540 7/'2O/89 7/20!89 VENIX{R TOTAL 7/2O/89 7/20/89 VENDOR TOTAL 7/20/89 7/20/89 VENIXIR TOTAL 7/20/89 7/~/89 VENIX]R TOTAL FII{'Clt,;~[ JOUII, IIAL CITY DF llO_mH~ 23.27 57.64 108.26 28,65 17.33 8.66 B.66 8.66 8.66 3.69 2.69 276.17 276.17 196.40 196.40 196.40 7.50 7.~0 12.50 27.50 dUNE OFFICE SUPPLIES JUNE OFFICE SUPPLIES JL~ OFFICE ~i. PPLIES JJNE OFFICE SUPPLIES ,lite OFFICE IIJPPLIES JUNE OFFICE 9UPPLIES JUbE OFFICE SUPPLIES JUNE OFFICE 9UPPLIES JU~E OFFICE ~JPPLIES · JUtlE OFFICE 9UPPLIES ~ (Y'FICE SUPPLIES Bi.A~OP JRbL-CD JJNE'OXYGCN - OXYGEN OXYiL~N J~-CD 01-4040-2100 01-4090-2100 01-4140-2100 01-4190-2100 01-4340-2100 0i-42B0-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7300-2100 78-7000-2100 01-4270-2100 01-4070-2100 1010 01-4280-2340 1010 01-4020-3100 1010 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 01-42?~0-2200 1010 PRE-PAID ,N'IOUNT CHECK I 7/2O/89 7/'20/89 ~I REEYCLI~ 9¥SIEM9 OF M VE)iD(]R TOTAL B0578 BIG A {3.rl"O PAtti'S BO600 7,/2O/89 7/2O/89 VEN]X{R TOT~ 7/20/89 7/2'0/89 2,000.00 2,000.00 I10.48 11.98 17.22 7/'20/I{? 7/'20f89 I1.~ VEHDOR ll]l'Ai. 11.39 RECYCLE 91ERV J~I-CII J,.~ AUTO PA,RT9 ~AUTO PARTS JJNE NJ'TO PASI'~ ' JRM.-CD JUNE GAP~ CIl~ DAYS GARBAGE J~-CI) 01-4270-4200 1010 01-4290-2310 22-4170-2200 1010 22-4170-31~o0 01-4280-3750 01-4340-3750 1010 D .) .) ..) D 'D PA~ 2 P~-C02-O1 B0742 ~ILT-RITE ~ C0858 7/2O/89 7/20/89 VENIX]R TOTAL 7/2O/89 7/'2O/89 CHA~IDN AUTO STDR~ ~ TOT~ C0870 7/20/8~ 7/20189 CHAPIN PUB. I~I~ CD VENIX]R TOTAL C0930 CITYWI~ SERVICES C0%0 7/20/8~ 7/20/8~ VENDOR TOTAL CI)_E RJBLICATIDNS CO~O CDt:IFIDSE~ICE INC CIO~ 7/2O/89 7/20/~ 7/20/8~ 7/20/8~ 7/20/89 7/20/89 VENgOR TOTAL 5.49 5.49 5.49 117.00 117.00 117.00 14,93 6,99 11,96 63,58 48,54 &8.~ 14,96 33.58 48,20 25,55 31.99 .159,49 528,75 164.00 164.00 lb4.00 204,45 323,65 1,95 1.&2 118.~ PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF [ESCRIPTI~ BID AD-CO 110 ,JRN.-C1) 6-7-8 WINDOW O_EAN d~L-CI) CDUE PUBLI~TI~ JRI~.-CI) E~IP ~ HDktE MAIM UB b'HiTS dRM.-CI) 78-7800-4200 1010 01-4290-2310 i010 73-7300-3~10 1010 71-71 1010 01-4140-2200 01-4190-2200 01-4340-2200 01-4340-2300 01-4280-22(X) O1-4280-Z, iq~u 01-4270-~ Ol 73-7300-2200 78-78(X)-2200 78-78(X)-23(X) 1010 01-4140-2100 I010 01-4095-5000 01-40i5-3800 01-44795~2100 1010 01-4140-3220 01-4320-3220 01-4095-3220 01-~3220 01-4040-3220 01-4280-3220 73-73(X)-3220 PRE-PAID PJ'OUNI PAGE 3 AP-C02-OI ND. INVOICE M'iBR OATE ~TE STATUS 7/~/q~ 7/2018V CO~II~fl'~ 1"61_ KPI'IOI'E VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY DF MOUNII NqOUNT DESCRIPTI~ 66.74 67.70 TELEPHO~:~ 63.38 TELEPH~ 141.14 llEI_EPHDh~ 1,083.12 JIlL-CD 1083,12 22-4170-3'~) 22-4170-3220 01-4340-3220 71-7100-3'~0 1010 PPJE-PAII) AMOUNT DATE TI~E CHECK! -% Dl170 I)AKOTA RAIL 7/20/8~ 7/20/t~ VENI)QR TOTAL 7/20/89 7/2O/89 ~VIES MATER EQUIPitENT I)1218 OELAND FIRE CONTRDL DFC INgUSTRI'ES, INC. VEN]~RTOTAL 7/2'0/8~ 7/20/8:) VENI)OR TOTAL .~l,&.Vl'J/ ;l&,¥1'.,.'! VENI~ TOTAL 4O8.65 R~LEAgE TO 8/15 204.35 ~LEASETO8/15 613.00'JIlL-CD 613.00 852.84 OUTSIDE RF_~{6RS 852.84 114.30 RECHARGE FIRE EXTIND 114.30 JRM.-CI) 114.30 40-6000-3910 01-4320-3910 1010 73-7300-2300 1010 22-4170-22(X) 1010 73-7300-2260 ,D D1340 7/2O/89 7/20189 ORIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES VENI)QR TOTAL E148S 7/2O/89 7/2O/89 EQUIPti~f[ 9UPPLY INC VENIX)R TOTAL 40.5O LICENSE F-tAlES 38.50 LICENSE TABS 79.00 dRM_-CI) 79.00 375.51 SERVICE A/C 3'75.51 JRM_-CI) 3'/5.51 .-':' ;:' 6.63 .lUBE 6,&3 ,.{R~-CI) F1601 ~j 7/29/89 7/20/89 FIRESTI]ME ~ TOTAL 7/20/8~ 7/2O/89 FRANCK$ TRUCKING VENDC)R TOTAL ..... -7/20/8~ 7/20/8~ . .-) FRE~,.M6TER FEI.~TION VE~ TOTAL 337.15 JJNE FflT 337.15 JRM.-CO 337.15 01840 14.14 HOgE 01-41~0-41~0 01-4040-4140 I010 01-4320-3800 1010 01-42t~0-2310 1010 71-7100-9600 lOlO 01-4340-4130 1010 01-4340-2310 .D -] PAGE 4 ~-C02-0! PARTS CO 61890 7/20/8~ 7/20/8~ VEN~R TOTAL 7/20/8<) 7/'20/139 ~O IN(LEWOO0 VENDOR TDTAL 61970 7f20/89 7/20,~ GREG SKIN)ER VE)iI1]R TOTBL 7/2O/89 7/20189 ~ ~ IXEPT OF PR1]M~I~TY T VENI]OR ll3T~ 7/20/8~ 7/20/~ ~ CD S~ERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 7/20/8~ 7/20/~ J2421 7/20/89 7/20/B~ d & S Q.E~Zt6 CO. VD$OR TOTPL 7/2O/8? 7/2O/89 i.2811 7/2O/89 7/2O/89 LARSON ~I~I~ & GRAPHICS ~ TOTAL L28Sl -{ 14.14 14.14 26.55 46.50 6.~ 2.84 2.83 85.65 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUN~ I)E~IPTI~ ACCDU~ NUIII)ER 1010 01-4140-4100 01-409~-2200 01-42190-2200 73-7300-2200 78-7800-2200 lOlO 180.00 AI)UANCE-MWDA CObF 78-7800-4110 180.00 dR~L-CO 1010 1~.00 12.60 PDST~ VERIF 01-4060-3210 12.60 dStL-CD 1010 12.60 67.50 MDUNI'S 01-4140-S~950 228.87 J.~ I)DOKI~ FlEE 01-4110-4~0 ~6.37 d~Ot_-Cl) i0i0 - 296.37 62.00 62.00 62.00 SEED,~Y _ 01-4340-2~350 ,MUt.-(~ ' I010 Jilt JA~tlll]~SERV 01-4320-4210 JRM.-CO -.. _-.j~-. 1010 77.32 WIRE,POST ~ 01-4290-2310 677.28 ' NUTS,Ba.TS,~ 78-7800-2300 7~.60 dRI~.-Cl) 1010 PflE-PAIO A~DE~ S8.33 KICX SHEETS 01-4140-21~ 58.~ JRbL-CD I010 50.00 4,025.00 185.00 2,315..00 230.00 3RB INSTAU.HT-W/C 01-40~0-36(X) .; .. 9RI) INSTALLM~-W/C ' ' :-' -.: - 01-40~36~ : .... 3:$ INSTALU'ff-W/12 ..... - . 01-419'0-3600 .. PAGE ~-~2~1 INVOICE lie HOD) INVOICE ~ DATE DATE STA~ 7/20/B9 7/2O/89 CITIES I~ T* VE)4II)~ TOTAl. L2910 7/2O189 712O189 VENI)m TOTAL 7/2O/~ 7/20/~ PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY ~ MOUND 612.75 2,675.00 12,096.75 12096.75 152.75 152.75 152.75 21.~7 21.47 ~SCRIPTI~ ~ INSTALU'IT-W~ 3RI) INSTAII.MT-X~ 3RD INSTAU.MT-W/I~ ~ INSTALI.MT-W/C 3Pi) INSTALI.MT-W~ .7-B-9 ~T~Y~ ~-CI) 01-4340-3600 22-4170-3600 71-7100-3600 73-7300-36(X) 78-7800-3600 1010 01-4140-4120 1010 01-4Q40-4110 1010 PRE-PAID A~ -. IXITE TI~ LINI~q STRC~qG VENq)OR TOT~ LDNO ~ FORD 'I'R~TOR VEIil]OR TOT~. i.2930 7/2O/8~ 7/20/89 LI~tELL'S AUTDI'IOTIVE/ZITCO~ VE)iIX)~ TOTAL LLrl'Z ~ ~ERA/ICE M3010 MARI~ AAJI'O S~:t~S.Y ~YS Q]IR~:q]RAT I~ 7/'2O/89 7/2O/~ VENIXIR TOTAL 7/20/8~ 7/20/89 VENgOR TOTAL 7/20/89 VEHDOR TDTAL 21 19.~5 19.95 19 592.71 592.71 5~2.71 135.00 13~.00 135.00 HOUSE IF.]'tCI.-1657 FINCH-ASE~ TREE REMOVAL TR~E RE~DV~ JRNL-CD JUI,E AUTO PARTS ~ ~ PP~TS ,J~-'CD 78-7800-23O0 1010 01-42!~)-2310 1010 01-2300-0969 01-4340-5110 81-4350-5110 1010 22-4170-2200 01-4290-2310 I010 01-409~-3800 1010 '73-7300-3100 01-4280-3100 01-4190-3100 01-4190-3100 -60-6000-3100 01-4280-3100 01-2300-0972 60-6000-3100' ' PAGE ~-C02-01 7/20/~ 7/'20/~ MCCOMBS ~ RODS ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL 7/'20/63 7/2'0/~ VENDOR TOTAL 7/20/8~ 7/20/89 MN W. WICIPAL BEVERAGE ASSN VENDOR TOTAL M3470 7120189 7120189 MN VAi)KY TESTING LABDRATO VENDOR TOTAL N3710 I~V~ ~ N3740 SIGNS 7/20/~ 7/2O/~ VENDOR TOTAL 7/20/m 7/20/~ VENDOR TOTAL 712O1~ STATES POWER CO 7/2O/89 VENDOR TDTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF 180.00 201.00 796.00 7,789.00 8.01 3.00 ~.~ 6.~ 43.19 43.19 260.00 260.00 260.00 44.00 15.16 34,38 35.05 84.59 84,59 134.00 134.00 134.00 373.49 90.60 578.30 417.39 325.47 2,874.55 1,3&2.16 6,021.96 JUNE EN~,-TRX FOD:EIT LOTS ~ ENGR-7? STREETS ~ ~I~ ~ ~O~ ~-CD ME]~-MN MUNIC BEV J~NL-L'I) WATER A~_YSIS JRNL-CD GLD','ES, TAPE PARTS DRAIN PIPE J:h'4.--CI) SIGNS-NO I)L~P ~ ELECTRICITY JUIIE ELECTRICITY ,.UME R glTI'RICITY dINE gl F~TRICITY ~ ELECTRICITY JUIE ~I~CTRICITY ~ Fl Fr3~ICITY 6021.96 OI-TJ00-O!r'J) 01-4320-3100 27-5800-3100 26-5700-3100 01-432o-31o0 1010 01-4340-372O 01-4320-3720 22-4i70-3720 71-7100-3720 1010 71-7100-4130 1010 73-7300-3100 I010 78-7B00-~"0~ 78-7800-2~00 01-4340-2300 1010 01-4340-2300 lOlO 01-4280-3710 01-4340-3710 01-4320-3710 71-7100-3710 2:2-4170-3710 73-7300-3710 78-7800-3710 1010 PRE-PAID NGRTIEIUq STATES PDWE~ VENDOR TOTAL 4,715.93 4,715.93 4715.93 dUL'f g Pl~FRICITY · .01~4280-3710 iOlO 0 i PAGE 7 AP-C02-OI PURCHASE JOURNAL CZTY OF ~ 03894 7/20/89 7/20/89 ORKIN EXTERIIINATING COMPAN VENDOR TDTAL 43.00 P4010 7/20/89 7/2'0/B9 60.00 G~ASS CbTFING 80.00 MOW 5982 BARlLETT-~ 140.00 ,JRM.-CD ~ILIP HAUGE~ VENDOR IOTAL 1~0.00 7/20/89 7/20/89 125.00 REGISTR-PtAS'TIC RECYC CDN~ 1~.00 dRM.-CD PLASTICS RECYCLIN~ COlt-ER* VENDOR R4~)O 7/'20/89 7/20/89 o'"92.66 LIQUOR IN~ AUDIT 392,66 R L YDUNOI)AH. & ASSOCIATES VEN1XXR ll]TAL :392.66 R4300 7/20/89 7/2O/89 161.25. 7-8-9 ROTARY-SHUKLE 161.25 JRNL-CD ~T~Y ~UB OF ~ VENI)DR TOTAL l&1.25 7/2'0/89 7/20/89 80.14 · ~ 80.14 kIRENOES 160.28 dR{J_-CD VENI)OR TOTAL 7/20/89 7/20/89 1~0.28 2,300.66 JRM.-CD 84]RELINE PLAZA 7/2'0/89 7/20/89 ~27.00 ~-~LETTE~ 01-4320-4200 I010 01-4340-3800 01-1190-0000 1010 01-4270-4110 1010 71-7100-3610 1010 01-4040-4130 1010 01-42~0-5000 78-7BO0-23(X) 1oio 71-7100-3920 1010 01-4020-~ 1010 94489 35.00 REPAIR BRACKET 22-4170-2200 35.00 dRbl.-CD 1010 PRE-PAID AN]UNT O'ECK J STALl. MAN'S REPAIR 35.00 7/20/89 7/20/89 VENI)OR TOTAL S4b'70 124.89 ~ 7/20/89 7/20/I~ 124.89 dR~.-CI) · 7/2'0/~ 7/20/'~ 255.50 ,JRM.-Cl) ~' 01-4320-2200 1010 I010 :D NO. IM,'OI~ ~ 94~10 ~ TIRE CO T471& ~IES TO GO : T4780 I~TE DATE STATUS VEflDCR TOTAL 7/20/89 7/20/8~ 7/"Z0/89 7/20/89 VENDOR TOTAL ,© ,D D "9 7/20/~ 7/2O/89 T4790 7/20/~ 7/20/89 U5040 7/~/89 7/2O/89 7/2O/89 7/20/~ WATER PR~ (~ VEN]I)R TOT~ 7/2O/89 7/2O/89 7/'20/~ 7/20/~ PURCHASE JOURNAL Clll' OF MOUND Ai~]UNT ~IPTI~ PR~-PAII) 179.00 TIP~S,TU{~S 179.00 J~.-CI) 01-4280-2310 1010 17~.00 ~8.00 JIqN_-CD 01-4270-1300 I010 13.56 ~S ~.88 CAE~ETTE TAPE:~ 70.50 CASSETTE T~ 29.37 CA,%'ETTE TPPES 11.75 CASSETTE TAPES 8~.95 FILM 27.75 FILM 3~2.76 01-4020-~200 01-40:20-:2:200 01-41~0-2200 01-4340-2200 0i-4140-2200 01-4140-2200 22-4170-2200 1010 342.76 17.30 17.30 17.30 21.?1 21.91 2'I.91 PARTS JRI~L.-CD 01-4290-2310 1010 81-4350-2100 1010 2,184.59 HYB~C~V]'S, ~AI~ 2,184.59 J~'~.-CD 2184.§~ · · 6(X).00 YOUTH EI"PLOYI'ENT 88-89 4,025.25 MAY,JLNE LIFEGUPR~ 2,860.~5 'MAY,JUNE PAfl{(S PRI:X:P,N'! 7,486.20 J~L-CD .~.08 54.35 23.3~ 142.82 TDWELS, CLEAN SU~% ~IL MTG 9JPPL 22-4170-2200 01-4020-22(X) 01-4280-2200 1010 142.82 :::\.~:: ... ::,..: :: -,:::.:: 840,00 VALVE REPAIR ':-:'.- . ,, PCl]E 9 AP-C02-01 INVOICE 7/'20/~ 7/'20/8~ VENDOR TOTAL ~:~70 7/'20/89 7/2O/89 WILLIAMS ~URE INC 7/20/8~ 7/2O189 VE}I30R TOTN. :-- 7/20/B9 7/'2O189 I~RST~~ ~9~[]R TOTAL .--~-~.'°.~.i XEROX 03RPORATION 7/20/89 7/'2O/89 ~ TOTN. PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF ~ 12.83 198.44 6ft2.21 ~ 1,977.39 ~ 2,659.&0 ,JRM.-CI) 2~9.~ 163.81 PRINC-5600 50.47 PRINC-IO12 &.6& INT-S600 &.30 IHI-lOI2 381.2~ JUtE ~AINT-5600 280.00 COPY CARTRIDGE-lO12 © © 43,M HOZZLES 43.64 ~-.CI) 01-4290-2310 1010 01-2300-0220 1010 01-4280-2340 73-7300-2340 1010 01-4110-3120 1010 01-4320-5000 01-4320-50(X) 01-4320-6110 01-4320-&110 01-4320-3800 01-4320-2200 1010 01-4280-2310 1010 -.-. July 25, 1989 RESOLUTION~.~89, RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AUGUST 18 & 19~R~ BETHEL UNITED METHODIST DAY. IN THE CITY OF MOUND W~EREAS, Bethel United Methodist Church was the organized church in Mound; and first W~EREAS, Bethel United Methodist has served the community of Mound in ministry for One Hundred Years; and WHEREAS, the Bethel United Methodist congregation is celebrating its Centennial on August 19th and 20th, recognizing its One Hundred Years of ministry. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha~j~he Mayor and City Council of the City of Mound hereby proctaim~ust 18th and 19th ~ Bethel United Methodist Day. in the City of Mound. Mayor ~RESOLUTION NO. 89- July 25, 1989 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SUBREOIPIENT A~REEHENT (CONTRACT #90?26) WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a subrecipient agreement (Contract #90726) with Hennepin County for the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program for the $64,507 that will be received from the Federal Fiscal Year 1989 CDBG funds. This Agreement shall become a part of this resolution. SUBKECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN 'HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Contract No. THIS AGRE~ made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF H~L,PIN,_S~tate~o{ }~.~esota, heret_nafter referred to as "RECZPZENT."-and the _ y _ . . l~(~ , hereinafter referred ".~ZTR~z~ , sago ~ar=~es to ~/~s Agreement each being governmental units of the State o~ Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Hinnesota Statutes, Sec=ion a71.59: ~ITNESSETH WHEREAS, Recipient has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, as amended, to carry out various community develop- ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient; and . WHEREAS, $_ &q:~7 · from Federal FiScal Year 1989 CDBG funds has been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient 'for the implementation of elt§i, ble and fundable community development activity/les as included in and a part of the 1989 Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program and as set forth in the Statement of Work described in Exhibit ! to th!_~ Agreement; ~-nd WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the implementation of the approved community development activity/ies, described in Exhibit 1. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows: 1. The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those activities identified in Exhibit 1, and shall fully expend the funds related thereto not later than December 31, 1990. 2. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, as promulgated in 24 CFR 570.502, shall apply to all activities undertaken by the Sub- recipient provided for in this Agreement or by any program income generated therefrom. The Subrectpient shall be responsible for procurement of al1 supplies, equipment, services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/ies. Procurement shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" provisions (24 CFR 85) · (which replace OMB Circular A-102 for the purposes of this Agree- ment), the procurement requirements of the Subrecipient, and all provisions of the Community Development Block Grant Regulations, 2&. CFR Part 570 (the most restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices,'and documents; enter into all contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and iDterviews as 'e necessar~ to ~nsu~e' compliance ~-tl~ ~he abo~e ~sc~b~d p~oc~en~ ~equ~r~en~s. ~e ~ecipten~ shall p~o~de a~ce and s~af~ ~s~s- ~ance ~o ~e Subrecipien~ ~o car~ ou~ i~s CD~-f~ded ac~tvi~/ies. ~e Subrecipient shall be respo~ible for ca~n~ ou~ all ac~tsi- ~io~ of real proper~ necessa~ for ~plemen~tton of ~e activ- t~/ies. ~e Subrecfpient shall CondUct all such acqufsitto~ tn its n~e ~d shall hold title' to all properties purchased. ~e Subrecipient shall be responsible for preparation of all notices, appraisals, ~d doc~entatfon required in cond~tinE acquistti~ ~der the latest applicable re~la~io~ of'~e Unifo~ Relocation ~sistance and Real Proper~ Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CD~ Proart. ~e S~rectpient shall also be respo~ible for providing all relocation notices, co--elint, ~d se~ices required by said re~latto~. ~e Recipient shall pro,de advice and staff assistance to the S~reciptent to car~ out its CDBG-funded activ- in/les. The subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistahce and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 as required under S 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part ~2; the requirements in S 570.606(b) governing the residential antidisplacement and reloca- tion assistance plan under section 104(d) of the Ho~sing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation require- ments of S 570.606(c) governin§ displacement sUbject to section i04(k) of the Ac=; and the relocation requirements of S 570.606(d)' governing optional relocation assistance under'section 105(a)(11) of the Act. The Subreci~ient shall maintain records of the expenditure of all CDBG funds it ~eceives, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the "Common Rule" provisions.(24 CFR 85) and in accordance with OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. Ail records shall be made available, upon request of the Recipient, for inspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its representa- tives. If a financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient other monies to fund such disallowed CDBG expenditures. Audit procedures are specified, below in Section 22 of this Agreement. The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient has responsibility to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (H%~) for insuring compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the acti%ity/ies which it is implementing. 10. 11. The Su%rec~pient does'hereby aEree' to ~:elease, indemnify, and hold harmless r. he Recipient ~om and a~a~ a~ costs, expenses, claims, su~s, or Jud~en~s artsfn~ from or ~rowtn~ out ~f any in]~ies, loss or ~e sustained by any person or co~oration, includin~ e~loyees of S~recip[en= and proper~ of S~recipien=, which are ca~ed by or s~tained tn co~ec=ion with ~e Uas~ carried ou~ bY ~ S~reclpient ~der this Agreement. The Subrectptent does further agree thac in order to protect itself as well as the Recipient under the tndemni~ agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will at all times d~ring the term of this Agreement and any renewal r. hereof, have and keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $600,000 for property damage arising from one occurrence, $600,000 for damages arising from death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $600,000 for total personal injuries arising from one occur- rence. Such policy shall also include contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and 'employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the Subrecipient and the Recipient. The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with Community Development Block Grant funds.in such amounts as agreed upon in this .-~ ........ to enable the Subreciplen~ ~0 car~ out i~m CDBG-eligible activity/les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be held accountable to the HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subreciptent acttv- tty/ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form from the Subreciptent for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and records needed to insure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate regulations and requirements. The ReciPient shall maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for providing necessary information to the Recipient to accomplish this task. The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests to HLrD for wage rate determinations on CDBG activities undertaken by the Subreciptent. The Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the provisions of Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these'requirements. 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. The. Recipien~ agrees to provide technical assistance ~o ~e Su~- recipient in ~he fo~ of oral and/or ~en ~i~ce a~d o~-s~e a~i~ance regar~ing Co~i~ Development Block Gr~ procedures and project ma~gemen~. ~is assist~ce ~11 be provided as requested by =he Subrecigten~, and a= other =ime~, at the initiative of ~e Recipient, when new or up~=ed i~o~a=~on conce~n~ ~e CDB~ Pro~r~ ts received by =he Recipient and deemed necessa~ =o be provided =o ~he S~recipien=. The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials, notices, documents, etc., prepared by =he Subrecipient in implementation of this Agreement, and the Su~- recipient agrees to provide all information required by any person authorized by the Recipient to request s~ch information from the Subrecipient for the purpose of reviewing the same. In accordance with t. he provisions of 24 CFR 85.43, suspension or · termination of this Agreement may occur if the Subrecipient materi- ally fails to comply with any term of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated for convenience in accordance with 24 CFR 85.44. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either party hereto by giving thirty (30) days written notice of such termination. CDBG funds allocated to the $ubrecipient under this Agreement may not be obligated of expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination. Any funds allocated to the $ubrecipient under this Agreement which remain unobligated or unspent' following such date of termination shall au'-a=a:iaally - revert to the Recipient. Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be .valid when they have been reduced to writing as an Amendment to this Agreement signed and approved by the respective parties, governing bodies and properly executed by the authorized representatives of the parties. All Amendments to this Agreement shall be made a part of this Agreement by inclusion in Exhibit 2 which shall be attached at the time of any' Amendment. Ail data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated for any purposes by the activities of the $ubrecipient in the performance of this Agreement is governed by the Minnesota Govern- ment Data Practices Act, MinDesota Statutes, Chapter 13,.and all other statutory provisions governing data privacy, the Minnesota Rules implementing such act now in force or hereafter adopted, as well as federal regulations on data privacy. During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex-offender status, or national origin; 4 18. 19. 20. a&ains~ cl£scr£minat£on shall be otherw£se subjected to d£scrim£rm. tion. The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1989. The termina- tion date of this agreement is December 31, 1990, or at such time as the activity/les constituting part of:this Agreement are satisfac- torily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or uncommitted for the activities described in Exhibit 1. If the Subreciptent generated any program income as a result'of the expenditure of CDB(~ funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following specific stipulations: The Subrectpfent recognizes that it must notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10) clays of the date that such program income is generated. be That any such program income must be paid-to the Recipient by the Subrecipient as soon as practicable after such program income is generated or may be retained by the Subrecipient, as specifically identified in Exhibit 1. Ce The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any ~uch progr~ ...... c. The responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to the Recipi- ent by the Subrectpient on the use of such program income is hereby recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in establish- ing an appropriate and proper recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD. That in'the event of close-out or change in status of the Sub- recipient, any program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is received. The Recipient agrees to 'notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or change in status of the Subreciptent occur. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be: me Us'ed to meet one of the national objectives 'in S 570.208 until five years after expiration of this Agreement; Disposed of in a manner that results in the Recipient's being reimbursed in the amount of the current fair market value of the property les~s any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds.for acquisition of, or improve- ment to, the property. 5 21. 23. 24. The. £oll_ov~n~ s~ncl~=cts sha~l., a1~1_.7 =o ~eal' torc~e=t7 under t. he control oE ~e St~recipien= ~=~ was acquired or ~:~roved, or in part, u~si~g~ CDBG f~nds: The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirt7 (30) days prior to any modification or change in the use of the real propert7 from that planned &t the time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient s~all reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds) 'of propert~ acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or transferred for 'a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of the propert~ referenced,, herein. c. Any prp§ram income generated from the disposition or transfer of propert~ prior to or subsequent to =he-close-out, change of status or termination of the cooperation agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property. The Subrectpient agrees to provide Recipient'with an annual audit consistent with ~he Single Audit Act of 1954 (U..S. Public Law 98- 502) and the imp!ementin§ requirements of 07~ Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable' OH~ Circular A- ll0, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and Non-Profit Organizations. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July I of each year this' Agreement is in effect and any findin§s of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall be satisfied by Sub- recipient Within six (6) months of the p~ovisfon date. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000 in assistance is received from all federal sources in any one fiscal year. c. The audit may not be paid from CDBG funds. d. The Recipient reserves ~he 'right to recover, from non-CDBG sources, any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by the'audit. The subrecipien= shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200, particularly sections (b) (Special Policies Government Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments); (f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional Prohibitions Concern- ing Church/State Activities). The Subrectpient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notifica- tion, inspection, testing and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608. 6 Board of Commissioners having duly approved r.h£s Agreement on 19 , and pursuant co such approval and the proper County o£f~c£als ha~in~ ' si'gned this Agreement, the pa~ttes hereto agree co be bound by the provisions here£n se~ £o~th. Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and Binding. Assistant Co~ APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: COUNTY OF HE~IN, STATE OF MINNESOTA By: Chairman of its County Board And: Deputy/Associate CounTy AdminisTrator ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board SUBRECIPIENT: of ASsistant County Attorney By: Date: CITY M?JST CHECK ONE: Its And: Its The CiTy is organized pursuant to: Plan A Plan B Charter ATTEST: Title SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT URBAN HENNEPIN 'COUNTY COMI~I/NX ~ DEVELOPM]RNT BI~3CK GP.A/qT PROGRAM EXHIBIT 1. STAT~ OF WORK The following activity/les shall be carried out by the city of Mound under the terms of this Agreement and the details and processes set forth below. Up to $64,507 is to.be provided in Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds to the city of Hound to assist in the funding of the following activity/les in the amount andunder the stipulations individually specified in each attachment: A. Economic Devel6pment Plan B. Public Service Facility/Rental C. Rehabilitation of Private Property D. Senior Counseling/Case Management E. Westonka Intervention' F. Westonka Senior Center/Operating July 25, 1989 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1!55 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL CITY_CLERK GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION FOR NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS AT MOUND LANES The Northwest Tonka Lions are making an application to the Department of Revenue Gaming Division for a Charitable Gambling License to sell · pul'l-tabs at Mound Lanes. They wOuld like the City Council to waive the 60 day waiting period, They would like the Council to pass a motion that they have no objection to the Lions running this operation and ask that the Minnesota Department of Revenue waive the 60 day waiting period. fc An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the ~sis of race, color, nationa', oryx:n,, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or err.~io~, mar: in, *ts programs anc~ activities. GENERAL FUND Taxes Intergovernmental Business Licences Non-Business Licenses and Permits Charges for Services Court Fines Charges to Other Departments Other Revenue REVEN-u-E LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND DOCKS FUND 'CEMETARY FUND BUDGET 984315 965800 9410 CITY OF MOUND 1989 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT JUNE 1989 JUNE YTD REVENUE 5O.O% PER CENT REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 0 69513 914802 7.06% 8502 32367 933433 3.35% 5310 6959 2451 73.95% 86700 8414 33530 53170 38.67% 38800 -1313 6384 32416 16.45% 100000 7323 27546 72454 27.55% 16500 1863 10297 6203 62.41% 51850 100 3951 47899 7.62% ~z53375 30199 190547 2062828 8.46% 880000 86002 398092 481908 45.24% 330000 21256 146261 183739 44.32% 580000 45351 283769 296231 48.93% 65300 1660 60439 4861 92.56% 3050 0 800 2250 26.23% CITY OF MOUND 1989 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES JUNE 1989 50.0% BUDGET JUNE YTD EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 46030 15727 38664 7366 84.00% Cable TV 9980 231 8461 1519 84.78% city Manager/Clerk 143210 10516 70526 72684 49.25% Elections 650 18 204 446 31.38% Assessing 43930 34 506 43424 1.15% Finance 152760 11587 76713 76047 50.22% Computer 20000 .1683 12495 7505 62.48% Legal 97100 6415 28049 69051 28.89% Police' 677770 52386 347292 330478 51.24% civil Defense 1880 0 0 1880 0.00% Planning/Inspections 128400 9464 55170 73230 42.97% Recycling 67400 3603 51876 15524 76.97% Streets 391140 25515 265832 125308 67.96% Shop & Stores 57760 4005 34714 23046 60.10% city Property 81860 2725 59462 22398 72.64% Parks 149320 12723 76657 72663 51.34% Summer Recreation 11090 0 0 11090 0.00% Contingencies 30000 969 2035 27965 6.78% Transfers 126150 9859 59252 66898 46.97% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2236430 167460 1187908 1048522 53.12% Area Fire Service Fund Liquo~ Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Docks Fund Cemetary Fund 209230 9521 88799 120431 42.44% 158810 10732 81210 77600 51.14% 322550 34668 197894 124656 61.35% 634160 57561 306564 327596 48.34% 72240 664 56970 15270 78.86% 3950 0 712 3238 18.03% CITY OF MOUND LIQUOR FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND OPERATING INCOME PERIODS ENDING JUNE % JUNE % JUNE 1989 SALES 1988 SALES 1987 SALES Liquor 132303 33.23% 128056 31.90% Wine 51683 12.98% 54310 13.53% Beer 205546 51.63% 205954 51.31% Miscellaneous 10169 2.55% 11984 2.99% Discount -1608 -0.40% -1698 -0.42% TOTAL SALES 398093 100.00% 401393 100.00% COST OF GOODS 302905 76.09% 307054 76.50% GROSS PROFIT 95188 23.91% 94339 23.50% EXP~NSES 81211 20.40% 76876 19.15% OPERATING INC 13977 3.51% 17463 4.35% 112707 52284 184051 12818 -1358 360502 275331 85171 72256 12915 % SALES 31.26% 14.50% 51.05% 3.56% -0.38% 100.00% 76.37% 23.63% 20.04% 3.58% YEAR END INCOME (per audit) 52290 44249 TRANSFERS OUT 40000 24483 RE:~'D JUL 1 3 1989 LAKE HINNETDNKA CDNBERUATIDN DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY CITY HALL JUL 1 ~ 1gag June 28, 1989 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was called to order by Chair JoEllen Hurt at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday,.June 28, 1989. 2. Roll Call Present: Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach, Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurt, Chair, Douglas Babcock, Spring Park~ John Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Robert Pillsbury, ~linnetonka; Robert Shqrewood; Thomas Reese, Vice Chair, Mound; Slocum, Woodland. Also present: David Arndorfer, Consultant; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Charles LeFevere, Counsel; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director; Frank Mixa, Consultant. Secretary; David Deephaven; James Orono; kewman, Wayzata; Rascop, Robert Absent: Hmrvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay, John Halinka~ Victoria 3. Readinq of Minutes Boswinkel moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the minutes of the May 24, meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 1989 4. Public Comments Ellsworth Paterson, 45 Fairhope, Tonka Bay, commented on the MN Natural Resources rules on dredging, suggesting sludge removal the Board support dredging at least to a depth of eight feet. Department of and requesting Hurr explained that LMCD does not deal with dredging per,its but the Management Plan being prepared will consider overlapping responsibilities for dredging among various units of government. Paterson's name was oiven to Arndorfer with the suggestion Paterson follow the Advisory Committee activities. There were no other comments from the Public. 4. ~eports A. Chair Hurt 1) The June 10 Board Lake inspection was weil attended, lhe July Board Lake inspection will be waived in light of this trip. There will be a Public Officials~ Lake Tour August 5 from 12:50 p.m. to $:50 p.m. leaving from the LaFayette Club dock. L.M.C.D. Board - June 2B, 19B9 '2)' On August 16 HUFF will conduct the Legislative Committee of the Minnesota Future Resources Commission on a tour of Lake Minnetonka. 3) On July 19 there will be a mayors* meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the at the Shorewood City Hall. HUFF urged attendance to hear what the mayors will be discussing, L.M.C.D. expected to be among the topics. B. Financial Reports, Treasuer Lewman 1) Lewman presented the Financial Condition Report for May. 31, calling attention to'receipts of $83,213 to the Eurasian Water Milfoi'l account showing total received to date of $663,97?. StFommen corrected the report to show Eurasian Water Milfoil Save the Lake interest of 2) Lewman moved, Boswinke] seconded, approval of bills in the amount of $42,428.19 by Checks Nos. 5495 through 5547. Motion carried unanimously. 3) The Board received the 1990 Proposed Budget. The proposed budget shows an increase of approximately 20% over 1989, most of it because of Eurasian Water Milfoil control. The 1990 tax levies to the cities have increased more than the 20% because of increased valuations and the inclusion of $60,000 for Eurasian Water Milfoil Operating expenses, an item not budgeted in 1989 but f.unded, by voluntary contributions .of $83,000 from the cities. The 1990 bvdget of $60',000 represents a reduced share of the 1990 weed harvesting c~st. The Board reviewed the major new expenditures as follows: * Salaries. It is proposed an administrative intern be hired, funded half from the general fund and 1/2 from the Eurasian Water Milfoil special project fund. * Professional Services. Continuation of the Contract Secretarial Service for Board/committee meetings, temporary office help, assistance in preparing quarterly financial report~, and dock inspector. * Office Rent. Anticipate 15% increase * Consulting Services. Complete Management Plan contract and services of Co~.sultant Frank Mixa. , Eurasian Water Milfoil Program. One-half of the $230,000 budget, included as page 5, will be provided by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Detail of the budget was provided in a memo from the Executive Director with proposed budget detail, including levies breakdown to the cities. Board members requested a cover letter to the cities with the budget, giving detail. .Hurt suggested Board members participate in the presentation at their City Council review of the budget. She also offered to attend each Ccuncil meeting with the Executive Director. L.M.C.D. Board - June 28, 1989 Reese moved, Lewman seconded, approval o~ {he lggO LMCD budget, distribution oK expense to the municipalities and 1990 Eurasian Water 'Milf0il budget as submitted, to be forwarded to the cities with a detailed cover letter. Motion carried unanimously. 4) The Board received ~he 19§§ Fiscal Ym~r Audit o~ 1-1 to 12-31-B§ and written comments from DuHayne L.Schibilla, C.P.A., Auditor. ~ascop noted the need for a management letter and requested one be included. Lewman moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the 1~88 Audit and order it filed. A Management Letter is to be requested from the Auditor. Motion carried unanimously. 5) The Board received a proposal from Du~ayne L. Schibilla Associates, at the request of the Treasurer and Executive Director, to assist in preparation of quarterly financial statements. The initial cost will be for start-up and $190 for the quarterly service. If required to attend meetings the fee will be billed at $70 per hour. The quarterly reports would cover 1989 operations starting 1-1-8~. Rmscop moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the services of DuWayne L. Schibilla & Associates~ per their proposal of June 24, 1989. Motion carried~' unanimously. C. Standing Committees !) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Cochran a) Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the minutes of June 10, 1989 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously b) Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, acceptance of the Committee recommendation for approval of a Special Density and new dock license for Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono) to increase 6 BSU on Browns Bay and 42 BSU on Tanager Lake; based on amenities as submitted. Strommen read the list of amenities as detailed in the Public Hearing report. Responding to a question from Babcock, Strommen stated the amenities are confirmed annually as license stipulations when application is made for renewal. Motion carried unanimously. c) Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of the recommendation to approve a variance, Special Density,and new dock allow Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata) to add 12 permanent BSU, amenities as submitted. committee license to based on Grathwol stated his opposition to the proposal as he cannot find mny basis for granting a variance. He believes it is in defiance of the Ordinance. Rascop supported his position and further stated an Environmental Assessment Worksheet would appear to be necessary. Foster spoke in support of the motion because a hardship is created by the unusual nature of the shoreline. Hartinson noted this marina has the lowest density on the lake at 1:]4. Reese spoke in favor, flexibility being his reason. The motion carried, Grathwol and Rascop voting nay. L.M.C.D. Board - June 2B, 19B9 d) Cochran reported that the Committee has recommended approval for adding 22 BSU at Lighthouse Island for the *Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School and presented evidence that an EAW is not required. The amenities submitted by the applicant included signed public restrooms and telephone at the Carson Bay facility. A letter from 'the applicant offered substituting a gift to.the City of Deephaven of a "make ready" dock at the p'ublic launch in Carson's Bay. Discussion followed on what would happen if the City didlnot accept the dock. The applicant indicated they would revert to the original amenities. The Board received an opinion from Counsel and DNR that the applicant, is using 17,3B0 square feet of lake surface, and threfore being under 20,000 square feet an EAW is not needed. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a ~pecia] Density Permit and New Dock License for adding 22 BSU at Lighthouse Island with the amended stipulation that the applicant proceed with the "make ready" dock in exchange for relief from providing signage for a telephone and restroom at the Carson Bay facility, with the understanding that if the dock is not forthcoming, they will provide the signage. Motion carried unanimously. e) Temporary Dock Extensions dock -'extension permit to el!ow the LaFayette Club (Minnetonke Beach) to Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary extend their dock complex 24' further out, a total of 107' from shore, provided it is not a navigational hazard and subject to Water Patrol inspection. Motion carried unanimously. Cochran moved, Foster seconded, a temporary dock extension permit for West Beach Apartments, Midwest Management (Spring Park) to allow an extension of 64' for a total of 176' from shore, provided it is not a navigational hazard and subject to Water Patrol inspection. Motion carried unanimously. Lewman moved, Pillsbury seconded, a temporary dock extension permit for Herzog Acres (Minnetonka) to extend their docks from 88' to 110', the east lot line setback to be observed and providing there is no interference with navigation and subject to Water Patrol approval. Motion carried unanimously. e. Renewal without Change Rascop moved, Foster seconded, the renewal change of the multiple dock license of Shorewood Yacht Club (Shorewood). carried unanimously. without Motion Chair Hurr amended the agenda t'o proceed to the Advisory Committee Item 5.C.~) 4 L.M.C.D. Board -June 28~ I~B~ C. 4) AOVISOR¥ COMMITTEE, Chair Reese, Consultant Arndorfer. a) Arndorfer presented the Management Plan Status Report as of June 8, briefed below, stating fourteen months of the twenty-four month project are completed, having used 58% of the time allocated and 57% of the money. * Lake Inventory. Has been completed and will be updated as changes occur. Maps will be located in L.M.C.D. headquarters. * Use Monitoring. Summer 1988 is complete and summer 1989 will with further information on what types of uses the Lake mccomodates sailboats, large power boats, water skiing, etc. continue such as * Fishing. Completed with plan to protect habitat, improve monitoring, study of fishing contests, exotic species. * Wetlands. Purpose is to improve regulations both above and below the high water mark, improve acquisition within the Lake using grant programs, active management, better enforcement of dredging permit restrictions. . The Watershed District and DNR are very limited in resources to inspect and enforce permits granted. * Water Quality. Provide standards and criteria for hard cover, and control nutrient run off. * Public Safety. Increased presence of the Water Patrol, start quarterly meetings with Public Safety Officials, increase boat safely ~duc~tio~, Patrol performance mon~itoring. * Shoreland Management. Develops standards and criteria for the first one thousand feet from the Lake. The DNR does allow specific rules for lakes such as Minnetonka. * On-Shore Facilities. Emphasis shoreland use consistent with boating and coordination with other agencies such as Suburban Hennepin County Parks. * Upland Protection. Control of shore development and control of density in certain areas of the Lake. * Intergovernmental Relations. Suggest broadened lake management and formalize procedures among involved agencies. * Institutional Arrangements Internal review of the LMCD operation. * Funding. Will examine poential sources of future funds. Andorfer distributed a Status Report handout of a statistical nature and the pro~ect status, which is made a part of the file. The Board expressed appreciation to Frank Mixa for the background information he has supplied for the Plan. L.M.C.D. Board - June 28, 19B9 5. C. 2) EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese a) Reese reported delivery of the first harvester has been delayed until July 7 because of weather conditions at the factory which prohibited outside sandblasting. The plan is to begin harvesting by July 10. b) Reese submitted a proposal from Steven R. McComas, Blue Water Science, St. Paul, to test small-scale hand tools and pro~ects which homeowners could use to remove EWM near the shore. A booklet would be published on the use. McComas outlined fourteen techniques to be studied at a cost of $5,000. Reese stated he has a commitment from a fellow General Mills employee, to help supervise the project. Reese moved, Cochran seconded, the expenditure of $5,000 to contract with B!ue Water Science for preparation of a booklet to be available to individuals who wish to do their own removal in the areas not covered by the harvesters. As part ofthe discussion, Strommen recommended a modified program of the items suggested by Blue Water Science as having more direct to Lake Minnetooka~s weed problem, at an estimated cost of $2,200. including six application Upon a call for the question, there were four ayes and eight nays. failed. The motion Hurt moved, Babcock seconded, that the Board negotiate a contract Water. Science calling for a modified list of six items at a cost There were four ayes and'eight nays and the motion failed. with Blue of $2,200. Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to authorize the expenditure of up to $5,000 for a suitable program as determined by the officers of ~ethods for aquatic weed removal by hand tools. Motion carried, Reese voting nay. 5. C. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury Pillsbury reported the Committee met on June 19th and forwards no recommendations as there was not a quorum present. a) Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of their annual liquor license for The Queen of Excelsior Charter Boat, noting the Hennepin County Sheriff reports no problems on record for the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. b) Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, renewal of the boat registrations for Choral C, Karob I, and Miss Minnetonka. Motion unanimously. charter carried Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, a new charter boat registration for Jacks R Wild. Motion carried unanimously. L.M.C.D. Board - ~une 28~ 198~ c) Pillsbury moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of inspection reports~ fee deposit refunds for: Minnetonka Crossing, 6/3/89, Wayzata to Excelsior Minnetonka Bass Club 6/5/89 American Scholarship Foundation,6/4/89 bass tournament Motion carried unanimously. d) Bert Foster agreed to Chair a Personal Watercraft manufacturer/dealer study group requesting input from other board members, with a fall date for recommendations. e) There was no Water Patrol Report as the representative was called away because of. an emergency on the Lake. f) Rascop took exception to a remark made by Howard Tripp of the Bass Federation at the Lake Use meeting regarding removal of spawn from the Lake by the DNR, requesting a review of the response to a letter to be sent to John S. Daly, Mound, about bass tournaments during the spawning season. 5. C. 5) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT a) It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Grathwol, to approve the hiring of Jeane Franta, Wayzata, as a Bookkeeper/Clerk effective June 16, 1989 at $8.D0 per hour with a six month probationary period. Motion carried unanimously. b) Strommen reported Joan Mansk has agreed to split her vacation, taking June 50 -July 7 and July 24 - July 29. Strommen will be on vacation August 14 - 18. c) Board/Committee Recording Secretary Julie Weidner commended for her prompt and thorough preparation of the minutes. was d) The Board accepted and ordered filed Strommen's report of Outside Government, Business and Community Contacts, 5/25-6/28/89. e) Strommen reported he will make a presentation on Eurasian Water Milfoil Weed Control, A Lake Preservation Priority of the LMCQ at a Freshwater Foundation Seminar at the Gray Freshwater Biological Institute, July 8, 1989. 6. There was no Unfinished Business 7. There was no New Business Hurt declared the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. See Page 8 - Signature Page MINUTES, OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING .COMMISSION JuDy lO, 1989 Present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners GeoFF Michael, Brad Sohns, William Thal, Vern Andersen, and Jerry Clapsaddle, Council Representative Liz Jansen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner'Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and e~- cused were Commissioners Ken Smith and.Frank Weiland. Also present were the Following interested citizens: Michelle Severson, Arlene Green, Daniel & Cheryl Johnson, Bradley North, Jim & Sandra Ruud, Henry Sport, Robert Harding, and Skip Johnson. Chair Bill Meyer called the meeting ~o order at 7:34 P.m. MINUTES: MOTION made by Tha l seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of. June 26, 1989 as sub- mitted. Sohns stated some changes which he would like incorporated into the mi. nutes. On page three, .add to the end of b. Nuisance Ordinance: "The Planning ~x~nmission felt that they could i~os- sibly Incorporate some changes of their own into the Nuisance Or- di~nce ~sed on previous discussions relating to the Housing M~inte~nce Ordinance." And, also on page three, add to the end of d. Discussion regarding the proposed City Hall Addition: "He (S~hns) Felt that the City l~as reFuse~t to l~ake responsibility For their poor presentation, lack of openness with the citizens, in- cluding lack of Involvement by the Planning Commission, and long time residents." Chair Meyer recognized Anderson arriving at 7:40 p.m. Thai moved, and Clapsacldle seconded approval of the June Z6, 1989 minutes as amended. Motion carried unanim- ously. Th~' Commission decided that since the City Planner had not ar- rived yet, they would hear the City Council Representatives Report. DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL:-- d. City Council Representatives Report. Council Representative, Liz Jensen, reviewed the City Council Meeting o¢ June 27, 1989 and also reviewed the agenda For the July llth meeting. Planntng Commission Minutes July 10, 1989 PaGe Two BOARD OF APPEALS: a. Case No. 89-809~ Jack Cook, 4452 Denbiph Roadt Lot 2, Block l, Avalon, PID #19-I 17-23 24 0002. MINOR SUBDIVISION / VARIANCE. The Commission discussed the status of this case unti) the City Planner arrived. It was then determined that since the ap- plicant, Jack Cook was not present, this item would be moved to the end of the Board of Appeals on the Agenda. b. Case No. 89-824: Daniel Johnson, 1766 Shorewood Lane? Shadywood Point, Block 3. Lot 4; PID #13-117-24-1l 0135. VARIANCE: Front Yard Setback. The City Planner reviewed the history of the case. At the Plan- ning Commission meeting of June 12, I989 the garage addition was approved with a [9 Foot Front yard variance, however, construc- tion of the second story addition was denied since other alterna- tives For the construction of additional living space exists. The City Planner Further explained that the applicant has revised his plans, however, staff recommenOation remains For approval of a 19 Foot front yard variance for construction of a new garage and entry area, and denial of the second story construction within the 20 Foot required setback area. Applicant, Dan Johnson, reviewed the revised plans with the Com- mission. He explained that he has changed the roof line result- ing in a 5' cantilever, with a 4' high wall. The second story addition will begin 2 feet back from the front of the garage, therefore will be 3 Feet From the Front property line, and It Feet From the curb. Cheryl Johnson stated that she has talked to three of her neigh- bors about the possibility of adding onto the lakeshore side of their home. She stated that the:ir neighbors say this will block their view and they do not want them to add onto the lakeshore side. Sohns suggested a compromise to allow construction of a second story addition within 20 Feet of the curb, therefore I2 Feet From the Front property line. Clapsaddle commented that if we would allow them to build 12 Feet from the property line, then why not allow a 3 Foot variance. Andersen stated that he agrees with- Clapsaddle, and added that he does not Feel it is possible to build on the lakeshore side oF the home, therefore a variance should be granted. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1989 Page Three MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Michael to approve a 19 foot front yard variance to construct a two car garage, and a l? foot front yard variance to allow con- struction of a second story addition as proposect by the applicant. The Commission discussed the possibility of the existence-of a hardship, densen commented that due to the existing structure and the impracticability of adding onto the iakeshore side of the home due to the vaulted ceilings and building into the visual amenity of the neighbors, that 8 practical difficulty exists. MOTION carried 4 - 3. sen, Thai, Clapsaddle. Meyer. Those in favor: Those opposed: Andersen, Jen- Michael, Sohns, ~his case will be heard by the City Council on July Il, 1989. Case No. 89-828. Robert Hardfno, 5238 Seabury Road, LOts 8 & ]4t Block 24? Whipple, PID #25-117-24-2! 0078. VARIANCE: recognition of nonconforming setback. The City Planner explaineO that the applicant is proposing to construction a conforming addition to an existing nonconforming dwelling. He added that the proposed addition will greatly im- prove the roof line and the home. Thal questioned the applicant if he plans on fixing up the front of the house. Mr. Harding stated that they plan on removing the front porch and will reside on the Seabury Road side. After fur- ther questioning, he also stated that the foundation is only 20 years ond and the house has been rewired and now has 100 amp electrical power. MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by Clapsaddle to ap- prove staff recommendation for approval of the variance to allow a kitchen addition of 11.6' x 8', Motion carried unanimously. .. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1989. de Case No. 89-829, Steven Severson Of 4500 Wilshire Blvd., Carol Stodola of 4510 Wilshire Blvd., and Gordon Anderson of 2757 Anal,sly Lane. Lots 3 - 8 and part of Lot 2, Block 6, Avalon, P]D #]9-I]7-23-3] 0018/0019 .& 19-117-23-24 0014. MINOR SUBDIVISION. The City Planner reviewed the request for subdivision. In 198! the same request was approved by the City, however, was never properly Filed with the County. The proposed subdivision in- Planning Con~ntsston Minutes July 10, 1989 Page Four volves realigning lot lines to allow conforming setbacks to all structures involveO. The Building Official stated in her recommendation that if all of the persons with Financial interest do not sign the application, staff recommends a written letter from the financial institutions prior to the City Council hearing for the subdivision. .Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision as shown on the at- tached Exhibits A, B, and C. Two of the parties involved were present, they were Michel le Severson and Mrs. Gordon Anderson. They commented that they did not know why the subdivision was never i=i led in !98!, that they were under the impression it was already in effect. Severson commented that this subdivision would actual ly benefit her m~rtgage company since they are creating conforming lots. Mrs. Anderson stated that she .lives on Anglesey Lane and there is no street sign. She requested a street sign be installed label- ing A~glesey Lane. -MOTION nde by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to approve staff recommendation for approval of the minor subdivi- sion. Staff is also directed to erec~c a street sign for Anglesey Lane. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, ]989 e. Case No. 89-830: Thomas & Arlene Green, 1724 Shorewood Lane~ Lots 2 & 3~ Block 5~ and Lot 18, Block 4~ Shadywood Point~ P[D #13-117-24-1! 0022/0023/0018. MINOR SUBDIVISION & LOT SIZE VARIANCE. The City Planner reviewed the Building OFFicial's recommendation. The applicants are requesting a subdivision to allow 2,500 square feet of Lot 3 to be added and combined, with the vacant Lot 2, Block 5. The remainder of Lot. 3 will be approximately 4,000 square Feet containing an existing detached garage. The 4,000 s~uare Foot parcel with the garage is part of Lot 18, Block 4, across Shorewood Lane. Lots 2 & 3 are in the R-I zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square Feet, and lot I8 is in the R-2 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square Feet. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision and lot size variance for Parcel k of l,O00 square Feet creating a lot size of' 9,000 square feet. Staff recommends approval of Parcel B to be combined as one tax parcel with Lot 18, Block 4 upon the condi- tion that surveys be submitted to indicate the subdivision of Lots 2 and 3. The garage on Parcel B must maintain 6 Foot side yard setbacks and a 30 foot Front yard setback. ~~ Planning Commission Minutes July ]0, 1989 Page Five The applicant, Arlene Green, reviewed the history of their pur- chase oF the 1and. She stated that they were under the impres- sion that this was a buiidable lot. She also stated that there are houses along the same street that have received lot size variances to allow new construction. Sohns commented that the Planning Commission agreed, whe~ developing the Comprehensive Plan, that they will no longer use the 10% rule when determining variance. Meyer agreed that newly created lots should not be undersized, it was determined that their is 1,000 square feet available on Parcel B that could be used to create a DuildaDle lot of 10,000 square feet for Parcel A. Andersen commented that allowing Parcel B to be 4,000 square feet would allow the applicant to prevent such happenings as parking hecreational vehicles next to the street. MOTION made by Andersen,' Seconded by Clap~ddle to ap- -prove staff rec(~nendation. Motion failed 2 - $. Those in favor: Andersen and Clapsaddle. Those opposed: $ohns, Meyer, Jensen, Th~l, 'and Michael. Sohns raised a concern with creating a storage lot by using the area behind the garage. It was noted that there is 26' from the garage to the proposed rear property line. It was then deter- mined that to remove ],000 square feet from Parcel B, the garage would then be 6 Feet From the rear property line. MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Michael to allow the subdivision upon the condition that Parcel A is 10,000 square feet. The applicant, Arlene Green, explained to the Commission again that there are other homes in the area built on undersized lots. Meyer explained that the Commission is striving to alleviate the creation of new undersized lots. Thal added that no hardship ex- ists. · ' Andersen stated that he feels to deny the lot size variance is not Fair and creates a hardship For the applicants. MOTION carried 5 - 2. Those in favor: Sohns, Meyer, Jensen, Thai, and Michael. Those opposed: Andersen and Clapsaddle. Planning Commission Htnutes July lO, 1989 Page 5ix Case No. 89-831: James & Sandra Ruud, 2233 Lynwood Blvd., Lots 35 & part of Lot 34? Lynwold Addition to Mound! PID ~I4-I17-24-43 0045. VARIANCE: setback to place an accessor~ buildinq with no public right-of-way. The City Planner reviewed the Building OFficials recommendation for approval of the request to place a detached garage within 20 feet from the east and 4 feet from the north property lines upon the following conditions: 1) The City of Mound grant the applicant a permanent driveway easement 14 feet in width across their property separating Lot 35 from part of Lot 34 all the way to Lynwood Blvd. 3) 4) The applicant submit a registered land survey of the parcel located in Part of Lot 34 ONLY on which the proposed detached accessory building will be placed. Consideration for f.uture' setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval due to the lack of public right- of-way frontage. The applicant shall set up an escrow account to pay for the costs of legal, engineering, and administrative fees to draft and record the easement documents. Applicant, James Ruud spoke on his behalf· He informed the Com- mission that since the application was made, he had located the Abstract and it states that from 1914 through 1974 that the property has a right of way on the I4' wide strip. He further stated that he has no problems with condition items 2 and 3, however feels that items I and 4 is now obsolete. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve staff recommendation for approval, including the follow- ing conditions: 1) The applicant submit a registered land survey of Part of Lot 34 ONLY on which the proposed detached ac- cessory building will be placed. 2) Consideration for future setbacks on Part of Lot 34 will require variance approval due to the lack of public right-of-way frontage. 3) The applicant supply documentation to the City proving right-of-way access. MOTION carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 25, 1989. ~'~3 Planning Commission Minutes July lO, 1989 Page Seven ge Request from Skip Johnson to move a house from one lot to another (additional information will be supplied at the meeting). The reason for this request appearing before the Planning Co~mis- sion was reviewed. It was determined that the Planning Commis- sion is to determine if this house will aesthetically fit into the character of the proposed location, and hear if any neighbors object. There were no citizens present with a concern to this matter. Applicant, Skip Johnson, stated that since the house is being moved within the neighborhooO, it should fit into the character of the area. He informed the Commission that the Building In- spector has looked at the house and she stated the home was okay structurally. He added that the house will be on lower ground on ~he new lot, therefore will not look so high. MOTION made by Andersen, seConded by Michael, to approve the 'house moving onto Lots 7 & 8, Block 17, Avalon. Motion carried unanimously. case No. 89-809t Jack Cookt 4452 Denbian Rosa, Lot 2t Block It Avalont rID #19-117-23 24 0002. MINOR SUBDIVISION / VARIANCE. The City Planner explained that Mr. Cook has submitted an ap- plication for subdivision to adjust the lot line between lots 2 and 3 which will remove the current retaining wall and deck encroachments. The applicant is also requesting a setback variance for the deck which wi11 be I foot from the proposed property line. The City Planner stated that staff approves of the subdivision, however, recommended denial of the setback variance since there is no hardship and the problem can be rectified. Staff recom- mended that the applicant lower the deck to less than 30 inches or remove it. " MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Thal, to approve staff recommendation for approval o6 the subdivision, however, denial of the setback variance, and the deck must be brought into conformance. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council in September. Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 1989 Page Eigh~ DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL: a. Proposal to erect a fence behind the Balboa Business Center (abuttin~ neiohbors within 350' have been notified). The City Planner reviewed the request to install a 6' high wooden Fence to supply screening of the trailer storage area i~ the northwest corner of the Balboa site. He further explained that the current Zoning Code does not adequately address allowable heights for fences in industrial areas, therefore, if the proposal is found acceptable it is suggested that a variance be granted. Sohns raised this issue of the trailer storage and stated that they are storing more than the al lowed 12 trailers. He requested that the City enforce this requirement. MOTION made by Michael, Seconded by Andersen, to allow the proposed 6' high wooden fence to be erected in the proposed location, and grant a fence variance until the fence ordinance is revised accordingly. Motion carried unanimously. b. Proposed fence ordinance revision regardino fence height. The City Planner reviewed the proposed fence ordinance revisions. He referred to (9) which refers to fences in commercial or in- dustrial districts. The Commission discussed (9) and how this would effect single family homes built in the industrial or com- mercial districts. The Commission Felt that fences in these dis- tricts should not be mandatory, however should only govern when a fence is erected in these districts. The City Planner noted a change in (9), line 7, the height should be seventy-two (72) inches rather than seventy-six (76) inches. The Commission also agreed that in residential districts the board length should not exceed seventy-two (?2) inches in length, and the maximum height of any and al1 fences should be seventy- ei~jht (78) inches. The City Planner will prepare a revised proposed fence ordinance for review at the next Planning Commission Workshop meeting prior to publication. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Sohns, to adjourn the meeting at IO:IZ p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Attest: Cha i r, B i 11 Meyer MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE NOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION JULY 13, 1989 Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Cathy Baily. Tom Casey, Nell Weber, Nancy Clough, and Brian Asleson; Park Director Jim Fackler; Dock inspector Dell Rudolph, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused were Commissioners Steve Burke, Shirley Andersen, and Council Representative Phyllis Jessen. The Following persons were also in attenOance: Smith, Andrea Ahrens, Bill Thal, and GeoFF Michael. Mayor Steve The Park Commission toured 35 lake access sites on. Lake Min- netonka, 3 sites on Langdon Lake, and 3 sites on Dutch Lake. These access sites are used by all terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and/or automobiles. The bus left the Senior Center at 5:25, and returned at 7:42. Chair Byrnes called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. Minutes The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of June 8, 1989 were presented for changes and/or additions. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Clough, to approve the Park Commission Minutes of June 8, 1989 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Maintenance Permit: Larry & Christine Hauskins, 1749 Bluebird Lane. Lots t3 & 14~ Block 9, Dreamwood, WIOTA COMMONS. Request to trim poison ivy and sumac. The applicants are requesting to spray the heavy foliage, and th'in or trim down some of the bush type structures. They do not plan on cutting any trees. They also propose to then plant some prairie grass on the hillside to:help prevent erosion. In addi- ti. On, the applicants are requesting to remove 2 - 3 small trees on the lakeshore which are blocking a pathway to their dock. The Park Commission agreed that this area is considered a nature area and absolutely no trimming should be allowed. However, they expressed a concern with the poison ivy, and felt if the ap- plicants or Family members are sensitive to it, they should allow. them to selectively spray the poison ivy only. Park Commission Meeting July 13, 1989 Page Two Clough raised a concern with the ~ossibil ity of an erosion problem developing if they are allowed to kill the poison ivy. Casey questioned what would grow in place of the poison ivy, would it De more poison ivy, or other weeds/foliage? Asleson suggested, if the applicants were allowed to place a stairway on that portion of the commons, it may help potential erosion. GeoFF Michael, who resides on Avocet Lane, informed the Commission that years ago when steps were constructed at the enos of Avocet and Bluebird, stairways were no longer allowed to be constructed along Wiota Commons. Only the steps at the street ends were to be used as access points since Wiota Commons is to be kept in a natural state. MOTION made by Bailey, seconded by Weber, to allow the ap- plicants to selectively spray only the poison ivy. Mo- tion carried 4 - l, and I abstained. Those in favor were: Bailey, Weber, Asleson, Byrnes. Those opposed were: Clough. Those abstained were: Casey. The Oommission further discussed the problem of poison ivy on City property. They expressed a concern for the need of a proce- dure for taking care of hazardous weeds, etc. on City property. Casey expressed a concern with the chemicals that will be used by the applicant. He also questioned how we would control the chemicals used. What if these chemicals kill all the Foliage? MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey, to withdraw the previous motion. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Bailey, seconded by Casey, to table the request until the applicant can present to the Park Com- mission how he plans to eliminate the poison ivy and what products will be used. In addition, the Park Director is to recommend a plan for the removal of the poison ivy. Motion carried unanimously. Letter From the DNR' relati'na to request For Fishing ~qardwalk/pier at Mound Bay Park. Clough noted that the letter stated Tonka Bay, not Cooks Bay and questioned if they had the correct location. The Park Director will call the DNR to confirm the correct location. The Park Director also stated that the chances of them being granted a ~ier are null since we were rated ninth and the DNR usually only grants a maximum of three piers per year. Park Commission Minutes July 13. 1989 Page Three Notice of compost sites that will accept Eurasion Water Milfoil. The Commission reviewed the compost sites available. The Park Director stated that Minnetrista will accep~ Eurasion Water Mil- foil from the City of Mound on Saturdays, however, Mound will have to supply a supervisor to watch the site For that day. He added that Minnetrista has a concern with contractors dumping construction materials at the compost when it is not supervised. Weber stated that Senator Gen Olson, and a few other Minnetrista citizens are accepting the weed. He added that Gert Olson is ac- cumulating a list of persons who will accept the weed For citizens wanting to get rid of it. New sians for Mound parks. ~he Park Director informed the Commission that they will be get- ting l! large signs with planters For'the bigger parks and small signs for the smaller parks. The Commission suggested they should try to get neighborhood involvement to get flowers/plants into the planters. It was suggested some sort of contest be or- ganized to encourage neighborhood involvement. LMCD AFter reviewing the LMCD minutes and report From Tom Reese, Weber informed the Commission that Tonka Bay is going to have a Mayors meeting to clarify the role of the LMCD. The Park Commission agreed that they would like to receive more detailed reports from Tom Reese, and would like him to appear pe- riodically to the Park Commission meetings so they may discuss the status of the LMCD Lake Study. MOTION made by Clough, seconded by Bailey, to request that Tom Reese come to the September Park Commission meeting to specifically address the management plan and actions the LMCD is taking." Motion carried unanimously. Park Director's Report Jim Fackler reported that the 1990 Budget will be presented for review at the August Park Commission meeting. Clough and Byrnes expressed a need For more detailed reports From the Community Services Park Program. Park Commission Minutes July 13, 1989 Page Four Dock Inspector's Dell Rudolph commented that he is now doing his rounds daily and has been sending out lots oF weed notices, Spraying Herbicides Casey expresse~ a concern regarding the spraying o~ herbicides and the effects they have on the lake. Weber informed the Com- mission that he has received a copy of the pre]iminary management plan (Water Quality Report) from the LMCD, an~ the issue o~ her- biciQes and fertilizer relating to run-off etc. is ad~resseO in the Oraft. The Park Director stated that he would supply the Commission with a copy o~ the draft. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Clough, that the Park Con~ission should research and address the issue of her- bicides being used on City property. Motion carried un- animously. MOTION made by As]eson, seconded by Clough, to adjourn .the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. q37