The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-07-14CITY OF MOUND MISSION ST TEM~NT, The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 23, 1992 REGULAR MEETING. PG. 2032-2046 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #92-012: DAKOTA RAIL, INC. 2290 COMMERCE BLVD., PID #13-117-24 33 0066. PRELIMINARY PLAT "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION" (NORWEST BANK PROPERTY)· PG. 2047-2061 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #92-021, STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER, 4908 EDGEWATER DRIVE. REOUES?: VACATE A FIRE LANE. PG. 2062-2084 PUBLIC ~EARING: CASE #92-022: JERRY WINTER, 2343 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 3 & 4, AUDITOR'S SUBD. #167, PID #14-117-24 44 0004. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLY OPERATIONS. PG. 2085-2103 CASE #92-0~9: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0087 REQUEST: VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION (THIS WILL BE REHEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MONDAY EVENING) PG. 2104-2118 CASE #92-030: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. 2029 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. CARRYOVER FROM LAST MEETING: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME. PG. 2119-2121 CASE #92-03L= JOHN & CHRISTINE GABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19 AND PT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID #30-117-23 22 0009. CARRYOVER FROM LAST MEETING: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS ON LOT 19 AND 18 EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FRONT AND REAR, BLOCK 1, DEVON, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT 1 FOOT OF ROANOKE ACCESS. PG. 2122-2123 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT OF PROPERTY FROM MSC PROPERTIES (LITTLE LEAGUE FIELDS) PG. 2124-2132 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUNDAND RONALD BOSTROM, POLICE OFFICER RE: EARLY RETIREMENT. PG. 2133-2137 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND LOIS SANDQUIST, FINANCE DEPT. RE: EARLY RETIREMENT. PG. 2138-2141 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. REGARDING MOUND VISIONS PROJECT. PG. 2142-2144 REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - RECONFIGURATION OF STAIR PLAN ON COMMONS PROPERTY AT 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE FOR MIKE AND DIANE ROY. PG. 2145-2155 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST OF $1,105.79 - 1991 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT. PG. 2156-2157 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING BURNING PERMITS. PG. 2158-2168 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2169-2189 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. June 1992 Department Head Monthly Reports. PG. 2190-2220 LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for June 1992. PG. 2221 2030 De E® Ge He LMCD Mailings. Please note the invitation to attend the Public Official's Lake Tour & Luncheon to be held, Saturday, August 1, 1992, beginning at 11 A.M. at the Lafayette Club dock. Please let Fran know by July 24, 1992, if you and/or your guest will be attending. PG. 2222-2229 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 11, 1992. PG. 2230-2237 Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 1992. PG. 2238-2244 Thank you note from the Mound City Days Committee for 1992. PG. 2245 Invitation to attend the seventh annual "Outreach Breakfast" of the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) scheduled for Tuesday, July 21, 1992, 7:30 A.M. at the Radisson Ridgedale. Please let Fran know ASAP if you wish to attend. PG. 2246-2247 Letter dated June 17, 1992, from Pat & Paul Meisel of Mound, who are formally requesting that their properties in the Mound Central Business District (CBD) parking program be removed from the CBD parking program effective June 30, 1992. I responded to Meisels in a letter dated July 6, 1992. This is also attached. I indicated to them that City Staff would be bringing this letter to the attention of the City Council and that Staff would ask that the Council allow the Staff some time to completely review the ramifications and impact of this request on the future of the CBD program. There is ample time to do this since we do not start gearing up the maintenance program until Fall. Do you agree with Staff's recommendation? PG. 2248-2249 2031 June 23, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 23, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said city. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building official Jon Sutherland, and the following interested citizens: Bill Maclachlan, Larry Paste, Phil & Eva Hasch, Cheryl Fougeron, Ginny Miller, Mike Mason, David Osdoba, Ben Gaudette, V. S. Snodgrass, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Diane Rosencranz, Scott Carlson, Denny Clark, David Johnson, Carole Munson, Dean Hanus, Mark Hanus, Jerry Gibbs, John Eccles, Bradley Blazavic, Mrs. Donald Sween, and John Gabos. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the June 9, 1992, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the June 16, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 495 RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO RENT HOUSING, PROPOSED RENTAL HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 319) The City Manager stated that after the April 28th Meeting an RFP was developed. Before the RFP was sent out, the City Manager and the Building official worked out the estimated revenue/suggested fees and the estimated expenses/rates - total estimated revenue is $31,125, total estimated expenses are $28,882. Based on these estimates, the program would pay for itself. To this, it is recommended that the City add a $30.00/per hour additional inspection fee or $15.00/half hour minimum. This would be the charge per visit after the initial visit and one follow-up visit. 101 June 23, 1992 The ad was placed in the Minneapolis Star Tribune and a number of other professional publications. Eighty plus individuals or firms requested the RFP. 6 responses were received. No interviews have been held at this point. The Building Official explained that there are "built in deficiencies exempt,, that were not dealt with at the Planning Commission. They are as follows: 1. Ceiling Height. 2. Floor Area. - This does not apply in Mound. 3. Natural Light and Ventilation. He stated he has obtained some language from Brooklyn Park that should be incorporated into the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Jensen corrected Section 319'15, Subd. 4 and 14 as follows: · Re Subd. 4. s onsibilit for Store e and Dis osal of Garba e and Rubbish. Every owner of shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of rubbish or garbage. In the case of single or two-family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to furnish such facilities as prescribed by Section 490 of the City Code. Subd. 14.Maintenance of Drivin and Parkln Areas The owner of · · . · .............. a multiple family dwelling or dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved and delineated parking areas and driveways for tenants. The Council agreed. The City Attorney asked that after the changes are made, they be incorporated into the ordinance and then summary ordinances can be prepared for publication. The Council discussed time-lines as to when licenses should be due, i.e. January 1, of each year or another time. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Phil Hasch, 4808 Northern Road, owner of rental property. Property owners should have representation. Asked if there 102 June 23, 1992 weren't other laws that could govern this. The City Attorney answered no. Dorothy Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd., owner of rental property. Wanted to see the proposed ordinances. She was told they are available at City Hall. Bill Netka, 2360 Commerce Blvd., owner of rental property. Stated he felt this was discriminating against landlords. Felt all property should have to observe the same standards. Doesn't feel this ordinance is necessary for him. Expressed concerns about taxes and recycling. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by smith to continue the public hearing to the July 28th Meeting, in order to have the changes incorporated into the ordinances and summary ordinances prepared. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 CASE ~92-029: WILLIAM MACL~CHL~N, ACCESS MOBILITY SYSTEMS, 2950 HIGHLAND COURT, LOT 5, BLOCK 1, COBBLESTONE COVE, ~23-117-24 41 0031, INSTALL A m~CLIFF CLIMBER~ WITHIN A SCENIc EASEMENT The Building Official reviewed the application. The Staff recommended approval if the structure is properly engineered and all required permits are obtained, including a state electrical permit and a building permit to ensure compliance with any conditions. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 3 vote. Bill Maclachlan, Access Mobility Systems, explained that the car is only 3 feet wide and would be located 12 inches from the existing stairway. There is very little clearing of vegetation required for the installation. The color scheme for the unit has been approved by the DNR. The Council discussed the Scenic Easement and the impact this Cliff climber would have by adding another structure on this 50 foot wide lot. The City Attorney suggested the following language for the proposed resolution: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance to the Scenic Easement approved by Resolution #86-156 for Cobblestone Cove to allow the construction of a "Cliff climber" and also allow the maintenance of the area so that the Climber may operate over the allowed space. 103 June 23, 1992 Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-71 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO A "SCENIC EASEMENT- TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF "CLIFF CLIMBER" AT LOT 5, BLOCK 1, COBBLESTONE COVE (2950 HIGHLAND COURT), PID ~23-117-24 41 0031, p & Z CASE #92- 029 The vote was 3 in favor with Jensen and Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.4 ~~N ~nD~ ,~v,, ~,~ _ LANE. 0087 VARIANCE ~ ......... *" ~-117-24 21 The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on at 6-3 vote, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to the building permit issuance. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-72 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ON LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID #13-117- 24 21 0087, P & ~ CASE #92-019 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE 92-020: DAVID JOHNSON 4345 WILSHIRE BLVD. LOTS 3 1~ 0007 VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-72 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND LEVEL FOUR SEASON PORCH AND A FIRST LEVEL BASEMENT ON PART OF LOTS 75, 76 AND LOT B, THE FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK - 1ST DIVISION AND ALL OF LOT 4 AND PART OF LOT 3 AND THE PRIVATE STREET IN PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION, PID #19-117- 23 13 0007 (4345 WILSHIRE BLVD.) p & Z 104 June 23, 1992 #92-020 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~92-023: VIRGINIA MILLER, 5020 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOTS 6 & 7t SKARP & LINDQ, UIST,S GLEN ARBOR, PID ~13-117-24 42 0013, VARIANCE - RECONSTRUCT DWELLING DUE TO FIRE The City Planner explained the request. He further explained that the applicant will be rebuilding with conforming sideyard setbacks. There are still two variances, one pertaining to lot width and the other pertaining to an existing nonconforming detached garage. The Planning Commission recognized that the existing garage is a safety hazard and ultimately does need to be removed (no site distance when entering and exiting). The Planning Commission recommended that the garage be allowed to remain for 2 years and then be removed. The City Attorney suggested that another provisions be added to the proposed resolution: "Building Permit may be issued so that applicant can commence construction and the balance of the resolution will be deferred for 2 weeks." This will give the applicant and the staff time to work out some sort of agreement on the garage and its removal or relocation. The Council agreed. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-73 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A HOME ON PART OF LOT 6, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S GLEN ARBOR, (5020 EDGEWATER DRIVE) PID #13-117-24 42 0013, P & Z CASE #93-023 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CASE ~92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSION The Building Official reported that he has now received the survey from the applicant. The proposed deck setback to the lake that says 44 feet on Page 1902 is actually 37 feet to the 929.4 elevation. The lot width scales at 47 feet, required is 60 feet in the R-1 zone. This is an unusually shaped lot. The applicant had already left the meeting. The Council discussed the difference and thought it should be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. 105 June 23, 1992 MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to reconsider the resolution %92-72 due to new information being received. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to rescind resolution %92-72 and refer it back to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation based on the new survey that has been submitted and double the variance being required. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE ~92-024= FINE LINE HOMES, 1734 WILDHURST LANE, LOT 7, ~ 1/2 8, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~13-117-24 11 0043, VARIANCE - NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMR The Building Official reviewed the Commission recommended approval. request. The Planning Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-74 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOTAREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT LOT 7 AND THE NORTHWESTERLY HALF OF LOT 8, BLOCK 14, SHADYWOOD POINT (1734 WILDHURST LANE), PID %13-117-24 11 0043, P & ~ CASE %92-024 The vote was unanimously in faVor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE ~92-026: BRADLEY BLa~AVIC, 1871 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 2, BLOCK 12~ SHADYWOOD POINT~ PID ~18-117-23 23 0061~ VARIANCE - ADDITION The City Planner explained that the request is to add an addition that requires a variance of 2.5 feet. The property has two other nonconformities that need to be addressed. The garage is 1.5 feet off the right-of-way line and the other is a storage shed that sits to the rear of the property which is encroaching 1.2 feet onto the neighboring property which is city property. The staff recommendation was approval of the variances to allow construction of the entryway, specifically including the side yard setback, recognition of the garage setback, and immediate removal, prior to building permit, of the storage shed from City property. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant indicated a desire to request a vacation of the neighboring city property which would alleviate the encroachment of the storage shed. The Planning Commission agreed and recommended that the shed be allowed to stay for one year to give the applicant time to request the vacation. 106 June 23, 1992 The proposed resolution does refleCt this. The city Attorney recommended that the Council follow the recommendation of the City Planner to have the storage shed removed immediately from the public land to be consistent with action the City is taking in other cases. The applicant stated he was not aware the shed was on public property until he had his survey done in May. There was considerable discussion about the storage shed and its location and whether the adjoining property is public land. The City Planner also asked that the elevations at the floor level be verified as being at the 933.4 mark. The elevation question was not looked at by the Planning Commission. The Council discussed how they could allow the applicant to start his building and address the elevation and removal of the shed questions. The city Attorney suggested that the resolution be amended to read as follows: "The City does hereby approve the 2.5 foot side yard setback variance and recognizes the 18.5 foot front yard setback variance for the detached garage and further find that the existing nonconforming storage building shall be removed or moved to a conforming position on the lot~ ~v~ ........................ The house and the storaqe shed shall meet all elevation requirements or the applicant must return to the Planning Commission to process his application for any required variances." The Council felt this was a good way to allow him to get his building permit and still address the elevation problems. They also agreed that the applicant would not pay another fee for a variance if he had to go back to the Planning Commission about the elevations. The City Attorney asked the applicant if he would move the shed off the public property. The applicant stated he would remove the shed from the public property within two weeks. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 92-75 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION INCLUDING AN 107 June 23, 1992 ENTRYWAY AND KITCHEN EXPANSION AT LOT 2, BLOCK 12, SHADYWOOD POINT, (1871 BHOREWOOD L~qE), PID #18-117-23 23 0061, P & S CASE #92-026 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE ~92-028: DIANE ROSENCRANTZ, 5115 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4~ REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID #24-117-24 12 0011, VARIANCE - GARAGE ADDITIOn: The City Planner explained the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-76 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT LOT 4, REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 7, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, (5115 BARTLETT BLVD.), PID #24-117-24 12 0011, P & Z CASE ~92-028 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Osdoba, 2600 Wilshire Blvd., expressed concern about access to his property when another adjoining neighbor parks vehicles in the platted right-of-way of Channel Road. He stated he had no problem with Ms. Rosencrantz getting the variance for the garage. The City Planner stated there are parking problems in this area but this variance does not impact that problem. This is a Police Dept. enforcement issue if someone parks in front of another person's driveway. 1.10 ,CASE ~92-030: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS i & 32, SKARP & LINDOUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-2~ 41 0035, VARIANCR The City Planner explained the request. He further explained that since the meeting last night the applicant has flip-flopped the screen porch and the deck. The Planning Commission recommended approval of all the improvements but did not take action on the screened porch and the deck because the setbacks to the lake were of concern and the exact distances were not known. The Planning Commission had the flip-flop position of the deck and porch presented to them verbally but have not seen it nor have they seen what impact that would have on the lake. 108 June 23, 1992 The new proposed screen porch is 45 feet from the ordinary high water mark which would require a 5 foot variance and the new deck would be 39 feet which would require an 11 foot variance. Another issue that became part of the discussion last night was the flood elevation of the home. The owner has gotten survey information together today that identifies that the main floor of the structure is at an elevation of 934.4 which is in excess of the 933.5. However, the garage 932.5 is 1 foot under the normal elevation that is required for finished floor in accordance with the flood plain ordinance. In order to process all the variances in this case , the Council would have to add a 1 foot flood variance from the flood provisions contained in Section 300:15 of the City Code for the garage area only. The utilities being added in the garage area would have to be above that elevation according to the Building official. The Planning Commission has not dealt with the issue of the porch. They specifically elected to pull that out and advised the applicant last night that she could come back and seek an additional variance in the future if she chose to construct that. In the last 24 hours, she has come back to present the flip-flop plan to the Council. The Planner clarified that the existing deck is setback 44 feet from the ordinary high water mark, the proposed porch would be setback 45 feet making the porch slightly smaller than the existing deck and requiring a 5 foot lakeshore setback variance. The applicant stated the reason she flip-flopped the plan was for privacy. The new porch which is next to street right-of-way would give her more privacy from that area. The Council asked if the applicant would consider putting an angle on the deck so that it only required a 5 foot setback variance to the lake. The applicant replied, she would do anything that was required for the deck. Upon further discussion the applicant agreed to reduce the deck size and angle the deck so that it does not encroach anymore than the 5 feet of the porch. The Council approved by consensus the following requests: The addition of a 5' x 15' covered deck at the entry on the front of the home. 2. An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. 109 June 23, 1992 A first floor addition (marked "proposed addition', on survey) measuring 16.3' x 18.9'. A second floor addition measuring approximately 17.8' x 34' over the proposed addition referenced above and the existing portion of the home north of the proposed addition. The addition of a 12' x 14' screen porch on the east side of the home which would require a 5 foot variance. 'The proposed deck to the south of the proposed screen porch may not encroach more than 5 feet into the lakeshore setback area. 6. 1 foot floor elevation variance for the garage area. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to direct staff to prepare a resolution to apProy~ the above variances .as out~.~d in items 1-6 and bring~., back to the next meet}ng for~p%oval. The vote was unanxmously in favor. Motxon carried. 1.11 CASE ~92-031= JOHN & CHRISTINE GABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIYE, LOT 19 & PT OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, DEVON, PID ~$0-117-25 22 0009, VARIANCE The City Planner reviewed the request. recommended approval. The Planning Commission The applicant was recommendations. present and agreed with the proposed MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve the variances as recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission and bring it back to the next meeting for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION, MIKE £ MARTHA MASON, 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, REOUEST TO REPLACE RETAINING WALL The Building Official explained the request. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on a 8-1 vote. The Council reviewed the proposed resolution and asked that item b. be removed because it was repetitive and add the following: "b. Upon inspection and approval, the light pole is approved for a maintenance permit." The applicant should come in and fill out a 110 June 23, 1992 maintenance permit application for the light. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR LAND ALTERATIONS TO ALLOW A BOULDER RETAINING WALL, FILLING AND LEVELING OF THE GRADE AND PLANTING OF GRASS AND WILD FLOWERS ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOTS 12 & 13v BLOCK 14, DEVON, DOCK SITE ~43770 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 CONTINUED DISCUSSION RE: CONDITION OF BOATHOUSE AND MINIMUM REPAIRS NEEDED FOR SAFETY PURPOSES AT 4729 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE FOR CAROLE MUNSON The Building Official explained that he had just tonight received copies of letters from a structural engineer regarding the boathouse and deck at 4729 Island View Drive and thus has not had time to respond. The Council was given copies of the letters. There was considerable discussion about the report that Ms. Munson's structural engineer submitted. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson was willing to do what the engineer indicates needs to be done. Ms. Munson replied, absolutely. Ms. Munson indicated that the engineer's estimate of the cost of the minimal repairs as described in his report would be about $500 without labor. Ms. Munson stated that it was her understanding at the April 28th meeting that the building was to be repaired so that it would have at least the life expectancy of the maintenance use permit or 3 years. The City Attorney asked what kind of an agreement the City could make with her that she would do this work within a specified period of time to protect her safety or anyone else's. Ms. Munson stated that it could be done within a 3 year period of time. The City Attorney explained that the Council since giving the 3 year maintenance permit just want it brought into a safe condition for that 3 year period. He asked if she could do that within the next month. Ms. Munson replied, no. Ms. Munson stated that her understanding of the engineer's report was that it is impossible to determine exactly what shape the building is in from a safety standpoint so she feels she should have the period of the maintenance use permit to do the work. She stated that the structural engineer's report does not indicate that the building is 111 June 23, 1992 in any imminent danger of being a public safety hazard. She stated she would do the work during the time period of the maintenance use permit. The City Attorney stated that the City would like to work this out and have the repairs done in a timely manner. Ms. Munson stated she would like to do the work during the winter when timbers could be brought in over the ice on the lake. The Council expressed concern about doing this work when the ground is frozen. The Council asked that the Building Official speak with Richard E. Eckroad, P.E., Structural Engineer and clarify the information in the letter and a time frame for the repairs to be completed. The following questions need to be answered: Is the structure in good enough condition to stand where it is for 2 1/2 years? Can the boathouse wait until winter and what effect will winter frost have on the repairs? Ms. Munson stated she cannot do the work within the next 30 days. The Council was polled to see if they were willing to give Ms. Munson 2 1/2 years to repair the boathouse. Four Councilmembers stated no, they were not willing to allow this. Councilmember Ahrens stated she would like to hear from the structural engineer as to what time period he thinks these kinds of things would need to be completed by. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to hold any action on this untll the meeting on July 28, 1992, to give the Building Official time to clarify information submitted in the structural engineer,s letter and try to answer the questions above. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There was another letter attached to the structural engineer's report on the boathouse. This letter refers to the patio and deck on Ms. Munson's property at 4729 Island View Drive. The City Attorney asked if this second letter implies that Ms. Munson is going to comply with the Council's order to remove the deck as it is on Commons and was voted upon last December. Ms. Munson stated that she is looking for several ways to keep the integrity of the deck area, and to keep a railing. She stated she has discussed this with the Building Official because she is very concerned about safety in that area. She suggested removing the 112 June 23, 1992 planking from the deck, leaving 4 feet as the walkway between the stairways and have a step off the walkway to the old patio area. She would then like to leave the railing that is currently up on the edge of the deck as a safety feature so that people would not fall off that area. The Building Official explained that he and the Park Director told Ms. Munson that if she was going to do anything other than the walkway between the stairways, she would have to get a construction on public lands permit. That would require bringing a plan in and filling out an application and going through the Park & Open Space Commission and the City Council. The City Attorney explained that the City Council issued an order in December and Mr. Shukle wrote Ms. Munson a letter. The Inspectors went out to the property on the llth of June, have taken pictures, etc. None of the things that she was directed to do have been done. Mr. Shukle has contacted the City Attorney and has directed his office to commence proceedings against Ms. Munson and Mr. Hanus to have their properties brought into compliance with the Council's order. The City Attorney asked how he should proceed. Ms. Munson contended that she was instructed to investigate the possibility of keeping a railing. Ms. Munson was reminded that she was sent a handout for stairways and handrails in a letter that was sent by the Building Official on May 18, 1992. The City Attorney asked if Ms. Munson would agree to remove everything other than the stairways and handrails that have been required and approved by the Council on April 28, 1992. Ms. Munson stated she was in agreement. The Council agreed to give Ms. Munson until July 28, 1992, to apply and go through the process of construction on public lands permit. Ms. Munson was instructed to submit an application for a construction on public lands permit with a plan for whatever she is proposing to do with the railing that she wants on the edge of the old patio. Any plan would not include the deck that has been ordered to be removed. The deadline for submitting an application and a plan is July 1, 1992. If the application and plan are not received by July 1, the Building Official will notify the City Manager. The Council instructed the City Attorney to stay any action on Ms. Munson's deck removal until after the July 28, 1992, Council Meeting. 113 June 23, 1992 Denny Flack, 1609 Bluebird Lane, an abutting property owner to Commons. He was not happy with having property abutting commons. He related several items that he has a problem with: 1. Docks piled up on the shoreline. 2. A picnic table that has been left on the commons. 3. He planted two pine trees and was told to remove them. 4. Difference between dedicated commons and regular commons. The City Manager will check with the Park Director and the Dock Inspector on these items. The Council complimented Mr. Flack on how nice he keeps his commons. 1.15 DISCUSSION: MARKING OF COMMONS The City Manager reported that the Park Director has prioritized the sites for the marking of the Commons. How to fund these markings has been discussed at several COW Meetings. Councilmember Ahrens brought to his attention that the Liquor Fund was suggested as a possible source of funding at one of those meetings and it was not in the minutes. There were other options, i.e. Docks Program or a subsidy from the General Fund. The Council questioned how the areas were prioritized. The City Manager stated he would have the Park Director explain how he determined the priorities. The Council asked that this be brought up at a future meeting. No action was taken on this item. 1.16 DISCUSSION: 1993 PROPOSED LMCD BUDGET The Council expressed concern about the budget reduction in LMCD Communities Levy and in the increase in Licenses and Permits. They asked that Mound's LMCD Representative, Tom Reese and State Representative, Steve Smith be invited to the August llth Council Meeting to discuss this and other issues. 1.17 DISCUSSION: CITY NEWSLETTER. The City Manager reported that the City's newsletter editor, Ann Hensen, has resigned. He will be working to find another editor. 1.18 APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN FOR OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH (INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL) a 4 OR 5 LOCATIONS AND OVERHEAD BANNER Our Lady of the Lake has applied for a permit for 5 portable signs and 1 banner advertising the Incredible Festival. They would be up from July 1 through July 31, 1992 and would be placed at the following locations: 114 June 23, 1992 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Depot. Railroad tracks across from Ben Franklin. 3 Points (Old Gas Station). North wall of Our Lady of the Lake church. Super America station. Banner over County Road 110 in The Highlands. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to approve the portable sign application of Our Lady of the Lake as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.91 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $200,501.39, when funds become available. & roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for May 1992, as prepared by Finance Director John Norman. B. Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 1992. C. REMINDER: Mound City Days - June 19-21, 1992. D. Letter from Ted Fox to Councilmembers. We will be having an informal reception at Mound City Hall, 'Monday, June 22, 1992, at 3:00 P.M. for Sgt. Brad Roy who is retiring after nearly 30 years of employment with the City of Mound. Please come and wish Brad and his wife Sandy well as they leave for the Oregon coast. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 1:15 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 115 RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A THE PRELimINARY 2~ND F~NAL PLAT OF DAKOTA I~L F~RST ADDITION (2290 COMMERCE BLVD. - NORWEST BANK) P&Z CASE #92-012 WHEREAS, the preliminary and final plat of Dakota Rail First Addition has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordinances of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the B-1 Central Business Zoning District. WHEREAS, the Mound Advisory Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary and f~al plat, ~ h proper owner b ma re t~e do e NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve the preliminary and final plat as requested for Dakota Rail First Addition, as per Exhibit 'A', to be legally described as follows: That part of the East 170.00 feet of the West 203.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northerly of the northerly right- of-way line of County Road No. 15, and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence north along the west line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 791.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right 84 degrees 42 minutes to the east line of said West 203 feet, and said line there ending. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this resolution to the owners and subdividers after completion of the requirement of their use as required by M.S.A. 462.358. lA. No additional access from CSAH 110 or CSAH 15 will be permitted by Hennepin County. lB. Any proposed construction within County right-of-way shall require an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. Proposed construction includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. All areas within County right-of-way disturbed by construction shall be restored by the developer/property owner. lC. The land title shall be approved by the City Attorney. Proposed Resolution Case #92-012 Page 2 The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized' to execute the Certificate of Approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of the signing of the hard shells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 330 of the City Code and shall be recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution with one copy being filed with the City of Mound. Such execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of property compliance therewith by the Subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of the City. CITY of ,IOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 92-012 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION" AT 2290 COMMERCE BLVD. (NORWEST BANK), PID #13-117-24 33 0066 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1992 to consider a preliminary and final plat request for "Dakota Rail 1st Addition, at the property known as 2290 Commerce Blvd. (Norwest Bank) which is currently part of Dakota Railroad property, to be legally described as follows: That part of the East 170.00 feet of the West 203.00 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 13, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies northerly of the northerly right- of-way line of County Road No. 15, and southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence north along the west line of said Southwest Quarter a distance of 791.76 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence easterly deflecting right 84 degrees 42 minutes to the east line of said West 203 feet, and said line there ending. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, city Clerk Publish in "The Laker" June 29, 1992. within 350' by July 1, 1992. Mail to property owners printed on recycled paper MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9t ~992 1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT RE UEST FOR "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION~ AT 2290 COMMERCE BLVD. MOTION made.by Jessen, seconded by Ahre~s to set July 14, 1992, at 7.30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider a preliminary and final plat request for "Dakota Rail 1st Addition-, at 2290 Commerce Blvd. (Norwest Bank). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 1992 CASE ~92-012=. DAKOTA RAIL, INC., 2290 COMMERCE BLVD. t PID ~13-117- 24 33 0066. PRELIMINARY PLAT "DAKOTA RAIL 1ST ADDITION" - PUBLIu HEARING. This case was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1992, at which time it was tabled pending receipt of more information. City Planner, Mark Koegler, informed the Commission that the applicant has supplied the information as requested by staff and approval of both the preliminary and final plat is being requested. Both the City Planner and the City Engineer recommended approval of the request. The City Planner addressed a' previous concern of the Planning Commission's relating to the width requirement for future light rail use. Koegler stated that the remaining Dakota Rail property will meet the 8 foot clearance requirement. Mueller questioned if the bank should be included in the CDB parking. Staff will look into this issue. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present, Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. Koegler commented that this building does not conflict with the long range downtown plan. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat a~.requ~stedf provided the property owner be made aware ~ney ao no~ and they become a member of the Central Business u~ parking program. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 14, 1992. A~D-ON: PLANNING COMM. 6-8-92 CASE #92-012 McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. RECEIVED JUN MOUND PLANNING & INSP. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 June 1, 1992 Telephone 612/'476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning Department City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Dear Jon: City of Mound, Minnesota Dakota Rail 1st Addition Preliminary and Final Plats Case #92-013 MFRA #9985 As requested, we have reviewed the preliminary and final plats for Dakota Rail 1st Addition. The two major concerns we had on this plat have been addressed and the drawings revised accordingly. These two items were (1) additional right-of-way along Commerce Boulevard; and (2) sufficient utility easements for the existing MWCC forcemains and NSP power lines. The final plat, as presented, shows both the utility easement and additional right-of-way, whereas the preliminary plat does not have the additional right-of-way shown. The distance of 8-1/2 feet from the centerline of the tracks to the proposed property line evidently was questioned at the Planning Commission meeting on May 11. We had previously checked on this minimum distance when the City was negotiating purchase of the parking.lot to the east. The State Office of Railroads and Waterways have a minimum clear zone of 8-1/2 feet on each side of the centerline. They also said that the industry standards use a 25 to 50 foot right-of-way, which allows room for maintenance. The plat, as presented, meets the State's minimum requirements. From an engineering viewpoint, we would recommend approval of the preliminary and final plats as presented. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmk An Equal Oppodumty Employer HQ][ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Plat Approval APPLICANT: Jack Bolke & Richard L. Smith (Dakota Rail) CASE NUMBER: 92,01~ HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1s LOCATION: 2290 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business District (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: This case was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 11, 1992. At that time, the case was tabled pending receipt of comments from Hennepin County and modification of the preliminary plat to identify utility easements. The applicant has supplied the requested information and approval of both the preliminary and final plats is being requested. COMMENT: Most of the issues pertaining to this subdivision are engineering oriented. Correspondingly, the City Engineer is preparing a separate report. Planning issues include two primary items, lot size and parking. In the B-1 zone, lots are required to have a minimum size of 7,500 square feet. The proposed lot size is 11,095 square feet. The subject parcel contains the existing Norwest Bank. According to the zoning performance standards, business and professional offices are 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 Dakota Rail Subdivision June 1, 1992 Page 2 required to provide one parking space for each 400 square feet of floor area. The existing structure has a total of approximately 2,700 square feet resulting in a total parking demand of 7 spaces. According to the preliminary plat, 5 spaces are provided on the site. The remaining two spaces are available in the municipal parking lot which is located immediately east of the subject property. R E C O M M E N D A T I O N: The proposed preliminary and final plats are consistent with the planning standards contained in the subdivision and zoning ordinances. Approval is recommended subject to the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's report. rev£.ed 4/2/92 City of ~ound 5341 ~a~ood Road, ~ound~ ~ 55364 Phone: 472-0600~ Fax: 472-0620 11992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Planning Commission Date: 'May ll, 19,92 C£ty Council Date= June 9.,..199~. Site Vls£t Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed= Copy to City Planner, Copy to Public Works= Copy to City Engineer: Other= Case No. 92-01~.. - X prel£minary Plat Fee= $15Q,Q0 Final Plat Fee. Sl00,0O Escrow Deposit= $1,O00.0O Deficient Unit Charges~ Delinquent Taxes? V~d~IANCE REQUIRED? ~eeeeeeeeee~ee~®e~e~eee~ee~eeeeeeeeee~eeeeeeeee~~eeeeeee~e~eeeeeeeeeee~eeeeeeeee~~eeeee~eee Please type or print the following information: Addresser Subject Property 2290~-Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota Owner's Name Dakota Rgil, Inc. / Ell/ M.A. Mills) [~C~Day Phone. (612)587-4018 Owner'sAddress 25 Adams Street North, Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350 Applicant's Name (if other than owner)L Address Name of Surveyor, Jack 'Bolke - Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc. Name of Engineer: Day Phon% Day Phone (612)546-6837 Day Phone - EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the East 170 feet of the West 203 feet of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 13, Township 117, Range 24, Hennepin Count~lock Addition PIDNoo., t~'~-tl"7--~-4 3B O0(W~.~ PROPOSEDPLATNAME.. Dakota Rail First Addition Nas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Thil application lUlt be signed by all owners o! the subject property, or an explanation given why thi/s is not the case.' i n ture of O ner Date gnature of Owner DaCe -8 -2 .g L~ 0 0 Df. o ~>~ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 6, 1992 SUBJECT: Major Subdivision APPLICANT: Jack Bolke & Richard L. Smith (Dakota Rail) CASE NUMBER: 92-01~, HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-1s LOCATION: 2290 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business District (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: Dakota Rail has submitted an application for a major subdivision to create a new parcel around the existing Norwest Bank building at the corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Commerce Boulevard. In reviewing the application, the City Engineer and I determined that additional information is needed pertaining to road right-of-way along Commerce Boulevard and pertaining to utility locations and easements. Therefore, it is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing on this case and continue (table) action on the item until the needed information is submitted. The public hearing should remain open until the item is heard again at the Planning Commission. 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340 · Minneapolis, MN 55439 · (612) 835-9960 RECEIVED HENNEPIN May 7, 1992 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South 'Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 PHONE: [6t2] 930-2500 FAX [612] 930-2543 TDD: [642] 930-2696 HAY 1 1 1992 MOUND PLANNING & I!~. Mark Koegler, City Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-i687 Dear Mr. Koegler' RE: Proposed Plat - Dakota Rail 1st Addition CSAH 15/110 - South intersection, southeast quadrant Section 13, Township 117, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 1993 Review and Recommendations Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: - Because the existing building is placed at the CSAH 15 right of way line, Hennepin County will not request any additional right of way along this segment of CSAH 15 at this time. - For future improvements to CSAH 110 the developer should dedicate an additional 7' of right of way along CSAH 110 and the 8' triangle, measured from the new right of way line, shown in blue on Attachment 1. - No additional access from CSAH 110 or CSAH 15 will be permitted by Hennepin County. - All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for utility permit forms. - The developer must restore all areas disturbed during construction within County right of way. Please direct any response or questions to Les Weigelt. Transportation Planning Engineer DLH/LDW:lw attachment' cc: John Cameron HENNEPIN COUNTY an ~qual opportunity ~mployer ' i I f / REC EIVEO MOUND PLA ! ~ gE / EE ~ (L-'e .L~ 'Id t OIle~ON 'H '¥ .~ CIT' ' of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 6~2' 472 ~155 CASE NO. 92-021 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 10' WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 13 & 14t 8KARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD (4908 AND 4916 EDGEWATER DRIVE) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14~, 1992 to consider the vacation of a 10 foot wide platted right-of-way located between lots 13 and 14, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood (1908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive), as shown below: ( ~RR ~OIV5 ~ ~ , Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" June 22 and June 29, 1992. Mail to property owners within 350' by July 1, 1992. Post by June 29, 1992. printed on recycled paper July 2, 1992 CITY of MOUND Mr. & Mrs. Stephen Baxter 4908 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN. 55364 RE: VACATION _ 10' WIDE PLATTER RIGHT_OF_wAY Dear Mr. & Mrs. Baxter: Regarding your request of yesterday to postpone the public hearing until August 25, 1992, I have checked with the City Attorney and he informs me that since all the notices have been published and sent, we cannot delay the hearing. Thus, the Council will hold the public hearing and hear testimony for or against. They may at that time decide whether to grant or deny the vacation. I tried to call Mrs. Baxter this morning at the number she left, but she was in a meeting and I have not heard back so I decided to write and let you know the status. Sincerely, Fran Clark, CMC City Clerk Cc printed on recycled paper Lueille M. Wood 4895 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN ~5~6~ JUN 5 1992 June 17, 1992 Francene Clark Re; case number 92-021 Dear Ms. Clark: Will you please con~y to the Mound City Council my strongest objection to the proposed clostng of the right of waY lake access located between lots and 14 - also named 4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive. I feel that this is the last access to lake rights that we,the property owners who own homes not directly located on the lakeshore, have. May I give you a shrt history of what has happened to the other lake accesses which were formerly public? About 30 years ago, we could launch our boats and fish at 4850 Edgewater Dr. This is now the location of the Minnetonka Boat Rentals establishment. Most of the property owners from the non-lake side of Edgewater attended a council meeting at that_time to object to the proposed closing. No official notice was sent to us, and shortly thereafter the access was simply closed. About 10 years ago, the neighborhood shared a public dock on Arbor Lane, 3ust off of Edgewater. Again, it was a lovely opportunity to belong to this, our lake community. One spring, the homeowner who lived on one side of the dock Ins%ailed her own dock at an angle with the public dock. ~l~e Docks Inspector at the time was named ~n Rather. He ruled that there wasn't enough room between the two docks and that the public dock would have to go. Now this seems hardly logical, since there had always been room before the adjacent homeowner decided to angle her dock differently. It must have been quite convienient for her to rid herself of the pupltc access located next to her. There is supposedly another access ~ the ~urlong home, 50~4 Edgewater. They have, however, assimilated into their y~rd, by making it no longer look like it is public. I don't know if they would allow anyone to use it, and frankly I thtn~ most people would be frightened to. The~-was anothetaccess up at the end of Edgewater where it Jogs into Lynwood Blvd. As I understand it, that one is closed a~ well. Returning, finally, to the latest request for action, I do realize that ~ access in question is in a state of disrepair. We used to have a dock down there, but the owners on either side have steadily increased the size of their docks such that we have subsequently been denied one. These same owners now claim that there is a five foot drop to the lake. I find this suspect, as their yards are beautifully landscaped to the shore, and that they would be~ eftt from the closing through an increased y~rd. Indeed, the homeowners have already begun absorbing the top half of the access into their ~rards. Please do not take away our last access to the lake. When we moved here, it was because we had access to the lake. Do not deny us that. As neighbors and as taxpayers, we ask you to deny this petition for closing. Sincerely, MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION June 11, 1992 REOUEST TO VACATE FIRE LANE BY STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER, 4902 EDGEWATER DRIVE. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to vacate a 10' wide unimproved public right-of-way "fire lane." Fackler commented that his only concern is that this property is shoreline and to vacate it without good cause will set an example for other areas. He realizes this is only a 10' wide piece, but with the recent questions of why the City can't give up shoreline to abutting property owners, he is hesitant to recommend approval without good cause. There is not a City dock at this site as a dock at this location cannot meet the required LMCD setbacks. Applicant, Claudia Baxter, stated that she has lived next door to this fire lane for three years and has never seen anyone use the access. A10verline, owner of the property to the north of the fire lane commented that he spent $30,000 improving his yard and the fire lane with new sod. Barry Harpestad lives across the street from the fire lane and commented that he uses the property to access the lake, he has friends pick him up at the access by boat. He stated it is a gem of a property for the whole City and it should not be given away. If it is given away, future generations won't have the benefit of the property. He would like to see the property fixed up and made useable, he is willing to help fix it up. Ms. Baxter stressed the fact that there is another access 200 feet away which is more traversable. Eischied questioned if the City can make the property useable. Ahrens commented that with so many accesses in such a small area, maybe we don't need them all. Do we have the funds to maintain? Byrnes commented that there was a purpose these accesses were platted as they are, and they should not be given away. MOTION made by Schmidt to table the request until the Park Commission completes the Nature Conservation Area Study and the use of this property is defined. Mueller seconded the Motion. Schmidt clarified that this piece of property has potential use to the public and it needs to be reviewed within the context of the Nature Conservation Area study. PHONE NO, EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Region 6 Trails & Waterways, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106 (612) 772-7935 FILE NO. July 10, 1992 City of Mound Attention: Ms. Francene C. Clark 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55361 Dear Ms. Clark: Recently I received a copy of a notice sent to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources regarding the proposed vacation of a 10' wide right-of-way located along Edgewater Drive. It is difficult to predict at this time what future use this parcel may have with respect to accessing the lake, both from a recreational standpoint, as well as maintenance. The Department's concern is that the public have adequate access to all lakes in Minnesota. These right-of-ways provide that type of opportunity, and once they are vacated they are lost to the public forever. I understand that two of them in the immediate area have already been vacated. Since the property is not currently in use by the public for access to the lake, nor is there any anticipated use by the public, the Department of Natural Resources is not opposed to this~vacation. Please be advised that it is our policy to oppose such vacations if there appears to be a potential for public use. I would like to suggest that in the event this vacation goes tbrward that you consider the idea of replacing the lost public land to Lake Minnetonka with some additional land at another location. Public land to lakes is becoming difficult to obtain and development pressures are such that in some areas it is impossible. Future generations will have a difficult time enjoying our natural resources unless they ~re fo.~nunate enough to own property r:.ghts on a .,~,,,~. I appreciate the opportunity you have given the Department to comment on this proposal. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Martha J. Reger Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor CC: Gordon Kimball, Regional Supervisor Ann Peterson, Water Recreation Specialist George Golden, Attorney General's Office 'AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Park and Open Space Commission Minutes p. 2 - REQUEST TO VACATE FIRE LANE . . . June 11, 1992 Asleson questioned, "Who's to say their won't be a use for the property 50 to 100 years from now?" He is not in favor of a motion to table. Ahrens commented that not all the properties can be maintained. MOTION carried ? to 0 with 2 abstained. Those in favor were~ Schmidt, Eischied, Casey, Anderson, Byrnes, Mueller, Ahrens. Those abstained were Asleson and Skoglund. Chair skoglund polled the Commissioners on the reasons for their vote: Eischeid (in favor): Agrees with intent to determine use of property through commitment to complete NCA study. Casey (in favor): Is absolutely opposed to the vacation and the motion so far supports denial. If the property is given away, it will be gone forever. Byrnes (in favor): In favor of tabling as a lot of time has been invested into the NCA study, it will be done soon, and properties should not be given away until it is determined what they should be. The property needs to be maintained. Skoglund (abstained): wanted to resolve. Did not want to table or deny, but - Asleson (abstained): Wanted a motion to deny. - Schmidt (in favor): Feels the Park Commission has worked hard on the NCA study and we need to determine what properties can best benefit future generations in Mound. Mueller (in favor): While the Park Commission is in the midst of deciding what properties to keep, it is better to hang onto the property a little longer until this is determined. Ahrens (in favor): For the same reasons she stated earlier in the meeting. This request will be heard by the City Council at a public hearing on July 14, 1992. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1992 1.8 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A 10' WIDE PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 13 . LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOO _ & 14. SKARP & D (4908 AND 4916 EDGEWATER DRIVE) MOTION mad~ by JenSen, seconded by Ahrens to set July 14, 1992, at 7.30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of a 10, wide platted right-of-way located between Lots 13 & 14, Skarp & Lindquist,s RavensWood (4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carrie4. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION June 8, 1992 CASE #92-021: STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER, 4908 EDGEWATER DRIVE. REQUEST TO VACATE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FIRE LANE) - PUBLIC HEARING. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed with the Commission that the City Engineer reviewed this request and did not see any reason for the City to retain the right-of-way for Public utility or street purposes. No objections were received from other city departments or utility companies either. The Park and Open Space Commission will be reviewing this request at their meeting on June 11, 1992. Michael stated that he is not in favor of giving lakeshore property away, but there is no reason not to vacate. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. The applicant, Claudia Baxter, expressed reasons for the vacation. The vacation of the fire lane would make the side yard setback to her garage conforming, the property is not being maintained and she would like to clean it up, the access is not used by the public as it is difficult to traverse due to the steep slope, there are two other accesses close by that are flat and the public can use, and there are two other "fire lanes" which were approved for vacation in the area. Abutting neighbor to the north of the "fire lane" commented that she has witnessed neighbors using the access, however, due to the steep slope they get to a certain point and then encroach on her property to get to the shoreline, and they use her dock. Barry Harpestad of 4925 Edgewater Drive stated that he lives across the street from the "fire lane" and he has used it on occasion to access the lake, he has friends pick him up and drop them off at this location. Barry commented that he will help clean it and he feels it is an important asset for those who don't live on the lake. Lenny Buehl of 4915 Island View Drive stated that in the past he used the access for fishing, at one time he did have a dock there and he installed cement block steps which have since deteriorated. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus approval of the request to vacate the unimproved public right-of-way. to recommend 10 foot wide Voss commented that if the property is not functional it should be 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 put back on the tax role. It was suggested that the property could be improved for use. Mueller suggested that if the property is vacated a walkway easement could be established. Johnson commented that this request should be referred to the Park Commission, and if they cannot improve the property, then it should be vacated. Weiland stressed that we don't want to loose these properties, they are valuable to have, and he suggested that the neighborhood get together to clean the property, it could be adopted through the adopt a green space program. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Voss and Hanus. Those opposed were: Johnson, Weiland, Meyer, Mueller, Michael and Jensen. Meyer polled the Commissioners on the reasons for their decision: -Clapsaddle (in favor): The right-of-way is not being used as it was intended to be used when it was platted, and it is currently not safely useable. Johnson (opposed): The property is public land, and a request could be submitted to the Park Commission to improve the property. Hanus (in favor): There is not sufficient space for a dock site, and why hang onto it for an unknown use in the future? Weiland (opposed): gone forever. It is easy to give it away, but then it is Meyer (opposed): If the Park Commission can develop it for the benefit of the neighborhood, then keep it. It should not be given away, but sold, and the profits could go to improve other accesses in the neighborhood. Voss (in favor): He is not in favor of vacating commons property, however, he does not believe there is an overwhelming need for a 10 foot wide strip of land, and it would be a greater benefit to get it back on the tax roles. Mueller (opposed): He is in favor of granting the vacation in lieu of a walkway easement as access to the lake is a benefit. Michael (opposed): Due to the climate relating to public lands, he does not feel the vacation should be approved at this time. Jensen (opposed): Once the property is gone, we cannot get it 6 Plann£ng Commission Minutes June 8, 1992 back. The neighborhood could utilize the Adopt a Green Space Program and get together to clean and fix up the area. She does not believe the property can be sold, and the tax benefit would only be approximately $17 per year from each property. This request will be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission on June 11, 1992, and by the City Council at a public hearing on July 14, 1992. CASE ~92-022: JERRY WINTER, 2343 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 3 & 4, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION ~167, PID ~14-117-24 44 0004. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLY OPERATION - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a light assembly business in the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. The business, known as Advantage Products, will assemble small pest control tools and will initially employ 2 people. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Advantage Products subject to the following conditions: The use shall comply with all building, fire and ventilation codes. The use shall be limited to the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. Any future physical expansion of the business shall require modification of this conditional use permit. Ail receiving and shipments shall be handled via UPS or other small truck carrier. 4. Ail signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code. Outside storage of any raw materials, finished products or other items shall be expressly prohibited. Mueller questioned if any hazardous materials will be used in the process of the proposed assembly. Staff did not have an answer, the issue was briefly discussed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit as recommended by staff. Staff shall verify if hazardous materials are proposed to be used on-site. Motion carried unanimously. 7 Ro74 412.831 STATUtORy CIT]F~ 412.791 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18] 412.801 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18] 412,811 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18] 412.821 [Repealed, 1967 c 289 s 18] 9062 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS 412.831 OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. The council shall, annually at its first meeting of the year, designate a legal newspa- per of general circulation in the city as its official newspaper, in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner. History: 1949 c 119 s 100; 1973 c 123 art 2 s 1 subd 2 412.841 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition cfa majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four- fifths of all members of the council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed reso- lution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed reso- lution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any such vacation proceedings. History: 1949 c 119 s 102; 1953 c 735 s 12,. 1957 c 383 s I; 1967 c 289 s 15; 1969 c 9 s 85; 1973 c 123 art 2 s I subd 2; 1973 c 494 s 11; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c 444; 1989 c 183 s 4; 1990 c 433 s 2 412.861 PROSECUTIONS, VIOLATIONS OF ORDINANCES. Subdivision 1. Complaint. Ali prosecutions for violation of ordinances shall be brought in the name of the city upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused be arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall thereafter be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue thereon. The warrant and ali other process in such cases shall be directed for service to any police ot~cer, marshal, process officer, court officer, or constable of any town or city in the county, to the sheriff of the county, or all of them. Subd. 2. Form and contents of complaint. It shall be a sufficient pleading of the ordi. nances or resolutions of the city to refer to them by section and number or chapter. o?1 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: June 8, 1992 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting June 11, 1992 Peggy James, Secretary Request to Vacate Public Right-of-way (Fire Lane) Stephen and Claudia Baxter 92-021 Between 4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive Lots 13 and 14, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting to vacate the 10 foot wide unimproved public right-of-way abutting their property at 4908 Edgewater Drive. Vacation of this fire lane will create a conforming status for their property. The applicant also stated they will clean-up the property as it is currently not maintained. A Memorandum was sent to pertinent parties asking for their recommendation relating to the vacation of the subject fire lane (see attached copy). Minnegasco, NSP, GTE, Mound Fire Department, Mound Police Department, Mound Public Works Department and the city Engineer responded and had no objections to the vacation. There are no utilities located on the fire lane. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, expressed a concern about setting a precedent for vacating shoreline property (see attached rapid memo). The Planning Commission will be reviewing this request on Monday, June 8th. Public hearing notices for the June 8th Planning Commission Meeting were mailed to property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. This case will be heard by the City Council at a Public Hearing on July 13, 1992. printed on recycled paper RAPID MEMO TOPS gFORM4151 CITY of MOUN MEMORANDUM D DATE: May 26, 1992 TO: Minnegasco GTE Public Works Department City Engineer Northern States Power company Fire Department Police Department Parks Department FROM: Planning and Inspections Department SUBJECT: REQUEST TO VACATE UNIMPROVED PLATTED 10 FOOT WIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY (FIRE LANE) IN SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD BETWEEN LOTS 13 AND 14 (4908 AND 4916 EDGEWATER DRIVE) The City of Mound has received a request from the owner of 4908 Edgewater Drive to vacate the subject fire lane. A copy of the plat map showing the subject alley is below. Do you foresee a need for this fire lane? Are there any utilities involved? What recommendations do the City Departments have? An identical request was pursued in May 1983, however, the application was withdrawn due to opposition from the neighborhood. Please submit your comments and concerns in writing to Peggy James at Mound City Hall by 4:30 on Monday June 1, 1992. This request will be heard at an informal public hearing by the Planning Commission on June 8, 1992. If you have any questions, call Peggy direct at 472-0607. ,o79 printod on recycled paper ~D~N: PLANNING COMM. 6-8-92 CASE #92-021 McCombs Frank RoDs Associates, Inc. RECEIVED JUN 'N 1992 MOUND PLANNING & INSP 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 June 1, 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Ms. Peggy James Planning Department City of Mound 53ql Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Proposed Vacation of Fire Lane Between Lots 13 and 14 Skarps and Linquists Ravenswood Case #92-02! MFRA #8902 Dear Peggy: As requested, we have reviewed the above requested right-of-way vacation. From our records, it appears there are no City utilities located within this fire lane right-of-way. The storm sewer line for the two catch basins located in Edgewater Drive runs down Sandy Lane to Northern Road and discharges along the Dakota Rail. The elevation difference between Edgewater Drive and the lake at the end of the fire lane is approximately 37 feet. We do not see any reason for the City to retain this right-of-way for public utility or street purposes. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. JC:jmk Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron 2 ~) 7 ~' An Equal Oppodun,ty Employer APPLICATION TO VACATE CITY OF MOUND Maywood Road ~und, MN 55364 472-0600, fax: 472-0620 oate Fi,ed5_ I Application Fee: $150 Applicant's Name Applicant's Address Legal description of property owned by applicant: Lot Addition Day Phone ~ /- 30/ 7 Block~ PI~ No. /~-- //~-~$ Street or Easement to be Vacated: ! ~ ! ~]~ Reason for Re.est & Interest in Property: Osthere need for the to be retained for /~/6~. a public right-of-way a public purpose? I ce~ify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submi~ed herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature ~~[7 ~ /~ Date ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Recommendations from Utilities: NSP Minnegasco__ Recommendations from City Depts.: Public Works Engineer Police Chief Other GTE Fire Chief RESOLUTION NO. 86- /og PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-$34 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT )3, SKARP AND LINDQU)ST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID # 13-)17-24 4100)l (4908 Edgewater Drive) P & Z Case No. 86-534 WHEREAS, Michael C. Beatty, owner of the property described as Lot 13, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, PID # )3-1)7-24 410011, has applied for a side yard setback variance to allow construction of a 20 by )8 foot de- tached accessory building plus 5 feet from the principal building, 8 feet from the front property llne with the garage doors facing the side lot line with zero foot to the west IO foot fire access easement; and WHEREAS, City Code requires a 4 Foot side yard setback to the property line for detached accessory buildings, 8 foot front yard setback with the doors facing the side )or line plus 5 feet to the principal building; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend a side yard setback variance to recognize the fire access lane as a utility easement and also the former request to vacate the fire access lane was denied previously. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the zero foot setback, 4 foot variance to the west property,line abutting the )O foot fire access easement to allow the, construct)on of an'~ by 20 foot accessory building due to the topography and the narrowness of the lot on the following conditions: ). No garage overhang is extended beyond the applicant's property. 2. A registered land survey is to be submitted indicating the pro- posed location and existing utilities, and dwelling. 3. The accessory building doors are to face the east property llne with conforming setbacks to the principal structure and to the street front property line. 7 -t CASE NO. 83-224 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIS- SION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FIRE LANE STREET VACA- TION BETWEEN 4908 AND 4916 EDGEWATER DRIVE WHEREAS, pursuant to due and proper notice according to law, a public hearinq was held by the City Council at the City Hall in the City of Mound on July 5, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. to consider the vacation of the fire access lane between Lot 13 (PID # )3-117-24 4) OOil) and Lot 14 (PID # 13-117-24 4l O012) Skarp & Lindqulst's Ravenswood from Edgewater Drive to edge of Lake Minnetonka. This 10 foot wide fire lane is between the addresses of 4916 and 4908 Edgewater Drive, and WHEREAS, at such hearing all persons desiring to be heard were given such opportunity, after which said public hearing was declared closed by the Mayor, and WHEREAS, this is an undeveloped parcel of land and has never been a street, as such, and WHEREAS,.after review by the City Staff and Utilities, approval by the Plannin~ Commission was recommended as there is not a public need for the undeveloped street (fire access) and it is in the public interest to vacate said undeveloped street (fire access), and WHEREAS, one half of this vacated street is to be combined to PID # 13-117-24 4l O01l and one half combined with PID # 13-1)7-24 41 00)2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the undeveloped !0 foot street (fire access) between Lot 13 and Lot )4, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood is hereby declared vacated and one half to be equally combined with the aforementioned described Lots 13 and 14. That the City Clerk and City Attorney is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with Hennepln County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles, all in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851 and M.S.A. 117.19. · ""~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE i . . CITY COUNCIL ~' P~rsuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of ~r thy City of Hound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was said City on July 5, 1983, at 7;30 P.M. held at 5341Maywood Road in Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen. Councilmember. Peterson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam,'City Planner Mark Koegler and City Clerk Fran Clark.and the following interested citizens: Robert Sherlock, Bill Michel, Tim Anderson, Duane Norberg, Jerry Pietrowski, Frank Hancuch, Dr. & Mrs. Ken Romness, Lewis Sacks, Phyllis Jessen, Stuart Gibson, Brian R. Johnson, Steve Smith, Dorothy Davis, Frank Matachek, George C. Shepherd and George C. Shepherd, Jr. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the'people in attendance. 1. MINUTES The Minutes of the June 21, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. There was a correction on Page !09, Request for. Temporary Home - 2121Grandview, The following sentence should be deleted. "The Planning Commisslon has recommended approval." Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of'the June 21,.1983, Regular Meeting, as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO VACATE FIRE LANE - WITHDRAWN The City Manager stated that the applicants havewlthdrawn their request for the vacation of the Fire Lane between Lots 13 & 14, Skarp & Lindquists Rav~nswood in a letter dated June 21, 1983. The City did receive a petition with 85 signatures against this vacation. There were tWo people present, Dorothy Davis and Frank Matachek, who spoke against the. City vacating any of the public accesses. Mr. Matachek also'spoke about an access on Emerald Channel that the City vacated some years back which he felt should never have been vacated because storm drainage was then diverted wrongly. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he.thinks the City should identify all public accesses in the City and maintain them. Signs or markings on the streets that have public accesses could identify them for the public. Mayor Polston stated that a report was done sometime back by the Park Dept. identifying all the public accesses. No action was taken on this item. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING POLICIES FOR THE CITY OF MOUND The City Manager explained that two Policy Statements have been developed on Tax Increment Financing. One for redevelopment projects and one for economic development projects. These go along with the area that the Council defined as a high priority area in Mound. One of the most important items in these policies is the Guidelines to be used when evaluating tax increment proposals. It is the same in each policy and reads as follows: June 21, 1983 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: Please accept th~s letter as our petition to withdraw our request to have the Firelane between Lots 13 and 14, Skarp & Lindquists Ravenswood vacated. It is our understanding per Mr. Moodie's conversation with you on this day that all or part of the original $100.00 fee which we paid to apply for the Firelane vacation will be returned to us. Thank you very much for your time. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further please contact us at the following numbers: Doug Moodie Mike Beatty 472-7554 (Home) 472-5931 (Home) 378-9621 (Work) ou~ Mo%d id - Michael~ Beatt~ ~ ,Mrs. Lucille Wood 4895 Edgewater Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mound City Council Administrative Office 5~41Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55~64 Dear Mound Council Me~rs: /~ts letter is written to ob3ect to the closing, of the public access, on Edgewater Drive known as the Sandy Lane access. /"his access is only one of two, left on Edgewater Drive. When I moved here %his neighborhood had five. One was at Babler's Resort now known as Marttn and Son, and it was a nice flat access which allowed residents to launch their boats. Also, it had a nice swimming beach for the children, hen Babler asked for a vacation. As neighbors, we appeared several times to protest this action, ~t our requests fell on "dea~ ears". We were told that the mat%er couldn't be voted on because Babler wasn't present at the meeting-s. Another meeting must have been called, and the neighborhood was not notified of this meeting, because %he next %hin~ we knew Babler' had taken over for his ~)oating business. A second access was down on Arbor Lane. We were allowed to have docks for some of ottr boats here. his access now has only one docking space, me Hickor~ Lane access was closed some years ago. I would like to share a little history about the Sandy Lane access. When I moved here, %he men, in the neighborhood took very good care of it every year. We had nice wooden stairs with hand rails. Also we had a nice sturdy dock. Since then we have t~en told that we could not have a dock. After these good carpenters and cabinet makers, moved away or died, this access went into a state of disrepair. Yet one netgh~x)r, and his sons, and others worked hard and put in cement block stairs and tried to keep it up. On our property deeds it states, that we have right of access to the lake. Now if you {a~e away all our accesses, on Edgewa{er Drive, where are we to go to get to the lake? One way to clear up this uncertainty about our rights would be to post a sign, stating this as a public access. The newspaper stated that the Lake Minnetonka Task Force has decided that Mtnnetonka needs more accesses, not only for residents but for the general public. We are only asking for the two left on Edgewater Drive to remain open, for it's residents. Also if they were plainly marked we would feel free to use them. As it is now residents are being harassed and threatened by some lakeshore owners, when they have tried to use the access. Now this is scary, because until recently, this has always been a peaceful, friendly neighborhood and everyone has always been considerate of each others rights. I pray that you give thif matter serious consideration. Let us keep our two remaining access lanes open, for our use and for our enjoyment. Also, ~ay we please have "Public Access" signs on the Sandy Lane access and also at Edgewater Drive. Further, it would be nice if a sign were posted at the Fairview Lane access. I have always been a shy person, who has never wanted to "make waves" but I feel that I must speak up this time. Thank you for considering this issue for me, and for my neighbol~s, who are not lakeshore owners, but who enjoy the lake very much. After all that is why we choose to live here and not elsewhere. Sincerely, Mrs.' Lucille Wood L~J Z 0 SANDY : RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A LIGHT ASSEMBLY BUSINESS IN THE B-1 ZONE AT 2343 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, PART OF LOT 3, METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 167, PID #14-117-24 44 0004, P & Z CASE #92-022 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on July 14, 1992 pursuant to the Mound Code of Ordinances to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a light assembly business known as Advantage Products in the B-1 zone at 2343 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 23.625.3 allows "wholesale and assembly operations" by conditional use permit in the B-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit application and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: To approve a conditional use permit for Advantage Products to establish a business at 2343 Commerce Boulevard. This approval is conditioned upon the following: A. The use shall comply with all building, fire and ventilation codes. Bo The use shall be limited to the lower level of 2343 Commerce Boulevard. Any further physical expansion of the business shall require modification of this conditional use permit. All receiving and shipments shall be handled via UPS or other small truck carrier. D. All signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code. Eo Outside storage of any raw materials, finished products or other items shall be expressly prohibited. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CAgE NO. 92-022 o This conditional use permit is granted for the following legally described property: That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, lying South of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 3, distant 2.1 feet North of the Southeast comer thence to a point on the West line of Lot 3, distant 17.4 feet North of the Southwest comer thereof, except the East 100.0 feet thereof, said 100.0 feet measured along the aforesaid described line. Also, the North 0.5 feet of the West 10.0 feet of the East 100.0 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, lying south of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 3, distant 2.1 feet North of the Southeast comer thereof, to a point on the West line of said Lot 3, distant 17.4 feet North of the Southwest comer thereof, and also Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167, except that part of Lot 4 lying South of a line drawn from the Southeast comer of said Lot 4 to a point on the West line of said Lot 4, distant 14.82 feet North of the Southwest comer thereof. This shall be considered as 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. Proof of recording shall be filed with the City Clerk. CITY ()f .IOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA C'_' CASE NO. 92-022 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS TO OPERATE AN ASSEMBLY OPERATION AT 2343 COMMERCE BLVD. PID ~14-117-24 44 0004 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 14, 1992 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Advantage Products to operate an assembly operation of small pest control tools at 2343 Commerce Blvd., legally described as part of Lot 3 and Lot 4, Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in "The Laker" June 29, 1992. within 350' by July 1, 1992. Mail to property owners printed on recycled paper ~~~'~ 13889 Ridgedale Drive. Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343-(612) June 26, 1992 Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sutherland: Advantage Products manufactures a pest control tool used to dispense pesticides. We do not supply or store pesticides or chemicals. It is the end user's responsibility to obtain pesticides, through independent suppliers, to be used in the tool. I have also enclosed a brochure information about our products. to provide you with more Sincerely, §u!pued lueled 7001 "lOldJ. NO0 J.~d '7VNOl~dOb~. / m Dustic A PROFESSIONAL PESTCONTROL TOOL Comes in heavy duty canvas carrying bag for storage. Handle comes in four 4' sections to adjust to four different lengths -- 4', 8', 12' and 16' -- allowing a reach of over 20'. Pump handle and dust cannister attach separately. J '"1 · · · · · FFFTF Dusticl A PROFESSIONAL PEST CONTROL TOOL ATTACHMENTS Scraper Attachment Aersol Con Attachment- For extended reach using aersol can. Can is held on with velcro strap for quick and easy applications. Scraper Attachment - Aids in the removal of nests, wobs, etc, Aerosol Attachment 13889 Ridgedale Drive · Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 13889 Ridgedale Drive. Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 ,,,oO ?.e_ CITY of MOUND .1'72 ~'55 6'2 June 18, 1992 Mr. Jerry Winter Advantage Products 2343 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 RE: ACTION TAKEN AT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 8, 1992 RELATING TO YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Dear Mr. Winter: At the Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 1992, the Planning Commission requested staff to verify if any hazardous materials are to be used or stored on-site. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes of that meeting. Please respond in writing whether any hazardous materials are used, and if so, detail any further information about the process that may be necessary. Material safety data she_~-~s~uld also be helpful. Jon Sutl?erland Building Official JS:pj cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner printed on recycled paper MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 91 1992 1.7 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT FOR ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS TO OPERATE AN ASSEMBLV OPERATION AT 2343 COMMERCE BLVD MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set July 14, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Advantage Products to operate an assembly operation at 2343 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 8~ 1992 CASE ~92-022: JERRY WINTER~ 2343 COMMERCE BLVD.~ PART OF LOTS 3 & 4m AUDITORS SUBDIVISION ~167m PID ~14-117-24 44 0004. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ASSEMBLY OPERATION - PUBLIC HEARING. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to operate a light assembly business in the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. The business, known as Advantage Products, will assemble small pest control tools and will initially employ 2 people. staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Advantage Products subject to the following conditions: The use shall comply with all building, fire and ventilation codes. The use shall be limited to the lower level of 2343 Commerce Blvd. Any future physical expansion of the business shall require modification of this conditional use permit. Ail receiving and shipments shall be handled via UPS or other small truck carrier. 4. Ail signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code. Be Outside storage of any raw materials, finished products or other items shall be expressly prohibited. Mueller questioned if any hazardous materials will be used in the process of the proposed assembly. Staff did not have an answer, the issue was briefly discussed. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit as recommended by staff. Staff shall verify if hazardous materlals are proposed to be used on-site. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on July 14, 1992. HQ[ Hoisington Group Inc. LAND USE CONSULTANTS PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 1, 1992 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit APPLICANT: Jerry Winter CASE NUMBER: 92-022 HGI FILE NUMBER: 92-30c LOCATION: 2343 Commerce Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business District (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a conditional use permit to operate a light assembly business in the lower level of 2343 Commerce Boulevard. The business which is known as Advantage Products will assemble small pest control tools and will initially employ 2 people. Parking is available immediately behind the building. All shipping and receiving will be handled by UPS. COMMENT: The B-1 provisions of the Mound Zoning Code allow "wholesale and light assembly operations" by conditional use permit. In the past year, permits have been issued for similar operations including Turncraft Clocks and PXC Corporation. Advantage Products is a small business which should be able to operate in the CBD without negatively impacting any of the surrounding uses. 7401 Metro Blvd. · Suite 340. Minneapolis, MN 55439. (612) 835-9960 Advantage Products CUP June 1, 1992 Page 2 The Central Business District's primary intent is to provide a location for retail goods and services. Continued occupation of buildings in the B-1 area by assembly and wholesale operations may eventually compromise that intent. In the future, the Planning Commission may need to examine such proposals, not only as to how they impact the surrounding businesses, but also to the degree that they displace retail businesses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the conditional use permit for Advantage Products subject to the following conditions: 1. The use shall comply with all building, fire and ventilation codes. The use shall be limited to the lower level of 2343 Commerce Boulevard. Any future physical expansion of the business shall require modification of this conditional use permit. All receiving and shipments shall be handled via UPS or other small truck carrier. All signage shall comply with the Mound Sign Code. Outside storage of any raw materials, finished products or other items shall be expressly prohibited. CITY of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND; MINNESOTA 524' MAvWCc O MCuND M'J'jN E SC ~'A 6!2 472 CASE NO. 92-022 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PEP~IT FOR ADVANTAGE PRODUCTS TO OPERATE AN ASSEMBLY OPERATION AT 2343 COMMERCE BLVD. PZD #~4-Z~7-24 44 0004 'NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 1992 to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for Advantage Products to operate an assembly operation of small pest control tools at 2343 Commerce Blvd., legally described as part of Lot 3 and Lot 4 Auditor's Subdivision No. 167. ' Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk~ Mailed to property owners within 350' on May 22, 1992. printed on recycled paper CITY OF NOUND PART !1I Date F i l ed Fee $200.00 CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING CONNISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property. ^d it ol J. Owner's Name Block ~' PID No. 14- l~-'~-Z4 44 0004 Day Phone Applicant's Name (if other than owner) ffCk'm,~ ~1~ Zoning District Has an application ever been made For zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure For this property? yes ~. If yes, list date(s) oF application, action taken, and provide resol'c~n number(s) (Copies oF previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I certify that al I of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official oF the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Co~ission Reco~endation Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date CONDITIONAL USE PERM|T APPL|CAT|ON Page Two Ae All Information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees For the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing ~ill be scheduled. Type of development For which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: I. Conditional Use (specify): ~~ ~4~+~y ~ ~/~ _. 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the Future Land Use Plan For Mound: Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the pro- posed development, 2. Estimated cost of the project: $.' Density (For residential developments only): Number of structures: Dwelling units per structure: a. number per unit type: efficiency 2 bedrcx~m Lot area per dwelling unit: Total lot area: ! bedroom 3 bedroom Effects of the Proposed Use: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. . _ /! ) ! 2345 2347 2349 Commerce Blvd. Audltor's Subd. //167 6i250 COlt AT S~ COg OF LOT $ TH N I &~lO IrT TO CTR LZNE OF 1~ 1NC# NALL OF STATE BAFI( OF HOUNO BLDG TH NL¥ ALONG SAZD CTR LTHE TO A PT 34 IrT HLY FROfl THE E LZI~ OF SAZD LOT AND ~ 2&10 IrT N FRI3fl S LZI~ OF LOT $ TH CONT HLY · ALQNG CTR LZFI~ OF 12 Zl~lt HALL .KA IrT TO El4) OF SAZD HALL TH CG~T HLy 10 FT TO A PT e/ 2~&&lOO0 FT N FRGfl S LZN[ OK LOT 3 TH N AT RT ANGLES TO S LZN~ OF LOT $ TO A PT $&10 IrT SLY AT RT ANGLES IrROfl A LZNE RU~NZNG FRC]fl A PT 2 ]&lO irt N FRGt~ $~ COI~ TI~REOF TQ A PT ZH H LZI~ OF SAZO LOt DZ$ 17.~ FT H IrR~fl SN ¢O~ THO4r TH ELY IO FT PAR HZTH LAST DE,SC LZN£ TH N .$ Fl' TO SAZO LZNE TH HLY ALC~I~ SAZO LTN~ TO N LZN~ OF LOT $ TH S TO X PT ZH H I.][1~ OF LOT 4 DZS :~.~ FT N FRei SN CO# THOF TH ELY TO ~ COR T~OF TH H 14-117_24 44 00O4 C. ent ra 1 Business ! LOT 8 STAFF REPORT DATE: July 9, 1992 TO: FROM; Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building Official SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: George & Cheryl Fougeron CASE NO. 92-019 LOCATION: 1701 Baywood Lane Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUN____~D The City Council reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of this request at the June 23rd meeting, and the Council originally passed the Planning Commission's recommendation. After this occurred, it was discovered in a conversation between the applicant and the Building Official that the as-built survey had been submitted, but was not in the packet for staff or City Council review. The applicant had a copy in her possession and this case was again reviewed by the Council. Due to the actual setbacks not being consistent with the original review by the Planning Commission, the City Council rescinded Resolution 92-72 and referred this case back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Staff met with the applicant on June 24, 1992 to discuss and review this case and the applicant has now submitted two options for the Planning Commission to consider. COMMENTS The conditions that exist with this property are unique being a corner/lakeshore lot with both the house and the lot being of irregular shape. The original placement and design of the house did not plan for future deck expansion in the natural location to prtnted on recycled paper Staff Report Fougeron June 9, 1992 provide a view of the lake. The request results in the corresponding variances: Option "A": 929.5 CONTOUR ODtion "B": Required ~roposed Variance 50' 37' 13' 929.5 CONTOUR 50' 42' EXISTING CONDITIONS TO BE RECOGNIZED: LOT FRONTAGE EXISTING DECK EXISTING DWELLING 60' 46'+/- 14' 50' 42'+/- 8' 50' 47'+/- 3' The original layout of Option A is the preferred deck location of the applicant and appears the most desirable for the site rather than Option B which reduces the impact on the required setback. Due to practical difficulty apparent in this case, the additional 5 feet of encroachment appears reasonable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot, that the addition of the deck is a reasonable use of the property, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with Zoning Code Section 23.506.1. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 14, 1992. JS:pj Enclosure: City Council Minutes of June 23, 1992 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 13, 1992 CASE #92-019;. GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID #13-117-24 21 0087. VARIANCE - deck. The applicant was not present. Staff reviewed the background of the case. The City Council referred this case back to the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 23, 1992 due to the actual setbacks revealed by a new survey not being consistent with the original review by the Planning Commission. Two options for construction of a deck were submitted. The applicant prefers Option A, and it appears to be the most desirable for the site rather than Option B. Due to practical difficulty apparent in this case, the additional 5 feet of encroachment appears reasonable to staff. Staff recommended approval of Option A based on the odd shape and size of the lot, that the addition of the deck is a reasonable use of the property, and that the granting of the variance would be consistent with Zoning Code Section 23.506.1. Mueller questioned the hardship for allowing a larger deck. The Building Official commented that the existing deck is not a functional deck. Hanus feels the request is reasonable and a functional deck should be allowed for tables and chairs. Mueller questioned if a variance is also required for the 9.05' setback to the south side property line. Koegler commented that he believes this property is a lot of record which allows for an 8' side yard setback for lots 80 - 100 feet wide, therefore the side yard setback is conforming at 9.05'. Mueller commented that the structures on this lot are already pushing the limits on hardcover. Weiland questioned if an on-grade deck would be conforming. The Building Official did inform the Applicant's contractor that an on-grade deck could be constructed without a variance, but in light of the nonconforming status of the property, any proposed on-grade deck would be reviewed with the City Planner. Hanus questioned if an on-grade deck would block windows, and the Building Official confirmed that it would. The Building Official commented that the applicant is not in favor of this option. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend denial of the variance to expand the deck as requested. Fact of finding: an on- grade deck could be constructed. Motion to deny failed 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Jensen and Michael. Those opposed were: Johnson, Hanus, Meyer and Voss. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 14, 1992. June 23, 1992 MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 23, 1992 1.4 CASE #92-019: GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE, .LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSIOE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on at 6'3 vote, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to the building permit issuance. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-72 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ALAKESHORESETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK ON LOT 4, BLOCK 4v REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE), PID #13-117- 24 21 0087, P & Z CASE %92-019 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 CASR ~92-019~ GEORGB & CHERYL FOUGERON, 1701 BAYWOOD LANE~ _LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORESv PID ~13-117-24 21 0087, VARIANCE - DECK EXTENSIO~ The Building Official reported that he has now received the survey from the applicant. The proposed deck setback to the lake that says 44 feet on Page 1902 is actually 37 feet to the 929.4 elevation. The lot width scales at 47 feet, required is 60 feet in the R-1 zone. This is an unusually shaped lot. The applicant had already left the meeting. The Councildiscussed the difference and thought it should be returned to the Planning Commission for their review. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to reconsider the resolution #92-72 due to new information being received. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to rescind resolution #92-72 and refer it back to the Planning Commission ~u anu aouD~e the variance being required. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. /- RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT LOT 4v BLOCK 4v REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES (1701 BAYWOOD LANE) PID #13-117-24 21 008? P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-019 WHEREAS, the applicants, George and Cheryl Fougeron, have applied for a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an expansion to the existing non-conforming deck; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to Baywood Lane, a 20 foot front yard setback to Three Points Blvd., and a 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water elevation; and WHEREAS, Ail other setbacks and lot area are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission reviewed the requested variance and recommended approval with 6 in favor and 3 opposed. Approval was recommended based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: me The City does hereby approve a 6 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow an extension to an existing nonconforming deck at 1701 Baywood Lane, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 92-019 PAGE 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of 6' x 24' deck extension onto an existing 6' x 47'8" deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. PID #13-117- 24 21 0087. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). 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. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the city Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION June 8, 1992 ~ GEORGE & CHERYL FOUGERON 1701 BAYWOOD LANE LOT 4 008 VARIANCE - deck extensio- - - 7. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the apPlicant,s request for a 6 foot lake side setback variance for a deck. Staff recommended approval of the variance request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. The Commission confirmed that the existing deck is nonconforming. Jensen commented that she feels there could be hardship due to the shape of the lot. Mueller remarked that their is room towards the north property, line towards Three Points Blvd. to expand the deck and have it conform to setback requirements. The applicant expressed a need for the deck in the location proposed. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Michael to recommend denial the request for a variance to extend the existing deck. Motion failed 3 to 6. Those in favor were: Mueller, Weiland and Michael. Those opposed were= Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, Voss and Jensen. Mueller commented that the home was built in 1983 and unfortunately the builder did not plan for a deck, he does not feel this creates a hardship. Clapsaddle remarked that tighter control is needed on site plans, and now the homeowner is stuck because of poor planning by the builder, it is only .fair to allow the deck. Jensen questioned if there is any interest in updating the survey, she is concerned because the survey reflects a "proposed', house rather than an "existing,, house, and it would be nice to know exactly where things are located. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance to allow the deck extension as recommended by staff, upon the condition that an as-built survey be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Motion carried 6 to 3. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Johnson, Meyer, ross and Jensen. Those opposed were Mueller, Weiland and Michael. This request will be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CITY ()f STAFF REPORT DATE: June 4, 1992 TO: FROM; Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official _~ ~/ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: George & Cheryl Fougeron CASE NO. 92-019 LOCATION: 1701 Baywood Lane Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants are seeking a variance of 6 feet to the required 50 foot lakeshore setback. The property and all other setbacks are currently conforming. The applicant has stated that the existing deck is not practical as there is not enough room for a table and chairs. Alternate locations for a conforming deck expansion do not appear desirable or reasonable due to the location on the lot. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variances request based on the fact that the request is minimal in nature, that the deck addition is a reasonable use of the property, and there exists a practical difficulty in the fact that there is no other reasonable location for a deck expansion to serve the property. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. JS:pj printed on recycled paper revised 4/2/92 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF NOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City Engineer: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No . .~Z--0 !q "J "/.2 - {,, 733 Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property /70 / Owner's Name om~ ,C~v/ ~-~g~j Day Phone Owner's Address. /70[ ~Av~o.~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot ~ Block Additi°n~¢f/~T d ~£~1~0~ ~O~C~ PID.o. Zoning District -_~_~ Use of Property: ~eSt Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size number of stories, type of use, etc.): ' ~ev~eed 4/2/92 Variance Application 2 Case No. ~2"O[q Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~(), No (). If z~o, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: Rear Yard: .~Lake Front: -Side Yard: Side Yard: Lot Size: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Street Frontage ( ]~ S~W_~) ~0 ft. ~.~ ft. O ft. (& E ) I.~ ft. ft. ft. ( N S E ) 30 ft. ft. ~ ft. ( N_~E W ) 10 ft. ft. O ft. (~S E W ) ~O ft. ~O ~ ft. O ft. sq ft /O .~O~ sq ft O sq ft ft. ' ft. ft. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If ~o, specify each non-conforming use: To ~r O ~ O~r~- ~ ~ ~-- 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 ( ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( Please describe: ) soil ) existing ) other: specify ~ ~ I ~ / ~as the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain rev£sed 4/2/92 Variance Application Page 3 Case o. q2-0[q e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~'. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~-, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: u ,' .~. ,,~/ ~_ ~ . ~ ~ ~.' /~ ~ ~ - . ~~'~ ~,,;ll ~ lJ.. , ./_ ,' , I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. &ppltcant's Signature RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME ON LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, (2028 ARBOR LANE), P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-030 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct the following: The addition of a 5' x 15' covered deck at the entry on the front of the home. o An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. A first floor addition measuring 16.3' x 18.9'. A second floor addition measuring approximately 18' x 34' over the proposed first floor addition and over portions of the existing structure. The addition of a 12' x 14' screened porch on the northeast side of the existing home and a deck on the southeast side of the existing home; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District, a district which requires specific setbacks for residential uses. Said setbacks apply to the requested additions above in the following manner: 1. The covered deck has a proposed setback of 5.5' which requires a 14.5' variance from the required 20' setback. o The garage extension has a proposed front setback of 16.5 feet which requires a 3.5' variance from the requir.e,d 20' setback. The g~age also has a proposed side yard setback of 4.6 which requires a 1.4 variance from the required 6' setback. o The first floor addition has a proposed side yard setback of 5.2 feet which requires a .8' variance from the required 6' setback. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-030 The second floor addition has a proposed side yard setback of 5.2 feet which requires a .8' variance from the required 6' setback. o The porch and deck have a proposed lakeshore setback of 45' which requires a 5' variance from the required 50' setback. Additionally, the garage has a floor elevation of 932.5' which is 1.0' under the required minimum floor elevation of 933.5'; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended approval of the variances for the entryway deck, garage extension, first floor addition and second floor addition. The Planning Commission did not review the final plan for the location of the porch and deck, nor did it provide a recommendation on the flood elevation variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve the 5.5' front setback variance for the covered entry deck, the 3.5' front yard and 1.4' side yard setback variances for the garage extension, the .8 foot side yard variance for the first and second floor additions, the 5' lakeshore setback variances for the porch and deck and the 1.0' variance from the required minimum floor elevation for the garage. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a covered entry deck, an addition on the front of the existing garage, first and second floor additions on the home, and the addition of a new porch and deck on the rear of the structure. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, "Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood", Hennepin County Minnesota. PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 3 CASE NO. 92-030 This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). 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. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. RESOLUTION #92- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONS ON LOT 19 AND 18 EXCEPT THE SOUTHEASTERLY 25 FEET FRONT AND REAR, BLOCK 1, DEVON, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT 1 FOOT OF ROANOKE ACCESS, PID #30-117-23 22'0009, (4687 ISLANDVlEW DRIVE), P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-031 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to construct a new entryway with a four foot overhang, add a second story living space above the existing dwelling and add a second story study over the existing garage; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2, Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to code requires 6 foot side yard setbacks for the principal structure and a 4 foot rear yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory buildings; and WHEREAS, the existing home has a 3.6 foot side yard setback on the east side resulting in a 2.4 foot variance from the 6 foot required setback, the proposed entryway addition has a 5.0 foot side yard setback on the west side resulting in a 1.0 foot variance from the required 6 foot setback, and the accessory building has a side yard setback of 0 feet on the west side and a rear yard setback 1.3 feet requiring 4.0 foot and 2.7 foot variances respectively from the required 4 foot setbacks; and WHEREAS, the existing accessory building (boathouse) is in sound structural condition; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has unanimously recommended approval of the requested variances. In rendering its opinion, the Planning Commission adopted the following Finding of Fact: Approval of the variances for the entryway and second story additions is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The entryway improvement falls under the practical difficulty provisions of the Code since the existing entrance to the home is on the northwest corner of the structure and since the property abuts a public access rather than a neighboring residential lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: RlPp, PROPOSED RESOLUTION PAGE 2 CASE NO. 92-031 o The City does hereby approve the 2.4 foot and 1.0 foot variances for the prindpal structure and the 4.0 foot and 2.7 foot variances for the accessory structure subject to the following condition: The side yard and rear yard variances for the existing boathouse (accessory structure) are recognized only to facilitate construction of the entryway and second story additions. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming boathouse. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code 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 following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a new entryway and second story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 19 and Lot 18 except the southeasterly 25 feet front and rear, Block 1, DEVON, including the adjacent 1 foot of Roanoke Access. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). 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. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Jun RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT OF PROPERTY FROM MSC PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Helen L. Wolner, Herbert F. Wolner, and Judge Herbert E. Wolner are limited partners in MSC Properties, Ltd., and are long time residents of the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the Wolners did lease land to the Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. in April of 1959 to provide a facility for youngsters in the Mound area to participate in the national pasttime under the standards of "Little League Baseball, Inc.", and WHEREAS, in the past 33 years many young people in the City of Mound and the surrounding area have participated in this wonderful pasttime and have learned the benefits of recreation, sportsmanship, and competition, and the activities carried on at Wolner Field have greatly enhanced the community, and WHEREAS, under the terms of the lease, Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. has the responsibility of paying all taxes and assessments against the leased property, and over the years much of the efforts of the participants and their parents have been to raise funds for the payment of real estate taxes and assessments, and this seems to be inconsistent with other recreational activities carried on by the City through its Park and Recreation Department and the School District through its recreational activities, all of which are conducted without a requirement of paying real estate taxes, and WHEREAS, at a recent Board of Review meeting the City Assessor had valued the property at $72,000 and after an appeal and a review, the Assessor recommended to the City Council that the value of the property be reduced from $72,000 to $55,000 and the City Council agreed and did reduce such property value for tax purposes, and WHEREAS, Helen Wolner, Herbert F. Wolner, and Judge Herbert E. Wolner have indicated a willingness and a desire to contribute to the long time objectives of maintaining Little League Baseball and have indicated to the Mayor and City staff that they would gift the property to the City for the benefit of future generations of little leaguers in the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the City staff has obtained a title opinion of the property and has prepared the necessary documentation to convey the interest of MSC Properties, Ltd. to the City subject to the lease and restrictions of record which will preserve this property for Little League Baseball for at least 99 years, and Jun 0~,92 10:~9 No.O02 P,05 WHEREAS, the City Council and the residents of the City of Mound wish to express their deep appreciation to the Wolners for this kind and generous gift of this property, and the City agrees to accept the property subject to the lease which is intended to guarantee this as a Little League facility for at least another 99 years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to accept a gift from ~elen L. Wolner, ~erbert F. Wolner, and Judge ~erbert E Wolner of property legally described as: ' ?he Southerly 300 feet of Block 4, Shirley Hills, Unit P, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. The City Council expresses to the Wolners appreciation and gratitude on behalf of all the residents of the City of Mound for gifting this property to the City and acknowledges that the property has a value of at least $55,000. The City staff is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Wolners by preparing any written documents necessary to officially acknowledge this generous gift to the youth and future youth of this community. The City staff is further authorized to work with the Wolners complete the transaction and accept this very generous gift and to continue to work with the Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. to maintain this property for at least the next 99 years as a Little League field. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted June 1992. T~O~AS WURST, FELLOWS LAW OF'FlEES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE wEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554.02 ,June 9~ 1992 II[C'D JUN 1. 0 I992 Honorable Herbert E. Wolner P.O. Box 125 Mound MN 55364 Re: Little League Baseball / Wolner Field Dear Herb: Walter Jarl has provided the City with a copy of the Recreational Land Lease which the Mound Shopping Center, Inc. gave to the Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. on May 30, 1959. The terms of the lease are year to year as set out in paragraph 5, but in the concluding paragraph of the agreement, it further indicates that the grant you are giving to the second party is perpetual providing the second party carried out and performed all the obligations in the agreement. At our breakfast, we discussed how this could be handled, and we have done the following: 1. Reviewed the title and prepared a title opinion to the City, a copy of which is enclosed for your benefit. 2. Prepared an amendment to the recreational land lease which amends the term of the lease so it runs for 99 years. A copy is enclosed. 3. Prepared a Warranty Deed from M.S.C. Properties, Ltd. to the City of Mound for the property which would in effect convey the fee title to the City subject to the covenants and restrictions. A copy is enclosed. 4. Prepared a resolution acknowledging a gift of property from you, your wife, and your son. A copy is enclosed. 5. Prepared a second resolution authorizing acceptance of the gift of the land for public purposes. A copy is enclosed. That resolution was prepared by my partner, and the previous one I have drafted goes into more detail, and we probably only need one of those resolutions, but a copy is each is enclosed for your benefit. It is my understanding from our conversation today that you will review these documents, and if they are in order, or if we can put them in order to meet your desires, we should have a ceremony at the June 23 Council meeting whereby you would formally provide the City with the executed WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ~V~ERTz documents, the Council would pass the resolution, and we would then make the necessary filings. We will, of course, need the owner's duplicate certificate of title. Herb, I believe that you may want to review the two resolution forms I have enclosed to see which one you prefer and which one will meet your accountant's standards so that you can apply for tax benefits as a result of this gift. In other words, I am suggesting that you consult with your tax administrator if you have one, and if necessary we can modify our forms to meet their suggestions to make it easier for you to obtain your credits from the Federal and state governments. After you have reviewed and we can work out the details. happy to have you on the agenda CAP:lh Enclosures cc: Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager the documents, I would appreciate a call I am sure Mr. Shukle and the Mayor. will be on June 23 if that meets your schedule. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney City of Mound WMLUM I~L: 65W-2bWb Jun ~OGCo J. KE~Ow$ LAW OfF,C::[ S WURST, P&"ARSON, LAIR,SON, UNDERWOOD MINNt~POLIS, MINNESOTA SSAO~ June 5, 1992 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, M~ 55364 PREMISES: The Southerly 300 feet of Block 4, Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of %he Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Dear Mr. Shukle: We have examined the title to the above described premises as of May 22, 1992, at 7:00 o'clock a.m. based on an examination of Cerfificate of Title No. 674535, Files of the Registrar of Titles of Mennepin County, Minnesota. From such examination, we conclude that said premises were owned as of that date in fee simple by M.S.C. Properties, Ltd., a Minnesota limited partnership. Such ownership is subject to the following: 1. Taxes payable in 1992, amount not known. 2. A Recreational Land Lease dated April 30, 1959, filed January 12, 1960, and registered as Document No. 617630, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3. A reservation by the State of Minnsota of minerals and mineral rights. 4. In addition, please refer to the items on the attached cover as they do not appear of record. WWLUM ILL: 3.5B-262b Jun U9,92 1U:19 No.UU2 AS pointed out in our attached opinion covering the exam;nation of title lo the real estate you are about to purchase, there are certain mafte~s that you should check es they do nol appear of reCord and have not bcc~ checked ~n our title examination. 1. POSSESSION. You are cha~ged with notice of ~ rights of anyone in possessk)n even llx3~3h his inte,'esl, if any, is not on record. You Should inspect the p~ped,/for any ~ of use ~' P,3Ssessk;)n by sb'anger$ or adjoining Ixop, e~/ ownem, of roads, private driveways, drainage dltche~, encroaching bull(~ngs or fences. 2. MECHANICS' UENS. Claims of liens for labor or material ~mished for lhe improve- ment of lhe premises need not be filed until 120 .days aft~ the complet~3n of the or unffi 120 days after the las! item of malerial has been I~mis~ed. Have any im~ove- ments been made within the last 120 days which have not been paid t'o~ 3. SURVEY. Any questions as to location of boundary lines, encroachments, easeme~l's, bullding~, other im~ovements or related matters can be determined only by a proper survey. 4. ZONING ORDINANCES. ~ l~e munlclpd regulatlon.~ I:~'mi~ uae ol the p*oper~'y fo,' your purposes~ SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. Assessments !0~ speciaJ ;ml~'oven.,en~ such a~ wat~, aewe,', curb, gu~er, sb'eets and street.lighting are usually payable In Instailmenls ov~ a perk)d o! years. The amount of any uni:)aM speclal a.s~essmenl balance may be del,- mined by inquiry at I~e Orol~r mun;cipaJ office. PERSONAL PROPERTY. A purchaser of real estate improved by a building located thereon should have a definite wrltle~ agreement covering Items such as refrigerators, eleven, drapes, carpets, water soflener~, and olhe~ items of personal SEWER/WATER. Are the premises connected Io munlcll~ wate~ and sewe~ or are I:~vate systems utllized? WATER BILLS. Ascertain from the Wat~ Depaftmenl whether or not Ihe h~s been paid. and have Iransfe~ made on Iheir records. Aa unpaid water bill can result in a llen upon lhe property. HOMESTEAD CLASSIFICATION. Ascertain from the Municipal Asse~s office whether the property i~ classified as homestead or non-homestead I~ rea~ estate tax purposes. 10. HOMESTEAD TAX ASSES,~MENT. If you are to Occupy l~e p~operty as a home, make aPp~:allon at the Municipal Assess<x's off~ce for homestead tax rate. F .Ub WURST, PEARSO~N, ~, I.J~ERWOOO & MER'F'Z THIS AGR~k72;T made this ~-~. '£# day of A~ril,. 1959, by and bet~.'een MOUND SHOPPING C~ER, I.~D., a corporation uucer ~.e laws of the State of Minneso%&, party of the first part, Lessor, and UPP-~- TONKA LITTLE LEAGUE, I?~., a corporatic~ under %he laws of ~.e State of Minneso?-, party of the second part, Lessee, both having %heir main offices in %he Village of Mound, County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota; WI~;ESSETH, That the said .~rty of %he .Fir.~% Part, ia consider- ation of the rents and covenants hereinafter mentioned, does hereby demise, lease and let unto said party of the Second Part, the follo:'- ing described premises, situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, viz: The Southerly Three Hundred (300) l'eet oi' 5lock Four (4), Shirley Hills, Unit F, according %o the recoraed plat thereof on file and of record in t~. office of the P~gistrar of Titles in and for sa~d County of Hennep~.. and State of Minnesota, during the continuance of this Lease. TO FAVE- A3.~ 5C HOLD, the above rented premises ~n%o the said second party, for and during ~he full tern of this lease, on these terms and conditions, namely: 1. That Second Party establish and have in operation within two years fr~ the date hereof, a Little League Baseball Field, whi:h shall be called, and be known as, "Wolner Field." 2. That Second Party establish, maintain and operate a baseb~-I program cn ~he field established in accordance with Little League Standards, as they are from time %o time promulgated by Little Leag~ Baseball, Inc., Wiliiamsport, Pennsylvania. 3. That Secon6 /~arty procure and msin'~atn rublic liability in- surance in an ~mount agreed upo~ from time %o ~ime on the leased gr:unds for the protection of both Parties to this lease from any and all claims and demands from persons in, about or on the leased premises; and the Second Party will and hereby agrees to save First Party harmless fret. any and all expense or loss arising out of the use and occupancy of %he leased p~mises, or from any and all actions, claims or demands arisLng by virtue of this instrx~nent. 4. That Second Party .Day all taxes and assessments against the leased property as they become due and payable. 5. T.hat the term of this lease shail run from May 15th, 1959 ~o May 15th, 1960, and from year to y~ar thereafter provided that the con- ditions in this lease haw been met, and providin~ %i~at Second Party on May 1st of each ~ar shall by ~ritten no~ice to First Party, its successors or assigns, certify: (1) That Little League functions ~'ere carried out the previous y~ar, (2) that Little League f~uctic~s are to be carried out for the ensuing .v~ar, (3) that all taxes and inc~brances currently payable have been paid, (4) that public liability insurance in an amount agreed upon by the parties hereto is effective am: shall he effective for one year from ~he 15th of May of the y~ar of the notice. (5) luhat the Le~'sor has been provided with a copy of the public liability insurance si:owing a proper endorsement protecting the Lessor, and (6) that the notice is accompanied by the ~unual rental fee of $10. OO. Page 1. and A~ A~ ~ o.~.r.h.-. AbgS~ ~ A.~D B~2TW~.N '~:~ PARTI~, tha~ the costs of es~blishi~ ~he field or of o~n~g of Firs~ Aven~ sh~l ~ no way be ~po~d up~ ~e field or ~he pro~y leased here~der, or u~ ~e ~t ~rty or the abutting proper~y; that ~y ~d ~1 fences or str~t~es, other t~n bleachers, ~ ~e P~mi~es sh~l he set ~ck at least 25 fee~ fr~ ~he Fest Line of Firs~ Aven~e ~ ~id Shirley H~ls, ~it F; ~a~ this lease s~ll not, v~~y or ~v~rily' ~e ass~g~d, t~erred, mortgage~, b~dened or enc~d whats~ver, ~d ~y at~mpt by ~cond ~rty or ~y~e else to hu~ea or enc~r t~ pro~rty or lea~ ~ ~y ~er wha~s~ver s~l constitm~ ~ ~ediate forfeit~ of the lease ~d ~y a~ ~1 rights of Seco~ ~rty in ~d to the leased P~mises sh~l im~die~ly ~ate; ~at ~cond Par~y sh~l not rent or ~derlet ~he cre~ses; that Sec~d ~rty sh~l keep the premises ~ go~ co~ition a~ ~ir; and t~t sho~dd ~co~ Party fa~ to give ~e notice req~d, or ~ke the a~ ~y_ merit s~cified, or fa~ ~o make ~e ~ents as he,in s~cified, or fa~ to f~f~l ~y of ~e covenants set for~ ~ this ~str~ent, ~hen ~d ~ t~t case said ~rst Pa~y may reenter and ~ke possessi~ the abo~ premises, Snd hold and enJ~ the same ~i~out ~y whatsoever to Sec~d ~rty, ~nd Second p~y agrees to q~e~y yield ~d s~ender ~he ~o~said p~mi~s to t~ ~id Firs~ ~rty, its s~ccessors or assi~se IT IS F~TH~ ~D~OOD ~D AG~D BY ~D B~E~ THE that ~c~d Party sh~ have ~he right ~d priv~ege to exo~d the ~e Of the presses ~ ~cl~e football, hockey, ~d other rec~ea%io~ age li~. 1 ~r Ooys ~der said iT IS F~H~ ~O~ A~ AGR~D BY ~ B~E~ TH~ that ~ and ~ pr~eeds obeyed fr~ the use of the ~re~ses ~1 go ~o ~e main~nance, ope~tion and develo~n~ of ~he sa~d premises, or to ~he uses of ~c~d P~r~y !nsofsr as i~ is, ant ~mains, a n~-profi~ ~cor~%i~ i'~ed tn %he office of %he ~C~ary of S~ of of ~eso%a ~ ~sce~aneo~ bcok 7~ a~ ~ge 296, and so long as its officers ~d di~ctors se~e wlthou% C~nsati~. be su~itted ~o First z Aor ~ns;~ect~on ~nd a;'proval prior ~o ~s~ati~ ~ o~er ~o pro,ct the 4n~rests of abutting pro~r~ overs. P~Y a ~r~t~ lease to t~ premises, nrovlded ~e S~C~ p~ carries out. c~plies wi~ and ~rfo~s each a~ eve~ ~ of ~he o~iga~i~s ~nd conditions here~above s~t l'or~h, o~hem~i~ ~his lease sh~l ~r- mina~, or be ~na~ed by First Par~y. i~s successors or assi~s. IN T~IM~ ~F. bo~ ~rttes have hereunto se~ their ~s t~ day and ~ar he~abov, ~!tten. ~senoe of: · -:.. Page -AI3t. AC ~O~LEDGM~T STATE OF MIh'~:I~YfA CO~ OF H~:NEPIN ) ~ this ~ r~ day o~ ~'~ 1959~ ~xore ~ ~ no~ puli% wtth~ a~ ~or ~id Co~ty~ ~~y ap~a~d Her~rt ~er ~ Helen L. ~o~er, ~o me ~rson~ly ~o~, who~ ~ each by me d~y ~o~ they did ~y that they a~ ~s~ctlvely ~dent and the ~c~ of the corporation na~d as the Lessor the fore~o~ in,trent, ~d that ~he se~ ~ffi~ed to ~id ~tr~nt is the cor~m~ se~ of said corpo~ti~ ~d that said instr~ent ~as si~ed a~ ~ed ~ ~h~f of said corpo~tion ~ au~ority ~ts B~ of Directors, and Her~ E. WoOer and Helen L. ~lner ac~le~ed ~id ~st~ent to ~ the free act ~d deed of corpomti~. S~I'ATE OF MI:*~ES£TA ) (S~. COUNTy OF H~N]:EPIN ) Notary Public Hennepin Cowry, ~/~nn. My c~:~ission expires 1-19- , 1963_~ On this ]~ kay of '~_~~ 19 ~ , before me, .a notary public within and for said_County, cersona!ty ao~eared and ~,.,$ ~.. '~.4~--Rt/[¢ "to me l~e~ who, ~g each by me d~y sworn ~,ey did ~y that they are res~ctively ~e p~sident, ~d the ~ of the cor~rati~ n~e~ Lessee ~ the fo~goi~ ~st~ent, ~d that said ~str~ent Is ~e cor~ra~ ~ of said c~pomtion, a~ ~at said ~str~ent ~s sised ar~ sealed ~ beh~f of ~i~ cor~tion by au~- and 00~ ~ ~t~ ac~o~'led~ said ~s~r~nt %o free act and deed of said corpo~i~. Nota~j Public, Hennepin Cocmty, .kqnn. My Co~mission expires 1-19- Page 3. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536,4 4687 /612, 472 1!55 FAX (612) 472 0623 TO: FROM: RE: July 9, 1992 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~ ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER RESIGNATION OF RON BOSTROM, POLICE OFFICER Attached is a letter of resignation dated July 7, 1992, from Ronald D. Bostrom, patrol officer with the City of Mound police department. Also attached is a memorandum of agreement between the City of Mound and Ronald Bostrom regarding an early retirement arrangement. As you know, Officer Bostrom presented a written request in order to retire early from the Mound Police Department. His request was reviewed thoroughly by the police chief and myself. Based upon a number of events that have taken place over the last several months, and in an effort to reduce personnel costs, i.e., replace officer Bostrom with an officer at a lower salary, etc., it is in the best interests of the City to negotiate with Officer Bostrom for an early retirement. The City of Mound counter offered Officer Bostrom's initial request and Bostrom has accepted that offer as outlined on the attached Memorandum of Agreement. I am recommending to you to approve the attached resolution and Memorandum of Agreement. If you have any questions please contact me. , ES:Is printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF OFFICER RONALD D. BOSTROM AND APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF ~GREEMENT REGARDING EARLY RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Ronald D. Bostrom has been employed by the City of Mound for more than 25 years as an officer with the Mound Police Department; and WHEREAS, officer Bostrom made a written request to the City of Mound concerning an early retirement; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound reviewed the request thoroughly and negotiated an arrangement acceptable to the city and to Officer Bostrom. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a Memorandum of Agreement attached hereto and made a part thereof, and authorizes the Mayor and city Manager to sign this Memorandum of Agreement. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Skip Johnson Attest: City Clerk ,,7/$ y LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 July 7, 1992 Er. Edward Shukle: City Hanaser City of Hound 53~1 ffay~ood Rd. Hound, Hn. 55364 IEC'D JUL ? t992 Dear Er. Shukle: This letter is uritten in response to your letter dated June 23, 1992. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into making this offer to me. 1 have reviewed your offer and have found that making decisions of this magnitude are extremely difficult to make. Your offer of $14,000.00 incentive pay in addition to my normal severance pay as an early retirement incentive pay package are acceptable. Therefore contingent on subsequent approval of this early retirement incentive pay package by the Hound City Council, I will termanate my employment with the City of Hound Police Dept., effective August 31, 1992. It has been with great pride that I have been able to serve the City of Hound and it's citizens for over 25 years as a police officer. Ronald Do Bostrom Patrol Officer Hound Police Dept. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into by the City of Mound (hereafter "City") and Ronald Bostrom, Mound Police Department (hereafter "Employe~,). WHEREAS, the Employee has been employed by the City of Mound for more that 25 years a~ an officer with the Mound Police Department; and WHEREAS, the Employee is a member of the bargaining unit of certain police personnel represented by Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union Local No. 320' (hereafter "Union"); and WHEREAS, the Employee has expressed an interest in early retirement from employment with the City; and WHEREAS, the Union has authorized the Employee to negotiate, as an individual, with the City the terms of an early retirement incentive pay package. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto have agreed to the following terms regarding the Employee's Retirement: 1. On or before July 7, 1992, Ron Bostrom shall submit a written resignation from his employment with the City to be effective on a specified date no later that September 1, 1992. 2. The City of Mound will pay the Employee the sum of $14,000 as early retirement incentive pay. This amount will be paid to the Employee in a lump sum on the first payday following the effective date of the Employee's resignation. 3. The Employee shall be paid severance pay in accordance with Article XXII, Severance Pay, Section 22.1 of the 1991-93 Collective Bargaining Agreement covering Police Officers. 4. This represents the complete and total agreement between the parties regarding this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Memorandum of Agreement to be executed this day of - , 1992. R~NALD BOSTROM CITY OF MOUND MAYOR SKIP JOHNSON CITY MANAGER, EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR. CITY of MOUND MOUND M!NNESOTA 553ga ~6!21 472-1155 FAX ,6!2~ 472 0620 July 9, 1992 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER RE: EARLY RETIREMENT FOR LOIS SANDQUIST Attached is a letter dated July 5, 1992 from Lois Sandquist resigning her position as Utility Billing Clerk with the City of Mound effective December 1, 1992. Also attached is a Memorandum of Agreement stating the terms of an early retirement arrangement for Lois Sandquist. As you know, Lois Sandquist approached the City of Mound with a written request asking for early retirement. I thoroughly examined the request and discussed it with John Norman, Finance Director. We both agreed that it is in not only Lois' best interest, but also in the City's to accept her request. I counter offered the proposal to allow her to retain the existing health and dental insurance program based upon the current administrative code. Attached is a resolution approving the Memorandum of Agreement. I am recommending to you that you approve this resolution and the Memorandum of Agreement. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:is printed on recycled paper RISS RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF LOIS S~D~UIST AND APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING EARLY RETIREMENT WHEREAS, Lois Sandquist has been employed by the City of Mound for more than 22 years as Utility Billing Clerk in the Finance Department; and WHEREAS, Lois Sandquist has made a written request to the City of Mound concerning an early retirement; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound reviewed the request thoroughly and negotiated an arrangement acceptable to the City and to Lois Sandquist. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a Memorandum of Agreement attached hereto and made a part thereof, and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign this Memorandum of Agreement. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Skip Johnson Attest: City Clerk July 5, 1992 jUL 1992 Mr. Edward Shukle Jr. 5341Maywood Rd. Mound,MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: In accordance with your letter dated June 26, 1992 please accept this as my resignation from the position as Utility Billing Clerk, effective December 1, 1992. I would also request that my severance pay would be held until 1993. Sincerely, Lois Sandquist Utility Billing Clerk MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BY THE CITY OF MOUND (HEREAFTER "CITY") AND LOIS SANDQUIST, CITY OF MOUND FINANCE DEPARTMENT (HEREAFTER "EMPLOYEE") . WHEREAS, the Employee has been employed by the City of Mound for more than 22 years within the Finance Department; and WHEREAS, the Employee has expressed an interest retirement from employment with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE AGREED following terms regarding the Employee's retirement: in early to the On or before July 10, 1992, Lois Sandquist shall submit a written resignation from her employment from the City to be effective Q~ 1, 1992. The City of Mound will pay for the employee's health and dental benefits per the current Administrative Code dated April 1988, per Section 14.5. The Employee shall be paid severance pay in accordance with Section 18 of the Administrative Code dated April 1988. This represents the complete and total agreement between the parties regarding this matter. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Memorandum of Agreement to be executed this day of , 1992. EMPLOYEE LOIS SANDQUIST CITY OF MOUND MAYOR SKIP JOHNSON EDWARD J. SHUKLE, JR. CITY MANAGER CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ~657 6!24-2 ¢z*X ~612 4-2 562.0 July 9, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) YEAR XVIII As you know, in March of 1992 you approved the CDBG Year XVIII program which included $20,000 allocated to the downtown economic development program, i.e., Mound Visions. Year XVIII began July 1, 1992 and ends December 31, 1993. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) require us when we are seeking professional services, for planning projects such as Mound Visions to seek Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's). In order to continue to receive CDBG monies for the Mound Visions program I abided by the regulations and sought responses to the RFQ. I received two written responses; one from'Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. and the other from Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. As you know Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. has been providing Bruce Chamberlain as the City's Economic Development Coordinator within the Mound Visions project. There is no reason at this time to change firms. Hence, in order to comply with HUD regulations, in order to receive Year XVIII funds, we had to go through this process. Attached is a resolution approving Hoisington Koegler Group for continuation of the downtown economic development planning project,-better known as Mound Visions. I am recommending that you approve this resolution. If you have any questions please contact me. ES:ls printed on recycled paper RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. FOR THE CONTINUATION OF THE DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING PROJECT (MOUND VISIONS) WHEREAS, the City of Mound has utilized Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies to have a downtown study prepared; and WHEREAS, that study made several recommendations to the City on making improvements to the downtown area; and WHEREAS, the study was accepted and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City hired a facilitator to coordinate and lead the City in accomplishing the activities as recommended in the downtown study; and WHEREAS, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., has served as that facilitator; and WHEREAS, HUD regulations require that Requests for Qualifications (RFQ's) be taken for professional planning services in this area; and WHEREAS, the City has followed these regulations and sought responses to an RFQ; and WHEREAS, two responses were received: Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban and Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. has been providing this service and staff sees no reason to change professional planning firms for this project at this time. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to sign and execute an agreement between the City of Mound and Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. to continue the downtown economic development and planning project, better known as Mound Visions, per their submittal to the Request for Qualifications dated June 1992. The following Council members voted in the affirmative: The following Council members voted in the negative: Mayor Skip Johnson Attest: city Clerk CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-1 ! 55 FAX (612) 472 C620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; ADDRESS: APPLICANT: COMMONS: DOCK SITE: SUBJECT: July 14, 1992 City Council Meeting Mayor, City Council, Applicant and Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ 4577 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 6, Devon Mike Roy Devon, Class C 41140 Revised Request: Permit - stairway. Construction on Public Lands BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted a revised request as stated in the attached letter. The revised request is better tailored to the slope. The original design projected outward from the slope and the applicant has stated it was difficult to comply with the maximum 8" rise and minimum 9" run requirement of the code. In addition, the applicant and neighbor intend to remove and restore the walkway area at the base of the upper retaining wall that is partially on the applicant,s property. The proposed landings are necessary to traverse the steep hillside and are consistent with the maximum allowable size of 4' x 8' previously permitted. ~ECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval consistent with prior Resolution #92-61 (attached). printed on recycled paper WHLU~ IbL: 658-262b Jun 09,92 10:19 No,O02 P.02 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL ACKNOWLEDGING A GIFT OB PROPERTY FROM MSC PROPERTIES WHEREAS, Helen L. wolner, Berbert F. wolner, and Judge Herbert E. wolner are limited partners in MSC Properties, Ltd., and are long time residents of the City of Mound, and WI4EREAS, the Wolners did lease land to the upper Tonka Little League, Inc. in April of 1959 to provide a facility for youngsters in the Mound area to participate in the national pasttime under the standards of "Little League Baseball, Inc.", and WHEREAS, in the past 33 years many young people in the City of Mound oundin area have participated in this wonderful pasttime and and the surf . .g ..... ~ .... ~lon- snortsmanship, and competition, ed the ~ene~l~s uz ~~ · _~ __ . --- have learn .... ~ -~ -* Wolner Field nave greatz¥ enhanced the and the activities car[z~u u,, ~ community, and WHEREAS, under the terms of the lease, Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. has the responsibility of paying all rates and assessments against the leased property, and over the years much of the efforts of the participants and their parents have been to raise funds for the payment of real estate taxes and assessments, and this seems to be inconsistent with other recreational activities carried on by the City through its Park and Recreation Department and the School District through its recreational activities, all of which are conducted without a requirement of paying real estate taxes, and WHEREAS, at a recent Board of Review meeting the City Assessor had valued the property at $7~,000 and after an appeal and a review, the Assessor recommended to the City Council that the value of the property be reduced from $72,000 to $55,000 and the City Council agreed and did reduce such property value for tax purposes, and WHEREAS, Helen Wolne~, ~erbert F. Wolner, and Judge Herbert E. Wolner have indicated a willingness and a desire to contribute to the long time objectives of maintaining Little League Baseball and have indicated to the Mayor and City staff that they would gift~the property to the Cit~ for the benefit of future generations of little leaguers in the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, the City staff has obtained a title opinion of the . ared the necessary documentation to convey the property and has prep . -~ ,n ~h~ City subject to the lease and ~nterest of MSC Properties, u~¥ ..... l =~ ..... ,~u Cot Little League ~ictions of record which will preserve u,~ ¥~-~-= - Baseball for at least 99 years, and WPLUM TEL: 558-2625 3un 09,92 10:19 No.O02 P.05 WHEREAS, the City Council and the residents of the City of Mound wish to express their deep appreciation to the Wolners for this kind and generous gift of this property, and the City agrees to accept %he property subject to the lease which is intended to guarantee this as a Little League facility for at least another 99 years, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RBSOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney are hereby authorized and directed to take all necessary actions to accept a gift from Helen L. Wolner, Herbert F. Wolner, and Judge ~erbert E. Wolner of property legally described as: The Southerly 300 feet of Block 4, Shirley Hills, Unit F, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Bennepin County, Minnesota. 2. The City Council expresses to the Wolners appreciation and gratitude on behalf of all the residents of the City of Mound for gifting this property to the City and acknowledges that the property has a value of at least $55,000. The City staff is authorized and directed to cooperate with the Wolners by preparing any written documents necessary to officially acknowledge this generous gift to the youth and future youth of this community. 3. The City staff is further authorized to work with the Wolners to complete the transaction and accept this very generous gift and to continue to work with the Upper Tonka Little League, Inc. to maintain this property for at least the next B9 years as a Little League field. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted June 1992. RECEIVED Jill_ 9 19~2 ' i ~D 1 CALCULATIONS ^~D DESIGN DATA t ! I RECENED MOON~ PLk~,~,~G & ~NSP. STICINEY & SCIf.~ARI LOT 5UflVEY$ COMPANY, INC. LAND 8URVEYOP~ o REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF 8TATE OF MINNESOTA o 7601 · 73cd Avenue North 660*3093 Minflespolb, ldinfl.o~ s5428 ;rooo.o INVOICE NO 308.~7 F... NO. SCALE I" = ZO' OenoJls Iron Monument Denotes Wood Hub Set For Escovolion Only Oenole$ Exi$1in~ Elevotion Oenoles Proposed Eievotion Oenoles Surfoce Droinoge Proposed Top of Block Proposed Garoge Floor Proposed Lowest Floor Type of 8uildin~ . ,/ Benchmark: Spike in po~erpote ~berdeen Road. E/ev. - g~8.98 N.G.V.D. 2g~j. Note: F~s~tn~ ]e~e e~ ts s~ gZg. S Eeet ~/'~? ~ich is ordln~ hi. gll water elevati~ Lot 6, Block I, "Devon" May 26, 1992 RESOLUTION %92-61 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRWAY ON DEVON COMMONS ABUTTING 45?? ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK lv LOT 6v DEVON~ DOCK SITE %41140 WHEREAS, Mike Roy has applied for a Construction on Public Lands Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting 4577 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 6, Devon, Dock Site #41140; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, Subd. 1. requires City Council approval by a four-fifths vote for a Construction on Public Land Permit; and WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission reviewed this request and had a tie vote so there was no recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City of Mound does hereby approve a Construction on Public Land Permit to allow construction of a stairway on Devon Commons abutting the property at 4577 Island View Drive, Block 1, Lot 6, Devon, Dock Site #41140 for Mike Roy, subject to the following conditions: The permit will expire in five (5) years, at which time the application shall be made for a Public Land Maintenance Permit. b. The stairway must comply with current building code. Ce The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. de The applicant shall remove existing stairway, regrade, and replant, etc., to prevent erosion. ee The applicant shall remove and/or maintain the existing walkway. fo The applicant to provide erosion control measures under new stairway. go The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change in ownership of property (4577 Island View Drive). 99 May 26, 1992 The foregoing resolution was moved by Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Smith. The following voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following voted in the negative: Jessen. Councilmember Attest: City Clerk ss/Skip Johnson Mayor 100 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 14~ 1992 PUBLIC L~NDg PERMIT APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC L]tNDS= REQUEST TO BUILD A STAIRWAY BY MIKE'ROyf 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. The applicant was not present. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a new stairway on the commons abutting the subject property. The applicant's property at 4577 Island View Drive was recently a vacant lot adjoined to 4601 Island View Drive, but has since been separated and a new house is currently being constructed. Presently, there is one stairway between the applicants property and the neighbors property to the south (4601 Island View Drive) which is dilapidated and in need of replacement. Staff recommended approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit request for a new stairway subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The permit will expire .in five (5) years, at which time application shall be made to renew the permit. The stairway must comply with current building code. The applicant/abutting property owner is responsible for all costs incurred, including installation and maintenance. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. Ahrens commented that she would like to see permits granted for a longer period of time than 5 years, emphasizing that people spend a lot of money on the construction and we don't want to encourage cheap construction. It was noted that the proposed cost for the subject stairway is $2,700. Casey commented that if the applicant wants the stairway to pass inspection in 5 years they will want to construct a quality stairway. CONTINUED . . . REQUEST FROM MIKE I~OY - 4577 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes May 14, 1992 Casey expressed that he would rather see the existing shared stairway utilized rather than two new stairways as it would result in less of an impact on the shoreline. Considering the existing retaining wall and walkway, the location of the existing stairway appears to be a natural place to have a stairway. It is Casey's impression that the City is trying to preserve commons. Mueller agreed that one shared stairway would be more favorable. It was noted that the walkway is in the middle of the property line between the commons and the rear property lines to the subject properties. Byrnes commented that if the two parties shared a stairway they may not be able to agree on costs involved to maintain the stairway. Eischeid stated that a joint stairway reduces the amount of privacy to the abutting owner. The Parks Director commented that the applicant, Mike Roy, expressed a concern regarding erosion and removal of the existing stairway. Fackler stated that we need to be concerned about erosion on the hillside. The Commission discussed concerns relating to the removal of the existing stairway and requiring that two parties jointly be responsible for the maintenance and/or removal of one stairway. Should the City get involved in agreements between abutting neighbors? MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Schmidt to recommend approval of a Construction on Public Lands Permit for a new stairway as requested and as recommended by staff, including the addition of the following conditions: #4. The Maintenance Permit must be renewed with change of ownership. The existing walkway shall be removed and/or maintained as required by City staff. The old stairway shall be removed and erosion control measures addressed and corrected, if needed, per City staff. MOTION FAILED 4 to 4. Those in favor were: Asleson, Ahrens, Byrnes and Eischeid. Those opposed were: Mueller, Casey, Schmidt and Skoglund. Eischeid commented that these people pay higher taxes to live on commons, they should be entitled to their own stairway. Ahrens was concerned about requiring maintenance of one stairway by two parties. 2 ./ McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 July 8, 1992 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Sapwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1991 Lift Station Improvements MFRA #9629 Dear Ed: Enclosed is LaTour Construction's Final Payment Request in the amount of $1,105.79 for the 1991 Lift Station Improvements. Because this work is fully completed, we do not recommend any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Oreg Skinner, your Utility Superintendent, and find that the work was done in general accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid the amount of $1,105.79 which is full payment for this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. JC:jmk Enclosures Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron I-.I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~1 ~ ~M ~ July 1, 1992 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 !6125 472-1155 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: MAYOR CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE: FRAN CLARK, CMC, CITY CLERK ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - BURNING PERMITS The City received the attached letter last week from the MPCA. In order to conform, we need to amend Section 235:27, Subd. 3 of the City Code to read as follows: Subd. 3. Rules Adopted by Reference. R~tes-APg-i-te-APg-BR, imet~siYe, Minn. Rules pts 7005.0705 to 7005.0805~ of the Minnesota P~llution Control Agency are hereby adopted by reference and made a part of this Code as if fully set forth herein. The Council will also have t% by motio% designate Donald Bryce as the person who is authorized to issue permits, fc printed on recycled paper Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Celebrating our 25th anniversary and the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act June 24, 1992 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. Manager, City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 REC'D JUN 2 6 1992 Dear Mr. Shukle: RE: Delegated Authority for Issuing Open Burning Permits Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Air Quality Division (AQD) staff has reviewed the City of Mound's (City) file. The file review indicates that the City has been delegated authority to issue open burning permits. The person authorized to issue the permits is Robert Cheney,-Fire Chief. In the August 28, 1984, letter the MPCA sent to the City, the City was instructed to reapply for the authorization to be changed if Mr. Cheney left his position. Our records indicate that Donald Bryce is the current Fire Chief. The MPCA is requesting that if the City wishes to continue issuing open burning permits that the following information be sent to the MPCA, AQD: 1) a copy of the City's burning ordinance adopting Minn. Rules pts. 7005.0705 to 7005.0805; and 2) a certified copy of the motion passed by the City designating a person or persons to issue permits. Please submit this information by July 30, 1992. The MPCA will review the submitted documentation for completeness. If the information is complete, a letter will be sent to the City authorizing the person(s) the City has designated. If you have any questions regarding the delegation process or open burning issues, please call me at (612)296-6707. iely' "'~ /-~ ine M, Deneen ance Determination Unit Compliance and Enforcement Section Air Quality Division JMD:lmbl903 Enclosure cc: Open Burning File Mound City File 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul, MN 55155-3898; (612) 296-6300; Regional Offices: Duluth · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer · Pnnted on Recycled Paper July 14, 1992 1.13 APPROVAL OF FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST OF $1t105.79 - 1991 LIFT gTATION IMPROVEMENT The City Manager reported that the City Engineer recommended approval of the final payment request from LaTour Construction for the 1991 Lift Station Improvement Project. The Mayor asked that a report be submitted from the Water and Sewer Superintendent, Greg Skinner, explaining any problems that the City had with the project causing a final payment to be made 7 months into 1992. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a final payment request from LaTour Construction, Inc, in the amount of $1,105.79 for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.14 APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDNRNT REGARDING BURNING PERMITS The City Clerk explained that the MPCA has contacted the City and stated the ordinance relating to burning permits needed to be updated and the person authorized to issue permits needed to be changed to the present Fire Chief. Councilmember Jensen stated she could not vote in favor of this because she does not believe any open burning permits should be issued in this community for the burning of leaves or brush and trees. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #58-1992 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 235:27, SUBD. 3 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO BURNING RESTRICTIONS - BURNING PERMITS REQUIRED The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.15 Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-87 RESOLUTION APPOINTING FIRE CHIEF, DON BRYCE, AS THE DESIGNATED PERSON TO ISSUE BURNING PERMITS The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 1.16 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-llst in the amount of $383,178.94, when funds are available. A roll call vote was OPEN BURNING RESTRICTIONS AND pERM1TI'ING p,.EQUIREMXN'I'S 7005.0705 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1. Scope. As used in parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815 the terms defined in this part have the meanin~ gtven. Subp. 2. Agency. 'Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Subp. 3. Commissioner. "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Subp. 4. Delegated authority. "Delegated authority" means a town, home er or statutory city or metropolitan court, v/. as .deLed in.M.innes0ta .Stat- rule ch__an.:__ A,~ t~l subdivision 4, authorized by tl~e comrmssxoner to zssue utes, $~ci. loI~ .~.~ .... open burning permits under part 7005.0767. Subp. 5. Incorporated.land. "Incorporated land" means land within a home rule charter or statutory c~ty. $ubp. 6. Land used for faxming. "Land used for farming" means land that is in a~'icultural use as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 17.81. $ubp. 7. Local authority. Local authon¥ means a local fire chief, ~e m-~r- shal, fire warden, or local governmental ot~cial. $ubp. 8. Nonattalnment area. "Nonattainment area" means a geographic region that has been: A. designated by the agency as violating a state ambient air quality stan- dard~ or' B. designated by the United States £nvironmental Protection Agency as violating a national ambient air quality standard in Code of Federal P, egulations, title 40, section 81.324, as amended. , · ~ umin of any matter if Sub 9 Open burning Open burmng means the b. P' ' · ' · · to the resultant combustion products are emitted directly passing through a stack, duct, or chimney. Subp. 10. Owner or operator. "Owner'. or "operator'. means a person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises an open burning site, or who con- · ducts open burning. ' Subp. 11. Practical. "Practical'. means technically feasible, available within )~he general area where the material to be burned is located, and available at a cost 'that is not prohibitive for most users. 7005.0705 AiR POLLUTION CONTROL 18 Subp 12. Solid ~'aste. 'Solid waste" has the n'le,ar, ir,~ t;,,'en it in Minnesota Statutes, section 116.06, subdivision 10. ' - Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0710 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] 7005.0715 OPEN BURNING RESTRICTIONS. Subpart 1. Open burning without a perm/t. Except as provided in parts 7005.0785 and 7005.0795, open burning without an only on uninco · . agency permit is allowed rporated land ~n atta.tnment areas, and only if the owner or opera- tor conducts the burning for the purposes described in subpan 3, according to ' the conditions in subpan 4, pans 7005.0725, 7005.0775, and 7005.0805, and prior notice has been given to the local authority. Subp. 2. Open burning with a permit. Owners or operators of permanent tree and brush open burning sites must obtain permits under pan 7005.0735, and are subject to the requirements of subpan 4 and a 7005.0745, 7005 0755. 7 p ns 7005.0725, 7005 07 · · 005.0775, 7005.0805, andT0050Rl,~ ,-,___ . 35, ...... vwners or opera- tots who condua open burning for the instruction and training of firefighters must obtain permits under part 7005.0735, and are ' · of. part 7005.0725, except as otherwis ..... .~.,_.,: _.subject.to. the requtrements · ,. ~,.ov,u¢o in me permit Issued bv the com. m~ssmner, and parts 7005.0735, 7005 0745, 7005 0755, 7005 0766 7 and 7005 0805 Owners or o erators ~,~ .... .,__ ' · , '005.0775, · ' ' P -,, ,.u,,uuct, cause, or permit open burning on incorporated land or in a nonattainment'area must obtain permits under pan 7005.0735, and are subject to the requirements ofsubpan 3 and 7005.0735, 7005.0745, 7005.0755, and 7005 0805 t'~._ __pa_~s 7005.072,5, · · ,~-,,~a ur operators WhO .conduct, cause, or permit open burning in forest areas or on forest land as defined m Minnesota Statutes, section 88.01, subdivisions 6 and 7, must obtain perm/ts from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources/fa permit is required by Minnesota Statutes, sections 88.16 and 88.17. Subp. 3. Purposes for burning. Open burning is allowed if conducted for the following purposes: A. elimination of fire or health hazards that cannot be abated by any other practical means; B. disposal of vegetative matter for purposes of managing forests, prai- ries, or wildlife habitats; C. ground thawing for utility repair and construction; D. disposal of trees, brush, grass, and other vegetative matter in the development and maintenance of land and rights-of-way where chipping, corn- posting, or other alternative methods are not practical; E. consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 18.024, the disposal of .diseased shade trees as described in pans 1505.0230 and 1505.0320; F. disposal of diseased or infested nursery stock, diseased bee hives under Minnesota Statutes, section 19.56, or dunnage as required under part 1505.1430; or G. the disposal of burnable building material such as unpainted or untreated lumber, wood shakes, or other unpainted or untreated wood products generated by construction, where recycling, reuse, chipping, or other alternative disposal methods are not practical. .Subp. 4. Conditions. Open burning must be conducted according to the reqmremen!s in items A to J. A. The prevailing wind at the time of the burning must be away from nearby residences and occupied buildings. B. The burning must be conducted as far away from a road as possible and controlled so that a trat~c hazard is not created· 19 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 7005.0725 C. The burning must be conducted consistent with article 11.101Co) of the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code as adopted in pan 7510.3120. D. The burning must not be conducted within one mile of an airport or landing strip unless the affected airport or landing strip is notified prior to burn- iag. E. The burning must not be conducted during the duration of an agen- cy-declared air pollution alert, warning emergency, or significant harm episode as outlined in parts 7005.2950 to 7005.3006; Minnesota Statutes, section 116.11; Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, pan 51, subpart H; or Code of Federal Reg- ulations, title 40, section 52.1220 (cX 1). F. The pe~on conducting the open burning shall give notice to the local authority and to the local Department of Natural Resources representative when within an area under Department of Natural Resources jurisdiction prior to any open burning. The notice must include the time and location of the fire. G. Propane gas torches or other clean gas burning devices causing mini- mai pollution must be used to start the burning. H. The person conducting the open burning must be present at the burn site from the commencement of the burning until the fire is completely extin- guished and ifa permit is required shall have a copy of the permit at the burning site at all times. I. Fixes must not be allowed to smolder with no flame present, except when conducted for the purpose of managing forests, prairies, or wildlife habi- tats. J. Fires set or allowed to burn for the purpose of managing forests, prai- ries, or wildlife habitats must be managed according to a prescribed burn plan approved by the managing agency. Statutory Authority:. MS $116.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0720 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] 7005.0725 OPEN BURNING PROHIBITIONS. Subpart 1. Prohibited materials. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning of oils, rubber, plastics, chemically treated materials, or other mate- rials which produce excessive or noxious smoke such as tires, railroad ties, chemi- cally treated lumber, composite shingles, tar paper, insulation, composition board, sheetrock, wiring, paint, or paint filteri: ' Subp. 2. Hsxardous wastes. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning of hazardous waste as classified in chapter 7045 and Minnesota Statutes, section 116.06, subdivisipn 13, except as specifically provided in pan 7045.0542, subpart 9. Subp. 3. Industrial solid waste. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning'of solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing pro- cess or from a service or commercial establishment. Subp. 4. Demolition debris. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning of burnable building material generated from demolition of commercial or institutional structures. A farm building is no~ a commercial structure. Subp. 5. Salvage operations. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit sal- vage operations by open burning. Subp. 6. Motor vehicles. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit the pro- cessing of motor vehicles by open burning. Subp. 7. Garbage. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning of discarded material resulting from the handling, processing, storage, prepara- tion, serving, or consumption of food, unless specifically allowed under part 7005.0795. 7005.0725 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 20 Subp. 8. Burning bnn. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burn- ing during a burning ban put into effect by a local authority, county, or a state agency. Statutory Authority: .bis s 1!6. 07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0730 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] 7005.0735 PERMITS REQUIRED. Subpart 1. Permits required. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning on incorporated land or in a nonattainment area without obtaining an open burning permit from the commissioner or a delegated authority under part 7005.0767. No person shall conduct, cause, or permit open burning at a perma- nent tree and brush open burning site as described in part 7005.0815 or for instruction and training of firefighters as described in part 7005.0766 without obtaining an open burning permit from the commissioner. Subp. 2. Permit conditions. The commissioner or delegated authority shall issue an open burning permit if the commissioner or delegated authority finds that the burning is for one of the purposes in pan 7005.0715, subpart 3, 7005.0766, or 7005.0815, and that the burning will be conducted according to the requirements of pans 7005.0705 to 7005.0815. The commissioner or dele- gated authority may impose other reasonable conditions in the permit on the con- duct of the open burning if needed for the prevention of pollution or nuisance conditions. The burning shall be conducted during the dates established in the permit and conducted under the conditions of the permit. Subp. 3. Application process. In areas where there is no delegated authority, the applicant shall obtain a permit application from the commissioner. After completing the application, the applicant shall submit the application to the local authority for its approval. Following the local authority approval, the application shall be submitted to the commissioner for a decision whether to issue a permit. In areas where there is a delegated authority, the applicant shall obtain a per- mit application from the delegated authority. After completing the application, the applicant shall submit the application to the local authority for its approval. Following the local authority approval, the application shall be submitted to the delegated authority for a decision.whether to issue a permit. The application process for permanent tree and brush open burning sites is described in part 7005.0815, subparts 7 and 8. To obtain a permit for fire training an application must be submitted by the fire department or other entity seeking to conduct fire training directly to the commissioner by May 15 of each year. The application must describe the fare department's or other entity's annual training plans and identify the estimated number of structures that will need to be burned for training purposes. Subp. 4. Information requests. The commissioner or delegated authority may request, and the applicant shall provide, any information additional to that required in the application form which the commissioner or delegated authority needs to determine if the open burning can be conducted in compliance with parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815. Subp. 5. Permittees. The permit application must be signed by all owners and operators, and the commissioner or delegated authority shall designate aH owners and operators as cop.ermittees when issuing the permit. Statutory Authority: MS $116. 07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0740 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 700~.0766 21 -/005.0745 pERMIT DENIAL. The commissioner shall deny a permit application submitted pursuant to parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0515 if: ^. a practical alternative method ofdisposal'0fthe material is available, such as chipping or composting; B. the burning cannot be conducted according to the conditions estab- lished in parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815; or C. a nuisance condition would result from the burning. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0750 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] 7005.0755 PERMIT REVOCATION. A permit is subject to rcvOCati0n by. ibc commissioner, if: A. a practical method of disposal of the material is found; B. a fire hazard exists or develops during the course of the burning; C. the permittee violates parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815; D. any of the conditions of the permit are violated; or E. a nuisance condition has resulted from the burning. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0760 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] 7005.0765 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES JURISDICI~ON. Designated Department of Natural Resources officers or fire wardens are · ' and issue, deny, enforce, and revoke open burn- orized to accept__applicauons ... lions within their jurisdiction· ;a~u~th~..rrnits oali of the comn-assxoner for loca in, ,, ........ n beh . Statutory Authority: MS s ] 16.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0766 FIRE TRAINING. ' Subpart 1. Structure burn training. Except for owners or opera, toE co, n.du¢t,- · · 'ndustrial settings pursuant to appncat)te ieoerm, · fire training ms. pe?al~zed ~ ....... .,,,~ ,.~,nductin~ open burning for the lng els owners or opu,a,,~,o .~ . - lures must slate, or local stand, ar , __. · ters vath regard to struc purpose of instruction and tr~..mmg of firefigh · ' d in Structural Burn Training Procedur. e.s.f, or.~. e follow the t_ec .h?q. ue.s..de,s, cn~be,.' ...... This document is written and p.u.o~, snea oy Minnesota 7-ec_nn~cal ~ouege ~.y~c,,,_,......~:_~,,,, clafl~ June 1987, anal ~s mcorpo- · ' n Cool,.-.as~,- ,-, the Regional State F~re Tratm g - rated by reference. It is not subject to frequent change. This publication is avail- able at the Minnesota State Law Library and at the Fire Information, Research, and Education Center, 550 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101. S'ubP. 2. Restrictions. Flammable or combustible liquids shall not be burned during fire training unless liquid fuels or arson investigation training is being con- ducted. The use of small amounts of uncontaminated diesel fuel or kerosene for i~ition of live burn fires is not prohibited. Subp. 3. Liquid fuels trsinlng. Fire training shall be conducted according to the conditions in items A to C when liquid fuels are burned. A. The fuel must be ~omp. letely cont_-ined within a lined structure, such as a cement- or metal-lined container. " B. The amount of fuel to be burned must be the minimum amount nec- essary to conduct the trainint. C. If fuel is released from the lined structure, or if soll or groundwater 7005.0766 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 22 contamination is suspected to have resulted from the burn, the spill must be reported and recovered as required under Minnesota Statutes, section 115.061. Subp. 4. Conditions. Fire training must be conducted according to parts 7G05.0715, subpart 4, items E to H, and 7005.0725, except as specifically autho- rized by the permit issued by the commissioner. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 7005.0767 DELEGATED AUTHORITY. Subpart 1. Delegated authority to issue permits. A town or home rule charter or statutory city or metropolitan county may issue permits for open burning other than for ~ire training or permanent tree and brush burning conducted according to parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0805, if delegated authority is obt~ned as provided in subpan 2. Permits must be issued on a form approved by the commissioner and records must be maintained of all open burning permits issued. Subp. 2. Obtaining authority. To obtain authority to issue open burning per- mits, a town or home rule charter or statutory city or metropolitan county must adopt parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0805 as a local ordinance governing open burn- ing. After adopting this ordinance, the town or home rule charter or statutory city or metropolitan county must submit the following to the commissioner: A. a written statement requesting the authorization; B. the name of the person or persons authorized to issue the permits on behalf of the town or home rule charter or statutory city or metropolitan county and a certified copy ofthe motion passed by the town or home rule charter or stat- utory city or metropolitan county designating such person or persons; and C. a copy of the local ordinance adopting parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0805. Subp. 3. Revocation of delegated authority. The commissioner shall revoke the authority to issue open burning permits if: A. permits are issued in violation of pans 7005.0705 to 7005.0805; B. permits are issued on forms that have not been approved by the com- missioner;, C. permits are issued by persons who have not been authorized by the delegated authority or whose names have not been provided to the commissioae~, D. the delegated authority fails to maintain records of open burning per- mits issued; or E. the delegated authority requests removal of the authority. Statutory Authority: MS $116.07 History:. 16 SR 865 7005.0770 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] · 7005.0775 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS. Open burning must be conducted according to parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815, local ordinances, state [ire marshal rules, and statutes and rules of other state agencies, regardless of whether a permit is required by parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815. Nothing in parts 7005.0705 to 7005.0815 shall be con- strued to allow open burning in those areas in which open burning is prohibited by other laws, rules, regulations, or ordinances which are more restrictive. Statutory Au~ority: MS $116.07 History:. 16 $.R 865 7005.0780 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] ,~IP, ?OLLUTION CONTROL '/005.0S15 ?005.0?85 RECREATIONAL FIR]~$. Fires set for recreational, ceremonial, food prcp~'ation, or social purposes not re uirc an agency pcrmit. Thc ma?cfi .al to b,c bu.m. c, cl are allowc, d and d..o , :_ct_~__ ,~..., thrcc feet in diameter by ti~rec.Icct m~. ~my ci to a tlc no larl~cx be limlte. . P ...... ~ ...... ,4 .-oal or charcoal may be burned. unpalnteo ana UfltlCatcu wv~,~, ,- Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 ?005.0?90 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] · /005.079S OPEN BURNING ON FARMS. A person who operates land used for farming may burn solid wast.e generated from the person's household or as part of the person's farming operation without an agency permit, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section l ?. 135. The burn- ing of the solid waste must comply with the conditions established in pact ?005.0715, subpart 4, the prohibitions established in part ?005.0?25, and the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 1 ?.135. Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 '~005.0796 OPEN BUR~NG OF LEAVES. ome rule charter or statutory city located outside the metropoli- A town ~ned in Minnesota Statutes, section 473.121, subdivision tan area as adoption of an ordinance, may permit open burning of dried leaves within the boundaries of the town or city, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, section rnm of dried leaves must comply with the conditions estab- 116.052. The bu ' g - ~ - -,~,~ ~'~ 7005 0775, and 7005.0805. lished in parts ?005.0? 15, sut)par~ '~, ,vu~.~,,-.., · . Statutory Authority: MS s 116.07 History: 16 SR 865 '~005.0800 [Repealed, 16 SR 865] '~005.0505 LIABILITY, The ~anting of an open burning permit or allowance of open burning with- out a permit under any provisions of parts ?005.0?05 to ?005.0515 does not excuse a person from consequences, damages, or injhries which may result from the open burning. Statutory Authority: MS $116.07 History: 16 SR 865 '/005.0810 [Repealed, 16 SR '~005.0815 PERMANENT TREE AND BRUSH OPEN BURNING SITES. Subpart 1. Permanent sites. The commissioner shall issue permits authociz- lng continuous use of a site for open burning following the procedures and subject to the conditions established in this part and parts 7005.0?25, ?005.0?35, ?005.0745; ?005.0?55, and ?005.0805. Subp. 2. Tree ~nd brush burning only. Only u'ees, wee trimmings, or brush shall be permitted to be burned at a permanent open burning site. Subp. 3. Alternative's to burning. Only trccs~ree trimmings, or brush that cannot be disposed of by an alternative method such as chipping, composting, or other method, shall be permitted to be burned at a permanent open burnin~ site. Subp. 4. Location. A permanent open burning site must not be located within: 7005.0815 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 24 unless written permission is A. 1,000 feet of an occupied building obtained from the building o~,ner and occupant; B. 1,000 feet of a public roadway; C. one mile of an airport or landing strip unless written permission is obtained from the affected airport or landing strip; D. 300 feet ora stream, river, lake, or other water body unless berms or other measures are used to ensure that ash or organic material does not enter the water body; or E. a wetland as defined in part 7035.0300, subpart 119. Subp. 5. Site operation. A permanent open burning site must be developed. and operated according to items A to $. A. A qualified attendant must be on duty at all times when the site is open for disposal of material to be burned and for the duration ofany fire on the site. B. Access to the site must be controlled th'rough a gate that is locked when the attendant is not on duty. C. A permanent sign indicating the times of operation, rates, the penalty for nonconforming dumping, and other pertinent information of use to the public must be posted at the site entrance. D. Burning and ash storage areas must be designated and maintained. E. Surface water drainage must be diverted around and away from the .burning and ash storage areas. F. Burning must be conducted according to the conditions in pan 7005.0715, subpart 4, items A to E and G. G. Prior notice must be given to the local authority ofthe time and dura- tion of each bum. H. Fugitive ash emissions must be controlled and ash residue must be collected periodically and disposed of in a permitted solid.waste land disposal facility or other method allowed by applicable statutes and rules. I. The fire must not be allowed to smolder with no flame present. $. Fugitive dust emissions from access roads and the site must be con- trolled as required by part 7005.0550. Subp. 6. Site termination. A permanent open burning site must be terminated in compliance with items A to D. A. All unburned materials must be removed and disposed of through burning at another permitted burn site or by other method allowed by applicable statutes, rules, and ordinances. B. All ash must be removed to a permitted solid waste land disposal facility or disposed of by other method allowed by applicable statutes, rules, and ordinances. C. Areas affected by burning must be covered with soil and seeded to prevent erosion and to restore the site to a natural condition. D. A sign must be posted informing the public that the site has been closed, and listing the closest disposal site alternative. Subp. 7. Application process. Applicants for a permanent open burning site permit shall submit a complete application on a form. provided by the commis- sioner. This application must be submitted at least 90 days before the date of the proposed operation of the permanent open burning site. The application must be submitted to the commissioner and must contain: A. the name, address, and telephone number of all owners of the site proposed for use as the permanent open burning site; B. if the operator for the proposed permanent open burning site is differ- ent from the owner, the name, address, and telephone number of the operator;, AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 7005.6020 25 C. a general description of the materials to be burned, including the source and estimated quanti~y; · r similarly detailed map of the site and surrounding .D. a topo_g..r,,a_p..h:~c ,o~r r,.r~.nce 'wintall Structures that might be affected area within a one mslc c,rcu ...........sho _ by the operation of the site; and E. any other information relevant to the operation of the site, or as requested by the commissioner to determine if the site can be operated in compli- ance with parts 7005.0705 to '/005.0815. · rmit a lication must be signed by all owners and Subp. $. Permittees. ~Th_e_p_.er .... ~oP,,en burning site, and the com. mission:e.r ~,,~erators of ~he proposea pc.m~,,,,,-.- _ ~ ..... .--,ittees when issuing me perm,,. ;1~/1 designate all owners ann operators as ,.,w,-,," St~tutor)' Authority: MS s 116.07 Histor)': 16 Si 865 "/005.0g20 [Repealed, 16 SR $65] BILLS ........ July 14, 1992 BATCH BATCH 2063 2064 TOTAL BILLS $242,464.34 140,714.60 $383,178.94 oo 0 n. ~) ,.. oo i I ~ ~0 ~ uJ o 0 Z uJ .'~ I ~8 C~ 0 ,,1/77 I z · 0 CITY of MOUND 52.:'~ MAYWOOD ROAD MOU,",.i L!iNNESOTA 55364 6,12 472 !~55 ~-z,X r6!2 412 0620 July 9, 1992 TO; FROM SUB J ECT; Ed Shuk I e City Manager Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. June's Activity Report WATER DEPARTMENT In June we pumped 36,024,000 gallons of water. Hydrant flushing is completed. We repaired 2 leaky gate valves and 10 water shut-offs this month. Well #7 is back in service. We were suppose to start our copper and lead testing in July, but this has been changed to September by the Health Department. SEWER DEPARTMENT In the Sewer Dept. we are still cleaning sewer l].nes 3 days a week. Our lift station upgrades are creeping along. Electrical work has began with removal of the old equipment (hopefully) soon. We had 1 sewer back-up complaint. This was found to be an owner problem. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-:,387 (612) 472 I~55 FAX (612)472-0620 July 9, .1.992 TO; Ed Shukle City Manager FROM; SUBJECT; Joyce Nelson Recycling Coord]nator June's Recycling For the first 6 months we have recycled curbside a total of 402.29 tons of material compared with 339.08 tons last year at this time. Our next Special Recycling will be held in October, we will be having it in co-operation with the City of Minnetrista. We are planning on holding it at the bus garages in Minnetrista during MEA weekend (Friday & Saturday). This should work out good, since that area is fenced in, we shouldn't have the problem of things appearing after the site has been closed down. It should be interesting to see how much stuff we get this time. Hennepin County is planning another Hazardous Drop-off Site September 25 & 26, at the Hennepin County Maintenance garage in Spring ParR. We will again be looking for volunteers to work there. July 9, 1992 CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-16.8- ~612 472-I~55 FAX 612, 47'2 0620 TO; Ed Shukle City Manager FROM; Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT; June's Activity Report We're still working on the streets that are scheduled for seal coating. We have some areas that need overlaying, this is taking more time than I thought. The last time I called Allied, they had us scheduled for sealing the 15th & 16th of uly. The 1st we had our striping crew move in. Precision Striping did the painting again this year. The cost was a little higher they year because of the addition of 2 more crosswalks at the intersections of Lynwood and Commerce, cost $2,059.56. They did a good job as usual. We did a number of odd jobs we squeezed in when we weren't patching. 1. Hanging City Days banners and taking them down. 2. Hauling blacktop chunks to Mayer for recycling. 3. Sweeping around catchbasins. 4. Repair boat ramp at Mound Bay Park. 5. Dug up frost boils on Woodridge. Repair hole on Bartlett because of a watermain break. The 16th 2" rain and alot of wind, cleaned catchbasins and picked up brush. 8. The 17th storm damage, trees down in Island Park. Clean up streets anF~rking lots, before and after printed on recycled paper City days. 10. 11. 12. 13. Hauled sand to Mound Bay Park beaches. Repaired storm sewer outlet on Bartlett Blvd. Worked with Sewer, Water and Parks Departments in the removal of shrubs and trees from in front of Public Works Building and transplanting them at the Cemetery. The reason we did this is because we were having a problem with seeing thru traffic on Lynwood Blvd. as we exited our parking lot. The area that we re-landscaped has been sodded. The 22nd removed 7 Willow trees and installed new 30' X 12" PVC storm sewer in front of Cultured Marble on Commerce Blvd. SIGN WORK 2 - Stop, 2 - No Parking, 1 - Dead End. CEMETERY Laid out 2 graves and 5 stones. ,9,1'/3 . CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (612) 472 1155 FAX (6!2) 472-0620 July 7, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK JUNE MONTHLY REPORT There were 2 regular Council Meetings in June. Packet preparation was done for each of these meetings. Minutes were prepared after each meeting. There were follow-up items from each meeting. The city Manager and myself attended the League of Minnesota cities Annual Conference in Bloomington. The theme was "The Power of Partnership". There were good sessions to attend, interesting speakers and good comradery. June was a very busy month for me. Mound City Days took up part of my time. I think it was a really excellent weekend and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves, civic pride prevails again. The 1993 Budget process started and all the budget pages were updated and distributed to the Department Heads. There were two meetings on elections. One was a mandatory meeting so that the Secretary of State can tell us how to run an election. The other was the Optical Scan Users Group that was formed this year to deal with any problems and updates for the voting machines. I was asked to be the Vice-Chair of the Elections and Ethics Committee for the League of Minnesota cities this year. There were the usual calls from residents and questions from the general public on property, cemetery, research items, and other various issues. fc printed on recycled paper FIRE FIGHTERS 1 JEFF ANDEKSi~ 2 GREG ANDEKSON ? 9 10 11 S~ 12 ~L FI~ 13 G~ 14 D~ ~ 16 C~G ~~ 17 P~ ~y 18 ~ ~ 19 R~ ~ 20 J~ ~S 21 J~ ~N 22 ~V ~ 23 B~ ~ 24 ~ p~ 26 Tm P~ MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF D~-~RILLS & MAINTENANCE 3UNE 1992 FIRE & RESCUE 6.00 6.00 204.00 294.00 6.00 132 .(ID 6.00 156.00 6.25 156.25 6.00 258.0O 192. 6.00 132.00 6.00 234.00 198.00 6.00 210.00 6.00 210.00 6.00 162.00 6.00 186.00 6.00 186.00 6.00 174.00 6.00 114.00 6.00 150.00 6.00 162.00 6.00 258.00 6.00 204.00 6.00 234.00 6.00 168.00 -. 7,087.75 177½ [1~ 674. 95 H~INr 1,167 8,929. MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF JUNE 1992 MONIM MON1}{ TO ~AI~ ~O DATE NO. OF C~Jb~ 50 43 232 MOUND FIRE 11 7 49 E}UmGENCY 18 t 5 87 76 MINNETONKA BEACH FIRE 1 O ~ m~mG ,m~cY 1 0 1 MINNETRISTA FIRE O 3 9 ~GENCY 4 4 17 20 ORONO FIRE 2 Z ? 17 mmGENCY Z ) 9 7 SHOREWOOD FIREi~GENCY Ol OO Zl SPRING PARK FIRE 2 2 14 14 I~.~GI~UY 6 6 27 9 MUTUAL AID FIRE 2 1 4 1 EM~MG]9~"f 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 19 15 90 89 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 31 28 142 117 CO~CIAL 0 1 5 2 I~F-~TDENTIAL 8 5 34 32 INIIJSTRIAL 0 0 1 2 GRASS & MISC.~.IJ~S 9 4 22 26 Ab'TO 0 I 5 6 FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 2 4 23 20 NO. OF HOURS FIRE 319 161 1381 962 - MOUND I~[}~GENCY 342 327 1682 1482 TOTAL 661 488 3063 2444 FIRE 12 0 68 153 - MTKA BEACH }~ERGENCY 30 0 30 63 TOTAL 42 0 98 216 FIRE 0 68 285 466 - M' TRISTA I~{IRGENCY 60 61 298 417 TOTAL 60 129 583 883 FIRE 42 37 150 357 - ORONO I~v[ERGENCY 25 65 214 146 TOTAL 67 102 364 503 FIRE 6 0 126 8 - SHOREWOOD HllI~GEb~ 0 0 16 15 TOTAL 6 0 142 23 ,,- ,, 69 22 280 297 i ,,,~. t I L .-- - sP. PARK m~Gm~ 165 107 561 159 TOTAL 234 129 841 456 FIRE 108 50 220 18 - ltlTUAL AID EMERGI~L"Y 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 108 50 220 18 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 177½ 167½ 1042½ 960 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 556 338 2510 2261 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 622 560 2801 2282 TOTAL FIRE & ~GE~ HOURS 1178 898 5311 4543 MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 0 3 1 MUTUAL AID GIVEN 2 1 4 1 2/?Z DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused Date Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance 0 Present / Not Paid Miscellaneous : ~/~J.Andersen ~_G.Anderson ~__J.Babb ~_~O. Boyd ~=~=_D.Bryce ~__S.Bryce ~_&~D.Carlson Id. Casey ~S.Collins 2~R.Englehart 2,~-S.Erickson ~P.Fisk PERSONNEL ~'/~-J.Garvais ~D.Grady ~_K.Grady -{~__C.Henderson 2~4-P.Henry ~ ~B.Landsman _~ -R.Marschke ~ iJ.Nafus ~ hJ.Nelson _~ _-M.Nelson -~ B.Niccum palm T.Palm .Pederson ~T.Rassmusen ~_M.Savage ~_~_K.Sipprell _~_~R.Stallman _T.Swenson ~ W.Swenson ~E.Vanecek ~_~_R.Williams ~_~T.Williams ~_~__z-D.Woytcke DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT ine and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused O Present / Not Paid .scellaneous : PERSONNEL ,J.Andersen G.Anderson J.Babb IJ.Garvais D.Grady ~T.Palm K.Grady ~G.Pederson C.Henderson ~_~_T.Rassmusen P.Henry ~_M.Savage B.Landsman ~_~K.Sipprell R.Marschke ~R.Stallman J.Nafus ~_~_T.Swenson J.Nelson ~.Swenson M.Nelson ~E.Vanecek B.Niccum ~_~_R.Williams ~_~T.Williams ~D.Woytcke D.Boyd D.Bryce ~ S.Bryce D.Carlson J.Casey S.Collins ~_~R.Englehart S~_~S.Erickson ~_~_~G.Palm DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF _ ~_l..~_~. MEN ON DUTY · ~.~ J. ANDERSEN _~z. ~. ANDERSON 0 a. B^SB L~ D. BOYD _ ~, D. BRYCE ~ S. BRYCE _ ~ D. CARLSON ~ ~ ~. CAS~r _ ~ S. COLLINS ~, S. ERICKSON ~ P. FISK ~_~ ~. GARVAIS _ ~. K. GRADY _ ,~ C. HENDERSON ~ P. HENRY _ }f~ B. LAN'DSHAN (~ J. NAFUS ~_. _ J. NELSON M. NELSON B. NICCUM G. PALM ~ _ M. PALM 3. _ T. PALM G. PEDERSON T. RASMUSSEN M. SAVAGE R. STALLMAN T. SWENSON W. WILLIAMS E. VANECEK _ IC, Y~ R. WILLIAMS ,. TOTAl, MONTHLY }[OURS CITY of MOUND 534! MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND M!NNESOTA 5536.: '~87 i612~ ~,-2 1155 FAX (612' 472-0620 July 7, 1992 TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER FROM: RE: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER JUNE 1992 MONTHLY REPORT ~/< Even with the unusual cold weather and the fact that we were short one Saturday's day worth of business, (last year in June there were 5 Saturdays, this year we had only 4), we still managed to have an excellent month with $117,357 in gross sales. After numerous vehicles had plunged into the huge craters we had in our parking lot, we had our property manager hire an outfit, ,,Diversified Paving", to fill in the caverns and patch up the lot. I am still not sure if all of the submerged cars and trucks got out all right, or if they were simply covered over. Then out of the kindness of their hearts, Frank and Ron from Jubilee Foods finished the project by providing the striping action. They will be reimbursed for the materials from Silver Management, our landlord, who will in turn pro-rate our percentage of the cost to us. We saved a lot of money this way and I will forever be grateful to those two gentlemen for their neighborly consideration. JK:ls printed on recycled paper ,,?Roe, CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (612) 472-1155 FAX f612! 472-0620 FROM= RE= July 7, 1992 MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT INVEST__MENTS The following is June investment activity: Balance: June 1, 1992 $5,094,541 Bought: CD 4.20 Marquette Due 12-11-92 295,875 FNMA 5.10 Dain Due 6-25-93 400,000 CP 3.85 Shearson Due 9-30-92 199,954 CP 3.93 Shearson Due 12-22-92 199,143 CD 3.90 Mound Due 6-25-93 175,000 Matured: CD 6.25 Mound (150,000) CP 4.39 Shearson (199,577) Fm Cr 8.45 Dain (200,000) CP 4.09 Dain (145,454) Balance as of June 30, 1992 $5,669,482 199~BUDGET Work began on the 1993 budget in June. To comply with the truth in taxation laws, we must certify our proposed budget and levy to the county by September 15th. Hennepin County will mail out parcel specific notice of proposed property taxes to all property owners. Our public budget hearings will be held in December. JN:ls PPaI printed on recycled paper LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT. ' Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly Report.for June 1992 STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,043 calls for service during the month of June. There were 38 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 criminal sexual conduct, 5 burglaries, 1 aggravated assault, 27 larcenies, 1 vehicle theft and 1 arson. There were 73 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 8 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF checks, 1 weapon, 1 narcotic, 14 damage to property, 2 liquor law violations, 5 DUI's, 8 simple assaults, 3 domestics (1 with assault), 12 harassments, 7 juvenile status offenses, and 9 other offenses. The patrol division issued 131 adult citations and 9 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an additional 13 tickets. Warnings were issued to 61 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 adults and 4 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 24 adults and 8 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 16 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 10 vehicular accidents, 3 with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and 51 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 8 occasions in June and requested assistance 4 times. Property valued at $24,887 was stolen and $7,100 was recovered in June. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JUNE 1992 II. III. IV. Ve INVESTIGATION Officer Limond assisted Inv. Grand with cases until June 22nd, when Todd Truax was assigned to fill the position. Truax will be assigned for one year as a career enrichment opportunity. The investigators worked on eight child protection cases and three criminal sexual conduct issues. These cases accounted for over 46 hours of ' ' ' investigative time. Other cases investigated included burglary, theft, narcotics, criminal damage to property, threats, weapons violation, forgery/NSF checks, domestic assault, trespass, runaway and a vehicle accident. Formal complaints were issued for controlled substance and conspiracy to sell controlled substance, no insurance, theft, DUI, false information to police, burglary and assault. Personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 85 hours of overtime during the month of June. Officers used 43 hours of comp-time, 44 hours of vacation, 42 hours of sick time, and 4 holidays. Officers earned 88 hours of comp-time. The Around Mound Run accounted for 24 hours of over- time. Mound City Days accounts for close to 60 hours of over-time for the department. In salary, these two events equate to approximately $2,200 for the department. All officers attended an in-service firearms retraining and defense tactics retraining. Three officers attended the Wilson Learning course in June. Other courses included accident investigation, use of force, and officer safety issues. Police Reserves No report for the month of June. 2 oq03 OFFENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED JUNE 1992 EXCEPT. CLEARED CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART ! CRIME_S 0 Homicide 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual conduct 3 1 0 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 0 Burglary 5 1 0 Larceny 27 2 5 4 Vehicle Theft 1 0 0 1 Arson I 0 0 0 TOTAL 58 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 I 3 0 1 0 0 PART Il CRIMES Chitd Abuse/Neglect 8 2 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 1 0 Criminat oanage to Property 14 0 0 0 ~de~oons 1 0 0 1 Narcotics 1 0 0 1 Liquor Laws 2 0 0 2 DWl 5 0 0 5 Simple Assault 8 0 1 3 Domestic Assault 1 0 0 1 Domestic (No Assault) 2 0 0 0 Harassment 12 0 1 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 7 0 2 2 Public Peace 2 0 0 2 Trespassing 1 0 1 0 Att Other Offenses 6 0 2 1 TOTAL 19 I 0 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 8 0 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 24 8 PART ill & PART I~ Property Damage Accidents 7 Personal injury Accidents 3 Fatal Accidents 0 Medicais 28 Animal Complaints 51 Mutual Aid 14 Other General investigations 819 TOTAL 922 flemepin County ChiLd Protection 10 TOTAL 1,045 14 25 27 12 1 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 1992 THIS MONTH GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations 100 Hazardous Warnings 31 Non-Hazardous Warnings 12 Verbal Warnings 24 Parking Citations 85 DWI 13 Over .10 5 4 Property Damage Accidents 7 Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents 3 Adult Felony Arrests 0 4 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 38 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 13 Juvenile Felony Arrests 4 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 9 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 0 Part I Offenses Part II Offenses 38 Medicals 73 Animmal Complaints 28 51 Other Public Contacts 819 YEAR TO DATE 382 135 81 245 592 395 31 21 40 12 0 34 206 52 14 34 16 158 367 146 451 3,106 LAST YEAR TO DATE 428 140 9 136 655 280 47 29 43 18 0 23 144 40 15 34 26 168 314 148 497 2,868 TOTAL 1,361 Assists 119 Follow-Ups 44 Henri. County Child Protection 10 Mutual Aid Given 8 Mutual Aid Requested 4 6,518 441 132 37 56 26 6,062 289 63 25 65 2O 2 o6' CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Illegal Passing Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1992 ~DULT 5 4 1 5 0 70 2 0 20 0 7 0 1 0 0 1 0 13 4 1 0 8 0 144 JOY 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 g MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1992 WARNINGS NO Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL ~ARRANT ARREST~ Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants ADULT 16 12 10 0 1 5 0 0 2 11 57 1 14 JUV 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 RUN: PRO03 PROP TYPE JUL-9?- PROP DESC ]NCIDENT SEQ TYPE NUMBER NO NO I#STALLATIO# #~E '- MOUND POLICE OEPARTHENT ENFORS PROPERTY - STOLEN/RECOVERED 05/26/92 THRU 06/25/92 DATE STOLEN DATE RECOVERED STOLEN VALUE RECOVERED VALUE PAGE AUTO/TK BIKE BIKE BIKE CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CLOTH CONSUM CONSUM APPLNC APPLNC JEUELRY JEUELRY JEUELRY PER ACC RADIO RADIO RADIO SPT EQP SPT EQP SPT EQP CURNCY CURNCY CURNCY MV PRTS HV PRTS MV PRTS MV PRTS EGP TLS EQP TLS EOP TLS EOP TLS EQP TLS ALL OTR ALL OTR ALL VEHICL BICYCL BICYCL BICYCL DETECT 92001058 1 1 92000921 1 1 92000901 1 1 92000901 1 2 92000901 1 3 92000862 1 1 92000956 1 1 92001040 1 3 92001040 1 3 92000858 1 1 920008~53 1 1 92000285 1 2 92001056 1 1 92000486 1 3 9200O878 1 1 9200~78 1 2 92000~7 1 1 92000862 I 3 92001024 1 1 920010~ 1 1 92001045 1 1 92001002 I 1 92000928 1 1 92001010 1 1 92001063 1 1 92000919 I 1 92000920 1 1 92001041 1 1 92000861 1 1 92000930 1 1 92000948 1 1 92000950 I 1 92O0O862 I 2 92000935 1 1 92000958 1 1 92000994 I 1 920010~0 I 1 92000862 1 4 92001040 I 2 92001040 1 2 06/23/92 06/04/92 06/02/92 06/02/92 06/02/92 05/27/92 06/10/92 06/22/92 06/22/92 05/26/92 05/27/92 05/28/92 06/22/92 05/30/92 05/30/92 06/14/92 05/27/92 06/18/92 06/19/92 06/22/92 06/15/92 06/05/92 06/16/92 06/15/92 06/04/92 06/03/92 06/22/92 05/27/92 06/05/92 06/09/92 06/08/92 05/27/92 06/07/92 06/11/92 06/14/92 06/22/92 05/27/92 06/22/92 06/22/92 $2O0 $4,500 06/04/92 $225 $225 $4OO $60 S147 $5O S50 06/22/92 $2 05/26/92 $5 05/27/92 S6,500 $1,5OO 06/18/92 S225 $160 $20 $45O Sl ,800 S150 $300 $170 Sl 06/05/92 $0 06/17/92 $1,000 S2,210 $1 06/10/92 $100 06/22/92 $75 $50 $1,950 06/10/92 $190 $265 06/07/92 $950 $65O $0 06/22/92 $5O $7O $70 06/22/92 $4,500 $50 $2 $5 S100 Sl Sl S100 $1,950 $265 $5O $7O TOTALS: S24,887 $7,100 Run: 2-Ju[-92 11:37 CFS08 Primary ISN's on|y: No Date Reported range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Now Received: Activity Resulted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: At Grids: At[ Patrol, Areas: At[ Days of the week: ACTIVITY COOE DESCR I PT ! ON 9000 SPEED 1NG 9001 J-SPEEDING 9002 NO D/L. EXPIRED D/L 9010 BAC OVER .10 9014 STOP SIGN 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 9019 J-EQIPMENT VIOLATION 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 9021 J'CARELESS/REC[LESS 9022 EXHIBITION DRIVING 9024 ILLEGAL/UNSAFE TURNS 9030 CROSSt~AL[ VIOLATION 9040 NO SEATBELT 9041 J'NO SEATBELT 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9200 DAS/OAR/OAC 9201 J'OAS/OAR/OAC 9210 PLATES/NO- IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9301 LOST PERSONS 9310 FOUNO/ ALL OTHERS 9312 FOU~O MI~ALS/Im~tmOS 931] FOLIO PROeERT¥ MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ca[ts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 70 r 1 3 1 1 8 1 13 5 1 20 1 1 ? 9 Page Run: 2-Ju~-92 11:37 CFSO8 Primary %SN's onty: No ~eperted range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 'ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Oispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Patrol Areas: ALt Days of the week: Att ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION 9314 FOUNO VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYEO ANIMALS 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 9500 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ACC/OTHER DOG BITE 9563 OOG AT LARGE 9566 ANIHAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 9710 MEDICAL/ASU 9?30 MEOICALS 9731 MEDICALS/DX 9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIEO 9801 OOHESTIC/NO ASSAULT 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 9911 JUVENILE STATUS OFFENSES 9920 [NSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 9943 PROULER ;[OUS PERSON 9950 [NFO/INT 9980 MARRANTS HOUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service ]NCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUHBER OF INCIDENTS 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 20 7 10 8 1 1 Z 1 16 Page PPI Run= 2-Ju(-92 11:37 CFS08 Primary ISN's on(y: No Oate Reported range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 Tfme range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 No~ Received: ALL Activity Resutted: AtL Ofspositions: ALL Officers/Badges: Att Grids: AL[ Patrot Areas: Att Days of the week: Att ACTIVITy COOE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF ................ INCIDENTS 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 2 9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 6 9993 MUTUAL AID/6SO0 2 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 5 9996 MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS A5351 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS-ADLT-FAM 1 A5352 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-ACO A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS-CHLD-FAM 6 A5355 ASLT S'INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS-CHLD-ACQ 1 ASS02 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ A5552 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ 1 A9660 TERROR-THRT INFLT PRO DN-EXPLO INCEN-UNK RELAT 1 Bl161 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COH ASSAULT 1 B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT 1 83764 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-CON THEFT 1 83?94 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-CON THEFT 1 84760 BURG ~'UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 03250 DRUGS-SCH 2 NARCOTIC-SELLING-COCAiN.UNK CHAR 1 E4700 ESC-Gq-FLEE AN OFFICER 1 F4075 ARSON3oMS-UNK COND-OT STRU-$299 LESS 1 I3060 (:RIM AGNST FAN-NS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 2 J2500 TRAFFIC-Gq*DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR A ,R II ' Page 2-JuL-9Z 11:$7 CFS08 Primary ISN~s o~ly: No eported range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Ho~ Received: Att Activity Resulted: Att Dispositions: Att Officers/Badges: Grids: Att Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: Alt ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GI4-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR L3072 CSC 2'UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-M L4027 CSC 2 WEAP-FEAR GBH-UNK ACT-PARENT-18 OLDER-F L?075 CSC &-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-16-1?-F M2313 OBSTRUCT CORRESPONDENCE (POSTAL) iLIQUOR - OTHER N5313 JUVENILE-CURFE~ N5350 RUNAWAY N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE N3190 OISTURB PEACE-MS-flARRASSING CC~IMUN[CATIONS 03882 OBSENITY-#S-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT P3110 PROP DA~AGE-MS-PR[VATE'UNK INTENT P3120 PROP DA~AGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT P3310 TRESPASS-#S-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3600 LITTE?UNLAWFUL OEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS T2029 TNEFT-$Z51-$Z500-FE'FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP T2159 TNEFT-$~Sl-$ZSOO'FE'FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP !FT-$L~Sl-$ZSOO-FE-FRN WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP T4021 THEFT'$~50 LESS-MS'FRM BUILDING-MONEY T4029 THEFT'$~50 LESS-MS'FRM BUILDING'OTH PROP I~OUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 11 3 1 5 1 1 1 Page Rs: 2-Jut-92 11:37 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported rase: 05/26/92 - ~/25/92 Ti~ rase each day: 00:00 - 23:59 N~ Received: ALI Activity Resulted: ALL Dispositions: AL{ Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the week: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIs BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF INCIDENTS T4059 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM YARDS-OTH PROP 1 T4159 THEFT-$250 LESS'MS'FRN MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP 9 T4169 THEFT-S250 LESS'MS-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 U3028 THEFT-MS-iSSUE UORTHLES CHECK - $200 OR LESS 3 U3288 THEFT'NIS-SHOPLIFTING . $200 OR LESS 4 U3498 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-$200 OR LESS 1 V1021 VEH TNEFT'FE-OVER $2500'AUTO 1 W3599 ~EAPONS-MS-CARRY TRANS-OTHER-UNLA~ PURPOS 1 **** Report TotaLs: 378 Page Ru~: 2-Ju[-92 11:41 OFF01 Primary %SN's onty: No Reported range: 05/26/92 - 06/2S/92 · ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att ActiYJty codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPT[ON TOTAL CLEAREO ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION PENDING ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS NRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-NANDS-ADLT-ACO ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLO-FAM ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLO-ACQ A5351 A5152 A5354 A5355 A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-UNK I~EAP-ADLT-ACQ A5552 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-HANDS ETC-AOLT-ACQ A9660 TERROR-THRT ]NFLT PRO DM-EXPLO INCEN-UNK RELAT BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM ASSAULT B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COI4 THEFT B3766 BURG 3-UHOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COI4 THEFT B3794 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES FRC-U-UNK t~EAP-COI4 THEFT B4760 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES FRC-N-UNK ~EAP-UNK ACT D3250 DRUGS-SCH 2 NARCOTIC-SELLING-COCA[N-UNK CHAR E6700 ESC-GM-FLEE AN OFFICER F4075 ARSON 3-MS-UNK CONO-OT STRU'$29~ LESS 13060 CRIM AGNST FA,q-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILO J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNOER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 33.3 I 5 3 I 0 1 2 60.0 0 1 0 0 1 0 I 100.0 0 3 2 0 0 1 I 33.3 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 J2700 J3500 L3072 L7075 M2313 1 3 6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 TRAF-ACCID-GI4-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION TRAF-ACC[O-MSoORIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR CSC 2-UNK ACT-ACGUAINT-UNOER 13'M Z 6EAP-FEAR GBN-UNK ACT-PARENT-18 OLOER-F CSC &-UNK ACT-AC~UAINT-16'lT'F O~STRUCT CORRESPONOENCE (POSTAL) Run: 2-Jut-92 11:~1 OFF01 HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Primary ISN~s o~ly: No Enfors Offense Report Date Reported range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Dispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att Page ACT ACTIVITY ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... COOE OESCRIPTION OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE 8Y EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION ............................................................................................................ TOTAL CLEAREO N4199 LIQUOR - OTHER N5313 1~5350 N3030 N3070 N3190 O3882 P3110 P3120 P3310 P3600 T20~ JUVENILE-CURFEW RUNAWAY DISTURB PEACE-NS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISTURB PEACE'MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE DISTURB PEACE-NS'NARRASSING COHNUNICATIONS OBSENITY-NS-OBSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT PROP DAHAGE-NS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DANAGE-Ms-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT TRESPASS-NS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS THEFT'$251-$2500-FE-FRN BUILDING-OTH PROP T2159 TNEFT'$251-$2500-FE-FRN MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP T2169 THEFT'$R51-$2500-FE-FRN WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP T~021 TNEFT-$250 LES$-NS-FRN BUILDING-MONEY T~029 THEFT-S250 LESS-NS-FRN BUILDING-OTH PROP T~059 TNEFT-$R50 LESS-NS-FRN YARDS-OTH PROP T~159 THEFT-S250 LESS-NS-FRN MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP T~169 TNEFT-$R50 LESS-NS-FRN WATERCRAFT-OT# PROP U3028 THEFT-NS-ISSUE M:)RTHLES CHECK - $200 ON LESS U3288 TNEFT"NIS-SNOPLIFTING . $200 OR LESS J~98 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO NOTOR-$200 OR LESS 11021 VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO 22/,.¢' 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 3 0 3 0 0 1 2 3 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 10 0 10 9 0 0 1 1 10.0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 10 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 O. 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 100.0 5 1 4 2 0 0 2 2 50.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 9 1 8 6 1 0 1 2 25.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33? 4 0 4 0 0 3 1 4 100.0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 Run: 2-Jut-9~ 11:41 OFF01 Primary ISN's onty: No range: 05/26/92 - 06/25/92 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 oispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att ROUND POLICE OEP~RTR~gT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION Page t~5599 14EAPONS-MS-CARRY TRANS-OTHER-UNLAW PURPOS ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report Totals: 102 6 96 57 18 7 14 39 40.6 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 1687 612~ 472-1 !55 FAX ,6121 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM July 10, 1992 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official JUNE 1992 MONTHLY REPORT ~ONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In June, 41 building permits were issued for a total value of $388,053. This brings the year to date construction value to $2,185,678. This value is up approximately 26% from last year to date. There have been 324 permits issued this year compared to 272 last year. There were 36 plumbing/mechanical and miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 77 this month. Many of our customers have been forced to wait to get their permits issued. The typical process period is 7-10 hours. ~LANNING AND ZONINC The number of planning cases has kept all of our. staff very busy with 11 cases being heard at the June Council Meetln s Th ' hearing was continued on the ~ .... ~ ....... g · .. e publzc ~v~v~ ~=nud~ housing ordinance and the Council also heard 2 cases regarding construction on public lands. (There is more to come!) The Planning Commission continues its review of the pending shoreland management ordinance along with further flood plain ordinance review. Staff has learned some lessons this last month in the,processing of zoning requests and we endeavor to assemble enough accurate and updated information to allow the Planning Commission, Park & Open Space Commission, and the City Council to properly review action on each case. printed on recycled paper TRAINING & EDUCATION Too busy. , ANNIVERSARY DATE July 9th I have had the luxury of working for Mound for 2 years. Thank you. Js:pj CITY OF MOUNO 5.~4! Maywood IV°und, ~ 55.~64 BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT ~.~ JUNE ~ 1992 ?o~l FIm#y Unl~ TGI No~.Fim#y 768 CONVI~R$~NS 388,053 2,185,678 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 16~2 472 ~155 FAX ~2i 472 0620 PARKS DEPARTMENT .IUNE 1992 MONTHI,Y REPORT PM KS In June the Park Department was involved mainly in general mowing, trash removal and maintenance of the parks. There were two special events at Mound Bay Park - Around Mound Run and the Mound city Days Celebration. Extra time was devoted to preparing this area. The City crew provided the additional portable toilets, garbage cans and picnic tables that were needed. Also the crew assisted the Northwest Tonka Lions contract for the installation of electrical outlets near the Depot parking lot. All of the trash removal throughout both weekends was done by Park staff. DOCK~ The Dock Program is in full swing. The Dock Inspector is doing his round of inspections to verify dock sites and boats. CEMETER_ Y Five new Maple trees were planted in the new section of the cemetery. TREE/WEED REMOVAL Seven trees were marked for removal from city property. tree was marked on private land. One hazardous JF:pj printed on recycled paper 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612/473-70 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EUGENE R, STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Reese, Vice Chair Mound Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spdng Park J. P. Boswinkel, Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetdsta Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L Hurt Orono William A. ,Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 2, 1992 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: JUNE REPORT - LMCD 1.0 GENERAL INTEREST ITEMS~ 1.1 Eurasion Watermilfoil Task Force, Harvesting commenced the week of June 15th.- Startup was slow due to training and skill ramp up of new personnel In additi many equipment oroblem.~ -, k~ A,..,....,_ ,,., '. -. on there were matted out on the .... ,~,~, w,m. ~ here ~s very little weed that is difficult, surface, which makes effective harvesting all the more 1.2 Management Plan_ The June meeting of the Environmental joint agency committee concerned itself with water quality monitoring issues. While the exchange was informative and constructive, the multiplicity of aeenc~es hava jurisdiction was apparent. It was aoreed th-* ,u_ ~___~" .' .. 'n.g o ,,, mc freshwater vounaation Lake Watch effort should play a part. LMLOA and the LMCD are to jointly fund a water quality survey of the lake. The Lake Access committee continues its focus on inventorying and de£ming accesses. The Recreational Use committee has agreed to establish an 8 week boater_ training program for repeat offenders and BWI's Attend school would be ordered by the judges when deemed a~propria~,ce at this 1.3 Other General Interest Items 1.3.1 The LMCD is taking a hard look at the docking of charter boats in residential areas. This will probably be prohibited in the future. 1.3.2 I understand when the levy reduction was announced that Mound expressed some concerns about the increase in dock fees that partially allowed the reduction. Other cities applauded it. So, what do we do? 1.3.3 There will be a parade of some 1500 boats on July 18th. This is a quasi Aquatennial event headquartered at the Excelsior Park Tavern. 60% of the net proceeds will go the Save the Lake Fund. ~0 CITY SPECIFIC ITEMS . MOUND Mound Representative Lake Minnetonka Conservation District cc Gene Strommen Twenty-Fifth Anniversary 1967-1992 LAKE MiNNETONKA'CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee AGENDA w 8:'30 amp Tuesday, July 14, 1992 City of Wayzata Council Chambers 600 Rice St., Wayzata block south of Wayzata Blvd at Broadway) Welcome and introductions, Committee Chair JoEllen Hurr Lake Monitoring Subcommittee progress on summary reports of data collection for Lake Minnetonka, Carolyn Dindorf for Subcommittee Chair Dick Osgood; Trunk Highway 12 corridor alternatives and impacts on wetlands affecting Lake Minnetonka as developed for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District by James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Hurr and Tom Maple; Agency, city and lake association/organization reports on current water quality issues; Additional business; Next meeting date Adjournment ,JUL 8 199 . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Environment Committee MinuteS 8:30 am, Tuesday, June 9, 1992 City of Wayzata Council Chambers PRESENT: LMCD Chair Dave Cochran, LMCD Board members Tom Reese, George Owen, city representatives Frank Kelly, Greenwood; Bill Englehardt, Deephaven; Jay Blake, Minnetrista; Mike Gaffron, Orono; agency representatives Tom Maple, Loren Larson, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; Garolyn Dindorf, Hennepin Conservation DistriCt; Dick Osgood, Freshwater Foundation, Tom McDowell, Hennepin Parks; Beverly Blomberg, Lake Minne- tonka Lakeshore Owners Assn., Executive director Gene Strommen; ABSENT: Board members JoEllen Hurr, Doug Babcock, Scott Carlson, James Grathwol~ Tom Penn~ Bob Rascop, cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria, Wayzata and Woodland; agency representatives from Carver Soil & Water Conservation District, MN PCA, Board of Water & Soil Resources, MN DNR~ Gray Freshwater Biological Institute.. MINUTES REVIEW. Following introductions, minutes of the 5/12/92 meeting were accepted, with attendance corrected to show Doug Babcock, Spring Park, present. LAKE MONITORING SUB-COMMITTEE. Material from sub-committee chair Dick Osgood was reviewed, namely a 5/12/92 "Lakewatch" outline~ 5/19/92 "Plan of Attack" and a 6/1/92 1st "meeting" outline addressing a proposed comprehensive monitoring network on Lake Minnetonka, all items sent in advance to all Environment Committee members. Nelson, MCWD, questioned the lake monitoring being used to establish goals on tributary streams. He believes monitoring on streams should be done, concurrent with lake monitoring. He is concerned that the study outcome will put performance goals on the streams without knowing what is happening in them. This requires sophisticated monitoring equipment and/or technicians. Nelson also pointed out that " benchmark" and "goal" are used interchangeably. Osgood acknowledged he is doing that at the present time. He notes the data is quite variable. Nelson sees a goal being set from benchmark data. MCWD resource data was then presented to the committee by Nelson. A chart illustrated Past & Present Projects from ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE, MINUTES, 6/9/92, P. 2 1967 to 1995. A second chart outlined Future Projects up to 2002. Four of these Future Projects are specific to Lake Minnetonka. A number of detailed reports were illustrated. Committee members were invited to review them. An outline of typical MCWD projects included its 509 Plan, Grays Bay Outlet Control Structure, Minneapolis Chain of Lakes Monitoring, Long Lake Clean Lakes/Clean Water Partnership, Gleason Creek, EPA Wetland Studies, Painter Creek and Waterway Maintenance and Repairs highlights. Since 198B, MCWD reports are included in Storette computer network available through the PCA. Englehart commented that this committee should define its purpose so that it does not overlap with other government authorities. This committee could serve as a depository for for various agency environment information. Cochran agrees. Maple recognizes the committee could produce needed additional information. The committee should know what it wants Lake Minnetonka to be in advance of its studies. Reese points on the committee could move ahead on some projects to assist MCWD. Maple pointed out MCWD does have certain taxing authority which its board could exercise. Osgood does not see the subcommittee data collection as an overlap. If other data is there, the committee needs to find it he points out. He is aware of the past 25 years~ of data. Past data is supported by few samples which has a limiting effect on the data value, does not answer very many questions Osgood further observes. He sees the main task as that of getting everything together, determine the best approach for data collection to guide future lake management. Dindorf agrees and sees the Iow-cost approach to many samples on a high frequency basis over many years being significant. Use of LMLOA voluteers are particularly valuable. Larson agrees the data accumulation presently proposed is good. He sees much variability in the yearly results, and when the data shows deterioration in a span of some five years he fears valuable time will be lost to correct the problem. He supports beginning tributary monitoring at this time. He notes that even basic monitoring is costly. A dollar range of $20,000 to $200,000 can be expected. Englehart sees the need to know what is causing the problem from the tributaries first. He asked how the management plan addresses funding of monitoring plans. Strommen and Cochran responded that LMCD will assist agencies requiring legislative or other support to secure needed ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE~ MINUTES~ 6/9/92~ P. 3 funding to provide for governing responsibilities affecting Lake Minnetonka. Agencies identified as "lead agency" for the various Management Plan objectives will likely require funding to achieve them. Maple understands that MN PCA is putting the burden of financing storm water control programs on the cities, while it collects the $85 fee for the permit to regulate them. At the same time PCA is not adequately staffed to follow-up on the permits it issues. It also has a directive to reduce non-point pollution sources by 40%, but there is no standard by which to measure the 40% reduction. Maple added that the "day of the trophy lawn" is over. Englehart further pointed out the difficulty a city like Deephaven is experiencing in managing storm water~ having no ponding areas in which to collect it. LAKEWATCH ACTION. LMLOA was identified for their ability to help educate lake shore property owners on environmental concerns. They can also attract volunteers for collecting water data. LMLOA board approved a 1/2 share of the $2,000 Lakewatch cost. It was the subcommittee's concensus that the LMCD board should also participate in a 1/2 share. Osgood reviewed his role in training volunteers doing the sampling and observing as well as data assembly and reporting. The concensus was to recommend LMCD's participation. STYROFOAM DRAFT ORDINANCE. The City of Orono has drafted an ordinance to govern the use of styrofoam in docks, presented by Mike Gaffron. Fragmentation has created a litter problem which is considered more of a nuisance than environmental hazard, particularly as it accumulates along shoreland. The ordinance appears to have application for all ci~ies bordering Lake Minnetonka. It was suggested Orono circulate the draft copy to the cities. The committee recognized the ordinance as a valuable step in solving this problem. AGENCY REPORTS. There were no additional reports. The next meeting was set for 8:30 am, Tuesday, July 14. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 am. Respectfully_ submitted, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka ~onser~ation District ~73-?033 EYENTS SCHEDULE JULY 1992 JUN 2 9 3992, Wed Fri Sat 1 3 Sun 5 Wed 8 Thu 9 Fri 10 Sat 11 Sun 12 Wed 15 Thu 16 Sat 18 6:00 pm 10:00 am 10:00 am 10:00 am 11:00 am 2:00 pm Dusk 10:00 am 10:30 am 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:30 pm 6:15 pm 6:30 pm 10:00 am 10:00 am 10:30 am 2:00 pm 2:00 pm 10:00 am 10:30 am 2:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:30 pm 6:15 pm 9:00 am 10:00 am 10:00 am Noon 1:00 pm 1:00 pm 3:00 pm MYC Main MYC Big Island East MYC Main MYC Main UMYC East MYC Main Fireworks, Excelsior Chamber of Commerce, Commons MYC Main UMYC West MYC Main Wed Evening Bass Tournaments, Goose Is UMYC East WYC Main UMYC Smith MYC Main WYC Big Island UMYC West. MYC Main UMYC West MYC Main UMYC West WYC Main MYC Main Wed Evening Bass Tournaments, Goose Is UMYC East WYC Main Aqua Celebrity Parade, Excelsior MYC Big Island East WYC Main UMYC East MYC Big Island East WYC Main MYC Big Island East July 1992 Events Schedule Sun 19 Wed 22 Thu 23 Fri 24 Sat Sun Wed Thu 25 26 29 3O 9=00 am 10=00 am 10=30 am 1:00 pm 1:00 pm 3:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:30 pm 1:00 pm 6:15 pm 10:00 am 2:00 pm 7:00 am 10=00 am* 10:00 am 2=00 pm 2=00 pm 10:00 am 1:30 pm 6:00 pm 6=00 pm 6:15 pm MYC Big Island East WYC Main UMYC East MYC Big Island East WYC Main MYC Big Island East MYC Main Wed Evening Bass Tournament, Goose Is UMYC West MYC Main WYC Main MYC Main MYC Main Lake Masters 5 Mile Challenge, Excelsior beach MYC Main WYC Big Island MYC Main UMYC East MYC Main WYC Main MYC Main Wed Evening Bass Tournament, Goose Is W~fC Main 6-25-92 ~: : 7 3- 7 0 3 3 L.M.C.D. HEETING SCHEDULE July 1992 Saturday ... TUesday 11 . Wednesday 15 Onday' 2O Tuesday water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Environment Committee 8:30 am, Wayzata City Hall, 600 Rice St, Wayzata Standards Subcommittee, Lake Access Task Force 7:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Lake Use and Recreation Committee 4:30 pm, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Technical 'Review Committee 8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Wednesday 22 LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Friday 24 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am,'#135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata 6-25-92 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT --' ..... 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612/473-70;. ~ EUGENE R, STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Reese, Vice Chair Mound Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spdng Park J. P. Boswinkel, Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetdsta Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurt Omno William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland I~[0'0 JUL 2., ~992 YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LAKE TOUR AND LUNCHEON SATURDAY, AUGUST 1, 1992 on LAKE MINNETONKA hosted by the LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT All Aboard at 11:00 AM Return to Port at 2:00 PM at the LAFAYETTE CLUB DOCK County Road 15, Minnetonka Beach (please observe designated parking areas) Please RSVP by Friday, July 24, including guest's name, 473-7033 Twenty-Fifth Anniversary 196 7-1992 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE CON)fISSION ~une 11~ 1992 Present were: Lyndelle Skoglund, Brian Asleson, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Joy Eischeid, Marilyn Byrnes, Mo Mueller, and Carolyn Schmidt, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. The following persons were also present: Kevin and Jayne Hetchler, Barry Harpestad, Baxter, and A10verline. Mike Mason, Jim Hupp, Lenny Beuhl, Claudia MINUTES MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Asleson, to approve the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 14, 1992 as written. Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION FOR LAND ALTERATION: REOUEST TO REPLACE RETAINING WALL BY MIKE & MARTHA MASONm 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the applicant's request to replace an existing dilapidated retaining wall with a new boulder wall. Also requested is slight filling and leveling, establishing a grass lawn area from the base of the proposed retaining wall to the top of the existing riprap at the lakeshore, and planting wild flowers on the hillside behind the wall. Staff recommended approval of the permit request for a boulder retaining wall less than 4 feet in height and minor filling and grading and the planting of wild flowers on the commons hillside upon the condition that the existing electric light pole and outlet may remain, but he installation shall be reviewed by a qualified licensed master electrician, and the work be properly inspected and approved by the State Electrical Inspector and that a copy of that approval be filed with the City of Mound. Casey questioned the need to keep the light pole. Byrnes commented that terrain in this area is very steep and the light is needed for safety. The applicant commented that the light does not project all the way up the stairs, and he will shield the lights so it does not project past the end of the dock. It was noted that there has been a history of boat thefts in this area. The applicant added that they would like to install a sensor on the light so it will go on only when something triggers it. Mr. Mason commented on the excessive amount of debris which he removed from the hillside. He stated that he attended the Commons informational meeting on Saturday, June 23rd, and he agreed with the proposal to develop standards for trimming on the commons. Park and Open Space Commission June 11, 1992 MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend approval of the request as reconunended by staff. Casey asked the applicant if he would be willing to commit to plant some trees. The applicant agreed that he is in favor of more trees and vegetation. Casey moved to amend the motion to require that the applicant plant some trees. There being no second, the motion to amend failed. MOTION carried 8 to 1. Those in favor were: Andersen, Asleson, Byrnes, Eischeid, Mueller, Schmidt Ahrens and Skoglund. Casey opposed. This request will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. ~RELATING TO THE DETERIORATIO COMMONS SHORELI~ N OF STRATFORD Mr. Steven Kirshbaum who submitted the subject letter was unable to attend the meeting, therefore, discussion on this item was tabled. FIRE LANE BY STEPHEN & CLAUDIA BAXTER 4908 EDGEWATER DRIVe. Parks Direct?r, Jim Fa~kler, reviewed the a lic , vacate a 10 wide un ~ ...... ~ _ ~ ...PP_ ant s request to 1...~,~u ubl~c r - - ,, · Fackler commented that h~- ----?--- l~n~ .oz way fire lane.,, . ~o u,~ u~ncern is t~at t ' shoreline and to vacate it wit~ .... his property is .uu~ goo~ cause will set an example f?r other areas. He realizes this is only a,10' wide piece, but wlth the.recent questions of why the City can t ive ' t?_~bu~tlng property owners, he is hesita-~ ~- g up.shoreline without good cause, nu ~o recommen~ approval There is not a City dock at this site as a dock at this location cannot meet the required LMCD setbacks. Applicant, Claudia Baxter, stated that she has lived next door to this fire lane for three years and has never seen anyone use the access. A10verline, owner of the property to the north of the fire lane commented that he spent $30,000 improving his yard and the fire lane with new sod. Barry Harpestad lives across the street from the fire lane and commented that he uses the property to access the lake, he has friends pick him up at the access by boat. He stated it is a gem of a property for the whole City and it should not be given away. If it is given away, future generations won't have the benefit of the property. He would like to see the property fixed up and made useable, he is willing to help fix it up. Park and Open Space Conmission June 11, 1992 Ms. Baxter stressed the fact that there is another access 200 feet away which is more traversable. Eischied questioned if the city can make the property useable. Ahrens commented that with so many accesses in such a small area, maybe we don't need them all. Do we have the funds to maintain? Byrnes commented that there was a purpose these accesses were platted as they are, and they should not be given away. MOTION made by Schmidt to table the request until the Park Commission completes the Nature Conservation Area Study and the use of this property is defined. Mueller seconded the Motion. Schmidt clarified that this piece of property has potential use to the public and it needs to be reviewed within the context of the Nature Conservation Area study. Asleson questioned, "Who's to say their won't be a use for the property 50 to 100 years from now?" He is not in favor of a motion to table. Ahrens commented that not all the properties can be maintained. MOTION carried 7 to 0 with 2 abstained. Those in favor were: Schmidt, Eischied, Casey, Anderson, Byrnes, Mueller, Ahrens. Those abstained were Asleson and Skoglund. Chair skoglund polled the Commissioners on the reasons for their vote: Eischeid (in favor): Agrees with intent to determine use of property through commitment to complete NCA study. Casey (in favor): Is absolutely opposed to the vacation and the motion so far supports denial. If the property is given away, it will be gone forever. Byrnes (in favor): In favor of tabling as a lot of time has been invested into the NCA study, it will be done soon, and properties should not be given away until it is determined what they should be. The property needs to be maintained. Skoglund (abstained): wanted to resolve. Did not want to table or deny, but - Asleson (abstained): Wanted a motion to deny. - Schmidt (in favor): Feels the Park Commission has worked hard R232 Park and Open Space Commission June 11, 1992 on the NCA study and we need to determine what properties can best benefit future generations in Mound. Mueller (in favor): While the Park Commission is in the midst of deciding what properties to keep, it is better to hang onto the property a little longer until this is determined. Ahrens (in favor): For the same reasons she stated earlier in the meeting. This request will be heard by the City Council at a public hearing on July 14, 1992. ~EE~FEEs. PUBLIC HEARING ZS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 9TH. Parks Director reviewed some figures relating to the Dock Program, as follows: . ~991 LMCD Fees $ 6,310 Year End $63,672 ~992 (to-date) LMCD Fees To-Date $ 6,654 $63,308 1991 Fund Balance was approximately $39,000. Anticipated fund balance for 1992 would add an additional $25,000 (+/-). This fund balance is to be used specifically for maintenance and repairs as they relate to the dock program. Some project which have been proposed are to riprap and dredge areas such as Black Lake. Other suggestions for use of these funds is to provide larger municipal docks. Two riprap projects will be proposed in 1993, one in the Three Points area and one in the Island View Drive area. It will also be proposed in 1993 to do a maintenance dredge at the Jennings Cove area. Different fee structures which have been discussed at previous meetings were reviewed. One proposed fee change would be to charge every dock holder the same fee regardless the size and shape of their dock. Asleson is concerned that such a program would be difficult to administer and questioned how you can keep track of who has what shape of a dock. Fackler agreed that there would be problems with encroaching into a neighboring dock site space. Ahrens questioned if this fund is a Commons Fund or a Dock Fund. Her understanding is that it was designated to pay for the dock program. Riprapping and tree removal is maintaining the commons Park and Open Space Conmisslon June 11, 1992 for the public at large is only being paid for by the dock holders, so 400 people are paying for the maintenance of land that 10,000 people can use. The Commons is there for the whole community, but do they want to pay to preserve it? What should dock fees pay for? Casey agreed with Ahrens, and if it is indeed public property and the general public is paying to maintain it, then is should be signed as such. Byrnes commented that she objects to the public dock holders being required to pay a LMCD fee when private dock holders are not required to pay it. Byrnes commented that in the past the dock fees were to create a self supporting program to pay for things such as the Dock Inspector and administrative costs. Ahrens stated that she does not thing it is unfair for a portion of dock fees to pay for things like tree removal and riprapping, but 100% of the dock fees should not have to pay for the preservation of the' entire commons and Public shorelands. Fackler stated that the budget does not include any other staff time including himself and other maintenance personnel for time spent on general maintenance done to the commons. He added, if access areas where improved to allow use of the commons area by the general public, it should not come out of the dock fund. Casey commented that he feels it is unfair to have a differentiation in fees for seniors, and if it is an argument that the senior cannot afford the fee, then there ought to be an income eligibility standard applicable to all ages which may be bureaucratically difficult, and if so, then the seniors should be paying the same. Anderson commented that she is in favor of giving the seniors a break and the City cannot be loosing that much money and it is a nice thing to do. Staff suggested that they come back with the number of seniors who take advantage of the decreased rate. Ahrens commented that it was suggested at the public meeting held on Saturday, May 30th, that instead of maybe having 20 different dock sites, use one municipal type dock to reduce the density on the shoreline. Ahrens confirmed today with the LMCD that they would have to approve a change. Skoglund questioned if staff can provide numbers on implementing such a proposal. Mo questioned how you would decide where to put this dock, none of the abutting owners would want it in front of their house. If the dock was placed in front of a fire lane, what would happen to all the existing stairways along the shoreline that no longer have a need to be there. Ahrens commented that Centerview would be an ideal place for a municipal dock, and clarified that Frank Ahren's intention was to provide docking for non-abutting owners. 5 Park end Open Space Commission June Il, 1992 Mueller suggested that staff provide numbers for the Commission explaining the budgets for both the dock program and the commons. Ahrens asked the Commission members how they each, individually, feel about the dock program paying for the commons. Mueller - Maintenance should not only be paid for by the dock users, whoever has use of the commons should pay for it. Schmidt - The dock program should not be utilized to fund other programs other than itself. Asleson - Does not want the dock program to end up without any money, and if fee structures are changed, he would like to see some revenue budgeted for it. Skoglund- There other issues involved now, but the dock holder paying for the dock program is good. Byrnes - The dock holders should pay for the dock program, but everyone should pay for maintenance of the commons areas. Casey Anderson- Monies collected for dock fees should be used more specifically for the dock program. - It sounds like too much money from the general fund may already being used for the commons, he would like to see numbers reflecting the allocations with respect to each part. If these lands are in fact there for the public purpose, then there ought to be some kind of encouragement publicly for people to use this property such as signage and vegetation policies. Eischied- The dock holders are the people using the lake and the shoreline. Mueller commented that the public is not aware of their rights on commons and where the parks are, the information is has not been properly disseminated. DIBCU88ION: BWIMNING RAPT POLICY. This item was tabled pending a response from the City Attorney. Park &nd Open Space Cosm£ssion June 11, 1992 NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS (NCA) - POTENTIAL AREAS: 0148t 13-117-24 11 0064t AND 24-117-24 41 0103}. (24-117-24 44 Skoglund reviewed the discussion from the previous NCA meeting. She reviewed the sites which have been chosen to present to the council to retain as NCAs. 24-117-24 41 0103 on Marlboro Lane was noted as an ideal property to provide access to Swenson Park if a stairway or pathway could be provided. It was also noted that there is a fish house and a truck being stored on the property and erosion is present. 24-117-24 44 0148 on Churchill Road was noted as a nice piece of property which is located on an unimproved right-of-way. There is an extensive amount of exterior storage on this property. It was questioned if this property adjoins another tax forfeited piece, however, it was determined it does not. 13-117-24 11 0064 on Heron Lane is a nice piece of property where there is little open space in the neighborhood. The Commission commented that they now need help with direction, what does the City Council want? Is the park dedication fund available for their use? Asleson commented that the Comprehensive Plan already specifies a need for passive use parks. We need a planner to put a plan in writing, including a report on the inventory already completed, costs, interaction with other agencies. Fackler suggested that a Planner come to a meeting to discuss the issue with the Commission to determine its feasibility. It was determined that an outline should be created for a meeting with the Planner. The Commission would like the Planner to assist them with a proposal to submit to the City Council. The Commission agreed to meet with the city Planner at his convenience. All history and information relating to NCA's should be given to the Planner ahead of time for him to review. City Council Representative's Report. Ahrens commented that the cancellation policy for the depot was accepted by the City Council along with the changes made to the form. The Council also approved the Construction on Public Lands Permit for two stairways on Devon Commons. Park and Open Space Commission June 11, 1992 Park Director, s Report. Fackler commented that it has been determined that signage stating that lifeguards are not on duty will not be installed at the beaches. The Commission requested that a notice be put in the newsletter stating what beaches will have lifeguards on duty and the hours. Fackler added that the Council will be reviewing the commons inventory at the next C.O.W. meeting on June 16, 1992. Pock Inspector,s Report. McCaffrey reviewed the status of dock licenses to-date. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Anderson to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at Motion carried unanimouslY~-- _ 10:47 p.m. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVIBORY PL/%I~NING COMMIB~ION JUNE 22, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Jerry Clapsaddle, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. The following were also in attendance: Jean Sween, Andrea Ahrens, and John Gabos. MINUTES The June 8, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. Three changes were proposed to the minutes, as follows: Page 12, 3rd paragraph. Delete: "Options for removal or relocation of the nonconforming shed was discussed." Add: "The Commission contemplated allowing the shed to remain for one (1) year to give the applicant an opportunity to research vacation of the adjacent property." Page 6. Geoff Michael's comment relating to the vacation was inadvertently omitted. Add: "- Michael (opposed): Due to the climate relating to public lands, he does not feel the vacation should be approved at this time." Page 6, 1st paragraph. Delete: "Johnson commented that if the City cannot take care of the property, then it should be vacated." Add: "Johnson commented that this request should be referred to the Park Commission, and if they cannot improve the property, then it should be vacated." MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the June 8, 1992 Plannlng Commission Minutes as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE ~92-030: DR. DONALD AND JEAN SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. LOTS I & 32 8&IRAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0035. VARIANCE - additions. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to expand 'an existing nonconforming structure. The proposed improvements include the following: A 5' x 15' covered deck addition at the entry on the front of the home. An addition/extension at the front of the garage measuring 8' x 17'. Planning Comm~ssion Minutes June 22, 1992 A first floor addition (marked "proposed addition,, on survey) measuring 16.3, x 18.9'. Se A second floor addition measuring approximately 18' x 34' over the proposed addition referenced above and the existing portion of the home north of the proposed addition. The addition of a 12' x 14' screened porch on the east side of the home. Variances requested include: 1) a 14.5' front yard setback variance to the deck, 2) a 3.5' front yard setback variance to the garage, 3) a 1.4' side yard setback variance to the garage, and 4) a 10'+/- lakeshore setback variance. Koegler noted that if all the proposed variances are granted, the amount of hardcover will rise to approximately 35.5% (this figure includes the existing driveway). In examining each of the requested variance items, all but the screened porch appear to represent practical difficulty issuances and are consistent with reasonable use of the property Staff recommended that the Planning commission recommend approval of the variances necessary to construct the covered entry deck, garage addition, and the first floor and second floor living space additions. Dues to overall concerns for the amount of hardcover on the lot, staff in unable to offer a positive recommendation for the variances for the screened porch. If the Planning Commission feels that the screened porch is consistent with the practical difficulty aspect of the Zoning Code, it should add the variances for the porch to any motion for approval. It is further recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variances subject to the preparation of an updated survey identifying all of the proposed improvements and all of the resulting setbacks. The updated survey should be completed by a Registered Land Surveyor. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into a motion: The Planning Commission finds that the variances are in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the variances result from practical difficulties on the property over which the applicant has no direct control. Mueller questioned staff if the dwelling is in the floodplain. Staff commented that it is questionable and the lowest floor 2 Plann~n9 C. omm[ss~on M~nutes ~une 22~ 1992 elevation will need to be determined by a Registered Land Surveyor. The lowest floor elevation allowed by City Code is 933.5 for lands abutting Lake Minnetonka. The applicant, Jean Sween, commented that a new foundation was placed under the house and it was lifted. Ms. Sween referred to photographs which were distributed to the Planning Commission for review, and she commented on the number of garages that are very close to the street on Arbor Lane. She stated that only one house on Arbor Lane is conforming. She emphasized the need for a screened porch to afford privacy due to the adjacent commons property. She added that yesterday there were 12 trucks parked on the commons property and they have to put up with the garbage and loud, drunk people. Clapsaddle commented that he does not feel the proposed porch significantly impacts the property as the existing deck is already encroaching into the setback. The applicant stressed the need to have the case heard by the Council tomorrow evening and asked that the request not be delayed. She has already retained a contractor, and that contractor is depending on her for this work. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request until the lowest floor elevations of the dwelling have been established. Motion to table failed 8 to 1 with Mueller voting in the negative. The applicant stated that she will get the surveyor to verify the elevations by the Council meeting. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval of the variance request as recommended by staff. Approval of the porch is not included in this motion. Approval is contingent upon the applicant providing verification of the lowest floor elevations to the city Council. The applicant emphasized the need for the screened porch and suggested different plans such as flipping the porch and deck and decreasing the size. The Commission was not in favor of approving an altered request without seeing the modifications to the survey and plans to verify the setback to the shoreline. Meyer informed the applicant that the request could be tabled to allow time to revise the plans, or the variance can be recommended for approval without the porch so that she can get started with construction. He also informed her that she could come back and submit another request for the porch at a later date. Ms. Sween opted to get started on the construction now in due respect to her builder. Ms. Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1992 Sween asked the Commissioner,s to each state their opinion prior to voting. Michael (opposed) - He would prefer the application be done right and not rushed through. Mueller (opposed) - Due to incomplete information'. ross (in favor) - Maker of the motion. Hanus (in favor) - There are time problems, and would like to get the project going. Weiland (in favor) - Does not like doing business like this, but is in favor of the motion to get the project going. Johnson (in favor) - Seconded the motion. Clapsaddle (in favor) - Does not like doing business like this, and feels it would be in the applicant,s best interest to have the request tabled, but does not see why the motion cannot be supported. Meyer (opposed) - did not comment. MOTION carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were: Voss, Hanus, Weiland, Johnson and Clapsaddle. Mueller, Michael and Meyer were opposed. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. CASE ~92-031= JOHN & CHRISTINE OABOS, 4687 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT ~8 & P/19, BLOCK It DEVON, PID ~30-117-23 22 0009. VARIANCE ~xpansion/remodel. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to improve an existing residence. Proposed improvements include construction of a new entry with a four foot overhand, the addition of second story living space above the existing dwelling and the addition of a second story study over the existing garage. Presently, the property has two nonconforming side yards and contains a nonconforming boat house. The principal dwelling requires a 2.4' side yard setback variance to the east and a 2' side yard setback variance to the west. The boat house requires a 4 foot side yard setback variance and a 2.7 foot rear yard setback variance. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommended approval Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1992 of the side yard variances and recognition of the accessory building variances for the purpose of adding the entryway and second story improvements at 4687 Island View Drive subject to the following condition: The side yard and rear yard variances for the existing boat house (accessory structures) are recognized only to facilities construction of the entryway improvement, and second story additions. This approval shall not confer upon the applicant, the right to improve the existing nonconforming boat house. Such improvements shall require additional variance approval in the future. If the Planning Commission concurs with the staff recommendation, it is suggested that the following finding of fact be incorporated into the motion: The Planning Commission finds that the approval of the variances for the entryway and second story addition is in conformance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. The entryway improvement falls under the practical difficulty provisions of the Code since the existing entrance to the home is on the northwest corner of the structure and since the property abuts a public access rather than a neighboring residential lot. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the variances as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on June 23, 1992. FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, presented an updated draft of the Mound's Floodplain Overlay Regulations and informed the Commission that a public hearing is scheduled for July 13, 1992. A draft will also be sent to the DNR for review. Following are comments and suggestions made by the Planning Commission. It was determined that the definition for "Basement" on page 2 of Draft 3 is to be replaced with the Uniform Building Code definition. On Page 4 of Draft 3, Subd. 4. g. Hanus suggested a change in verbiage, as follows: "Any use within a floodplain area that which would require vehicular access to lands outside of the flood plain where all or part of the access...~.. ....... ~~ would be below the Regional Flood Elevation, . ." The change was accepted. Also in this paragraph, it was suggested the "Board of Adjustment and Appeals be changed to be the City Council. Hanus suggested another change on Page 5 of Draft 3, h. as follows: 5 Plann~n9 Commission Minutes June 22, 1992 ~ ..... , ..v ~ ............... grantad unlc~ If these facilities are to be used b em lo ees or the ublic at la e a ermit ma be ranted on1 if a flood warning system is installed . . .,, On Page 5 of Draft 3, k. relating to Travel Trailers, it was questioned if this section can be deleted. It was determined that it is best to leave it in. Hanus commented on Page 7, Draft 3, a. stating that as it is written it says that the variance shall be floodproofed. He suggested the following language: "Whe~eWhen a variance mey-bei__s granted to allow a use or structure below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation, ~4~ the use or structur~ shall be floodproofed i~ . . · tJ The interpretation of the ordinance as it relates to variances and elevation requirements was reviewed by the Commission. Clapsaddle questioned the intent of requiring "the finished fill elevation be no lower than one foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15 feet beyond the limits of the structure. . "as stated on page 4 of Draft 3, item f. Is this the only method they will accept? Koegler agreed that there are other ways to provide positive drainage for a structure and he will research their intent prior to the hearing. Mueller suggested a change to page 5 of Draft 3, within Subd. 5. b. to change the wording as follows: ". · · require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and e ~ay requir~ hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a . . .,, A typo was noted on Page 6 of Draft 3 within e. "alternations,, should read "alterations.,, Mueller referred to Page S of Draft 3, Subd. 8. c., and questioned if there is actually a way to track "previous costs.,, Is this enforceable? The Building Official suggested that an "assessor,s value" be used versus the "market value." Regardless, if a house burns down, it will have to comply with the ordinance when it is re-built. BHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, presented the State shoreland rules pertaining to subdivisions and planned unit developments for review. Koegler commented that he needs to investigate further how this portion of the ordinance will impact downtown Mound. A complete draft of the ordinance will be presented at the July 27 1992 meeting for review. ' 6 Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1992 Mueller questioned how the ordinance will impact the program relating to dock spacing (Section 8.64 (3). commented that this has not yet been determined. LETTER TO THE pLANNING COMMISSION FROM TED FOX. No specific comments were expressed. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT. Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of June 9, 1992. Commons Koegler MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 7 1992 Edward Shukle Mgr. 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 June 29, 1992 a$$ociat!on of metropolitan municipalities RkqYO JUL 1 lgg2 Dear Edward, Cities have reached a critical juncture at the Legislature. State officials seem to believe that cities' financial resources can provide the answer to the state's continual funding problems. We want to know your view about what direction the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities should take during 1993 to help protect cities from further legislative intrusion on our tax base. To provide you with a forum for your opinions and concerns on this and other issues, we are planning our seventh annual Outreach Breakfast for you and other city officials in your area. The breakfast is scheduled for July 21 at 7:30 a.m. in the Wellington Room of the Radisson-Minnetonka, Ridgedale Drive. It is located on the SE corner of Interstate 394 (Highway 12)/Ridgedale Drive exit. Turn south on Ridgedale Drive and go about one long block to the hotel. Please R.S.V.P. to Carol or Nicole by'noon, July 17. The AMM would like your input on the following concerns: * Metropolitan issues such as storm water management, water supply and general Metropolitan Council authority; * Legislative matters such as LGA and HACA distribution, the Local Government Trust Fund, transportation and transit concerns, local options for city revenues and regional sewer financing; * Seeking commitments from legislative candidates regarding their views toward city issues. * The Metropolitan Governance Task Force's preliminary report on the Metropolitan Council and the Task Force's view of the Council's role in the region. This is not a formal gathering and we hope for lots of discussion from you, because your opinions, concerns and advice will help shape AMM's policies and priorities for the 1993 session. 183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 ~,~'~, y~/ The breakfast also can be an avenue for you to tell us what you'd like to see the AMM do by way of member services. Are there other support services that we should provide, or improvements to current services that you can suggest? We hope you plan to attend the July 21 breakfast at the Radisson-Minnetonka. We would ask that managers make this information available for and extend this invitation to city council members. As always, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to call the AMM office. Sincerely, Karen Anderson, AMM President Minnetonka Council Barbara Peterson AMM Board member Orono Mayor AMM Board member Bloomington Council a ¥7 July 6, 1992 Mr. and Mrs. Paul Meisel PO Box 70 Mound, MN 55364 Dear Pat and Paul: We are in receipt of your letter dated June 17, 1992 and received June 26, 1992. I am not surprised at your letter since you have expressed over the years that you didn't believe the Central Business District (CBD) parking program was an advantage to you and your businesses. However, it concerns me that your request will have a severe impact upon the future of the Mound CBD program. I am planning to share your letter with the City Council and discuss it at the next regular meeting which is scheduled for Tuesday, July 14, 1992. I am going to ask the Council not to take any action on this letter until staff has had the opportunity to completely review the ramifications and impact of your request should the Council grant it. I will keep you informed as to the status of your request. If you have any questions, please contact me. J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: John Norman, Finance Director ES:ls printed on recycled paper June 17, 1992 Ed Shukle, City Manager Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 JUN 2, 6 1992. Dear Ed and Council Members: This letter is to inform you that we wish to drop out of the CBD Parking Agreement as soon as possible, and certainly no later than June 30, 1992. As you know, the CBD Parking has been a sore spot for both of us. We feel that we are unfairly subsidizing those businesses who do not have adequate parking. For example, we are not being credited at the same rate as the owner of the railroad property. Also, our experience with other commercial property proves that maintenance is much less costly for us to do privately than when administered by the City. Our decision will primarily affect the tenants in the old Snyder building. Also, the Netka building will be affected if it is leased at some future time. Please contact the owners of those buildings as soon as possible so that they can make other parking arrangements for their tenants. Please be assured that upon our exit from the CBD Agreement, we will continue to maintain the property in the same manner as it was done prior to our departure. Sincerely, CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 1687 (6'~ 2) 472-1155 FAX (612/ 472-0620 TO: FROM= RE= July 14, 1992 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~. ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER LAKE AREA CITIES COOPERATION STUDY Attached is a paper on "Municipal Service Delivery Options in the Lake Minnetonka Area", dated June, 1992. This paper was developed by Jim Hurm, City Administrator, City of Shorewood based upon several meetings with lake area city administrators and managers. We have been meeting on this topic for several months and recently met with mayors of lake area communities to bring them "up to speed" as to what we have been talking about as administrators and managers. The issue basically is driven by the on going reductions in revenues. We are consistently faced with revenue problems and we felt it was necessary to formally discuss how we can try to work together as cities with the idea of sharing in the delivery of services to our citizens. Several communities around the Twin Cities metropolitan area have undertaken studies in order to identify what services they currently provide jointly as well as services that have the potential of being provided jointly. At this juncture, the managers and administrators are looking at a study to analyze the above issues. In discussing this subject with area mayors, they felt that a study should be pursued and further exploration of the topic be carried out. Four recommendations came out of the recent meeting with mayors. They are as follows: Perform a source of services survey identifying services that are currently provided and how they are provided and delivered. Review the subject of a study in general, with all members of each city council within the lake area communities. printed on recycled paper Mcmo to Mayor and Council - July 14, 1992 -Pagc 2 3. Administrators and managers continue to discuss the subject further and develop a structure for a study. 4. Develop a report based upon the above 3 items and make it part of a resolution that each city council could adopt indicating that we would be going forward. I believe it is important that we seriously consider the issues that Mr. Hurm has presented in the attached paper. We currently provide many services jointly with other communities, but we must continue to try to work together in delivering municipal services. Not only are revenues depleting, but the state legislature is going to be forcing communities to do this. Furthermore, the legislature has already had bills proposed to mandate communities to consolidate. Those bills have not been adopted into laws, but as time passes, I am sure the legislature will seriously look at forcing communities to consolidate or merge. Although, this is not the aim of our study, it could certainly become a result for several of the communities around Lake Minnetonka. I would like to have you consider these issues tonight and hopefully you will agree that we should pursue a study with the area cities on this subject. ES:is Attachment MUNICIPAL SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS IN THE LAKE MINNETONKA AREA JUNE, 1992 Loss of State Aids, increasing expenses, and demand for more and better services in a growing "anti- government" atmosphere faces the Lake Minnetonka area municipalities in the 1990's. Increasing property taxes adds to taxpayer dissatisfaction and may eventually lead to taxpayer revolt. There is a perception among some government officials and area residents that small communities should consolidate to become more cost effective, that there are economies of scale to be had by centralized government. Some local officials and area residents feel that we already "cooperate" and that consolidation is the final step in losing community identity. We can pat ourselves on the back for being leaders in efforts in municipal cooperation. But we can also challenge ourselves to do much more to meet the challenges facing us in the 1990's. Lake area municipalities cooperate and contract for services in literally hundreds of instances. of the "non-traditional" methods we can and do utilize to deliver services are: · Contracting with other local governments. Some · Contracting with the private and non-profit sectors. · Special purpose districts. · Pooling of labor for efficiency and increased specialization. · Combining or centralizing fixed facilities and inventories. · Joint purchasing. · Cooperative agreements. Much more can be done to help us search for more efficient and effective ways to manage local governments. More can be done to take advantage of appropriate economies of scale. Various municipal services may be delivered most efficiently in varying scales, servicing different populations. Our challenge is to find the most appropriate service area for each municipal service. We are challenged to provide more creative, cost effective options for local officials in providing "self determined" levels of municipal services. Underlying Principle~ order for any coordinated process identifying service delivery options to be successful, a number of mderlying principles need to be understood and agreed upon. · City Council - It is essential that local elected officials are involved and take a leadership role. Current success in cooperative ventures should be acknowledged. · Creative non-traditional options to delivering services and providing staff support should be embraced and given appropriate consideration. · Close to constituents - Recent studies have concluded that a large number of competing local government units produce pressure for efficiency by individual awareness of a greater choice of public services available and by constraining the budget maximizing habits of bureaucrats. Governmental units can be compared to private sector monopolies which lead to high prices and high profits. Statistical research indicates that having a large number of local units of government will create competition.~ In addition it should be noted that in small jurisdictions people can more readily recognize their elected official as the/r neighbor. · Cost of governance versus government - The primary cost of government relates to the cost for the provision of services--not the process of governance. At the local government level the cost of supporting City Councils, in the governance role, represents only a small fraction of the cost for providing public services. Competition. is better than monopoly. David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, in their book _Reinventing Government state that in the public sector "when costs have to be cut, we eliminate anything that smacks of duplication - assuming that consolidation will save money. Yet we know that monopoly in the private sector protects inefficiency and inhibits change...When service providers must compete, they keep their costs down, respond quickly to changing demands, and strive mightily to satisfy their customers. While most of us would prefer a comfortable monopoly, competition drives us to embrace innovation and strive for excellence." They continue "...(competition) holds the key what will unlock a bureaucratic gridlock that hamstrings so many public agencies...competition between teams - between organizations - builds morale and encourages creativity". In explaining the difference between the public sector and private sector they say "the important distinction is not public versus private, it is monopoly versus competition: "where there is competition you get better results, more cost consciousness, and superior service delivery." Community identity...maintaining local control - It is an underlying belief that big is not always better. Decentralized decision-making is as important as delivering services. It is no ones intent to encourage consolidation of local governments. In fact, this process could discourage municipal consolidations forced from above. If local officials determine, with good information, that consolidating municipalities is the correct action for them, so be it. Let it be known up front that this is in no way an aim of this process. 2 The Process. Identification of Service Delive 0 tions {~f.or. mae area municipalities can elevate efforts to work to~,ether to . · · . ng se~rvice d. elivery boundaries into the most adv~ta-e .... ~a~_o~h_e_r_~l.e. vel by~identffyi~ng and re- . · . 61 ~,~,o ,~.-.~-~gurauons. ll~at is, determine the ngnt s~ze ~or each service dehvery area. An Opt]mum Semce Dehvery Area study would attempt to answer: what is the optimum physical boundary of the service delivery area to most efficiently and effectively provide a service? And are there other "non-traditional" options9 It would attempt to avoid the devastating downside of owns~zmg by focusing on cutting duplications and unnecessary work, putting quality first, and re-examining long held assumptions with an eye to maximizing effectiveness. An "optimum" study for the Lake Minnetonka area could analyze the services currently delivered by each of the fourteen cities around the Lake and could attempt to make judgements about the optimum size of service-providing entities needed to effectively, efficiently deliver each particular service. These judgements could be based on criteria that area cities develop. Such a Lake Minnetonka area study could be undertaken to develop cost effective delivery system options and staff support scenarios so individual municipalities could select among alternatives to best meet their requirements. The study could be done ignoring municipal boundaries as much as possible. Administrators and elected officials could utilize the study to challenge traditional thinking and to challenge themselves to supply the service needs they identify in the most effective and efficient way possible. In undertaking such a study there are certain underlying assumptions which need to be agreed upon? · The likelihood of success of cooperative efforts is limited unless the parties exhibit flexibility and willingness to accept change. In local government democracy it is nearly impossible to bundle services provided by local governments into neat packages and make them all nice and uniform. What works for one jurisdiction, reflecting the values of its citizens, may not be appropriate for others. We get better by experimenting with new methods and by trying new efficiencies. When we are PUnished/penalized or reprimanded for nonconformity, for trying new things (and sometimes failing) we are likely to move toward mediocrity rather than toward excellence. Community history, orientation to the Lake and neighboring municipalities, population density, age of community, housing and economic base, value systems, financial resources, and orientation of political leadership are all part of the mix in determining the evolution of service delivery systems. There are many good reasons why contracting may be appropriate in one community and providing the service "in house" appropriate in another. There may be good reasons why what appears to be the cheapest way to provide a service may not be appropriate or "right" in a particular community. It is better to initiate solutions to municipal issues at the municipal level than to have them mandated from above. 3 There are a number of stages to be undertaken for a study of this nature to be done successfully. The following is a checklist of tasks which need to be done. Concept Stage · Initial Contacts of Participants · Statement of Purpose · Objectives · Schedule · City Council Endorsements Study Framework Stage · Set Geographic Boundaries · Determ/ne Participants · Decide Organization & Chair... · Establish Financing · Define Study Limits · Set up Outside Staff Assistance (ie. internship) Research Stage · List all Service & Programs in Area with Providers, Providers Size; Likelihood of Growth or Decline; Current Budgets, Future Estimates and Sizing Parameters Findings · Define "Optimum Service Delivery Area" · Pros & Cons of Cooperation · Provider Framework · Provider Options · Recommendations Public Review Stage · Public Information & Education · Public Forums · Cable TV Shows · Articles & Brochures Governing Body Direction · Receive Comments · Give Direction for Action · Establish a System to Measure Expectations & Monitor Results · Establish a Coordinating Committee to "maintain the challenge over time" 4 Framework to Maintain the Challenge over Tim; kinformal committee of elected officials with no independent authority should be established. e Minnetonka Area Municipal Coordinating Committee could be made up of one elected A representative from each municipality. All elected officials would be invited to attend meetings. The committee could meet at least tw/ce a year. The Coordinating Committee could provide a structure/method to generate and regenerate enthusiasm. Beyond keeping the mission of the program focused the purpose of the Coordinating Committee would be as follows: · Challenge - Continually challenge local officials to challenge themselves to consider creative "non-traditional' means to address their needs in the most effective and efficient way possible. The Coordinating Committee might be responsible for an annual report ranking each service provider (municipality) by cost per capita, per service. · Communicate - The "service delivery options" study should be kept current. Service delivery options should be communicated in a non-threatening fashion. Support and assistance should be offered in implementing desired options. · Cooperate - Keep an ongoing avenue for a liaison relationship among City Councils. In a proactive fashion, develop and maintain a process which may head off the disfunction of downs~nng government, the real threat of a property tax revolt, or forced consolidation from above. · Competition - Take advantage of a competitive spirit among neighboring municipal service providers. This could be done by establishing a method of monitoring and evaluating consumer satisfaction and issuing an annual report card rating service satisfaction versus cost of the service. In the private sector this might be referred to as a customer service audit. · Creative, cost-saving and revenue producing ideas, when implemented, need to be monitored and evaluated. Submitted by James C. Hurm Shorewood City Administrator Research rovided b a a er b Kevin Locke 3-11-92 2. These are some lessons learned from A~ A~al sis from Service Deliver Entities a Stud of Coo erative Ventures in New Brighten, Moundsview, Arden Hills Saint Anthony and Shoreview (8- 28-91) , 5