The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-07-13I · I i · I~, i i CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: 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 13, 1993 CITY COUNCIl. CHAMBERS 0 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 22, 1993, REGULAR MEETING. PG. 2317-2326 PRESENTATION OF BRUCE MILLER CANVASBACK PRINT BY BRUCE MILLER AND THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS. REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, MOUND EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH. PG. 2327 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE NO. 93-023: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALBOA ADDITION, DAKOTA RAIL, INC. NORTH OF EXISTING BALBOA BUILDING EAST OF FAIRVIEW LANE AND SOUTH OF LYNWOOD BLVD. PID #13-117-24 34 0068 & 0077 AND 13-117-24 43 0144. PG. 2328-2355 CASE NO. 93-028: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A DECK, PAMELA KORING, 1701 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 1, 2, 3 BLOCK 8, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 21 0021. PG. 2356-2368 CASE NO. 93-029: REQUEST FOR FENCE VARIANCE, DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S & C RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. PG. 2369-2379 CASE NO. 93-035 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE, MARVIN NELSON, 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117 23 32 0012. (THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION 7-12-93). PG. 2380-2388 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 2314 i I 1, i · I1, I I 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE. PG. 2389-2393 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE. PG. 2394-2396 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC., INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE, (SUGGESTED DATE: AUGUST 10, 1993, 7:30 PM) PG. 2397-2398 RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKAAREA CITIES. PG. 2399-2403 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH. PG. 2404-2405 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS - REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,861.51. PG. 2406-2407 PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 2408-2427 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JUNE 1993. PG. 2428-2455 Bt LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE, 1993. PG. 2456 C. LMCD MAILINGS. PG. 2457-2459 D. LETTER FROM TRIAX CABLEVISION RE: JUNE SUBSCRIBER STATEMENTS. PG. 2460 Ee LETTER FROM ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) RE: SUMMER OUTREACH BREAKFAST SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 7:30 AM, MINNETONKA RADISSON HOTEL, (RIDGEDALE). PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND. PG. 2461-2462 Fe LETTER FROM LOCAL RESIDENT RE: DAYS. MOUND CITY PG. 2463 2315 Ge Jo PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHANGEs AS OF 4-1-92, AS PREPARED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. LMCD ADOPTED BUDGET FOR 1994. THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR: PG. 2464-2465 PG. 2466-2471 MEETING DATE NO AUGUST MEETING SEPTEMBER 7 OCTOBER 5 NOVEMBER 2 DECEMBER 7 REMINDER: MAYOR/CITY COUNCIT, LIZ ANDREA PHYLLIS KEN C.O.W., TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993, 7:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6-28-93 PG. 2472-2477 2316 I I 1, ! ! it i i Mound City Coundl June 22, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 22t 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, 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, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Finance Director Gino Businaro and the following interested citizens: June Kenealy, Keith Putt, Ken Roelofs, Ken Dahlgren, Lin Terwilliger, Gloria Sistek, Paul Erickson, Leah Weycker, Valeri Kavros, Linda Kunde, David Schrupp, Karen & Leeanne Pederson, Greg & Vicki Pederson, Robert & Marilyn Byrnes, Peter Meyer and Dan Hartman. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1993, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 SETTING DATE FOR BOND S~LES Dan Hartman, Springsted, explained that the first issue of $1,350,000 General Obligation Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1993B is being issued for the following: water meter reading system; painting a water tower; water main improvements; and sewer lift station improvements. Also with this issue will be $540,000 General Obligation Building Refunding Bonds, Series 1993C. He stated that the City will be saving about $24,000 if these two bond issues are done together. He recommended that the City issue the above to take advantage of the favorable rates now. The City will increase water and sewer rates by 5 percent each year in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997 to provide sufficient revenue to meet debt service payments on the Water & Sewer Revenue Bonds as well as the debt service on the city's $155,000 outstanding General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds of 1984. Based on the Council's discussion at the June 9, 1993, meeting regarding a water treatment facility, Mr. Hartman recommended that the Council work through this decision looking at where water rates would be if this was done and starting a process of informing the public on the water rates if this water treatment facility were installed. He stated this can be a long process. Mound City Council June 22, 1993 The City Attorney asked about negotiated sales vs. public sales of the bonds. Mr. Hartman explained that this process is a negotiated/competitive sale and will cut back on the costs of the sale. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-76 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,350,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1993B, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS OF THE CITY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-77 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $540,000 GENERAL OBLIGATIONS BUILDING REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1993C The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Proposals for both of these bonds will be received July 27, 1993, until 10:30 A.M., Central Time, at the offices of Springsted, Inc., 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN. The Council will consider the award of the Bonds at the July 27, 1993, City Council Meeting. 1.3 CASE ~93-018: JERRY WEILAND FOR TIM KENEALY, 6319 BAY RIDGR ROAD, LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, PID ~23-117-24 33 0020, VARIANCE FOR ADDITION The Building Official reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval recognizing the existing nonconforming street frontage of 15 feet. The addition is fully conforming. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING SUN PORCH AT 6319 BAY RIDGE ROAD, LOT 9, BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION, PID %23-117-24 33 0020, P & Z CASE #93-018 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council 1.4 CASE ~93-019 DAVID THOMPSQN, FOR VALERI KAVR08, 4822 GLASGOW ROAD, RL8 1571, TRACT A, PID ~24-117- 24 44 0214, REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Building Official stated that the survey done in 1984 when the subdivision was approved was incorrect in lot area requiring a 79.74 square foot variance to allow new construction. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOTAREA VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 4822 GLASGOW ROAD, RLS #1571, TRACT A, PID #24-117-24 44 0214, P & Z CASE #93- 019 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 CASE ~93-020: KEITH PUTT, 5562 SHERWOOD DRIVE, RL8 1222. TRACT C, PID #13-117-24 23 0030, VARIANCE FOR ~DDITION The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Council discussed the reduction of approximately 800 square feet of hard cover because the pool and patio area will be removed. The Council discussed the 30% hardcover rule in the shoreland management ordinance that was mandated by the DNR and how many more variances this will cause in Mound. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-80 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, SIDE YARD SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 5562 SHERWOOD DRIVE, RLS #1222, TRACT C, PID #13-117-24 23 0030, P & Z CASE #93-020 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE ~93-021: W. WAYNE & LIN TERWILLIGER, 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD, PID ~24-117-24 42 0008, VARIANCE FOR COVERED DECK The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: Mound City Council RESOLUTION %93-81 June~,l~3 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE HARDCOVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF ~ ROOF STRUCTURE AT 2945 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 34, WYCHWOOD, PID %24-117-24 42 0008, P & Z CASE %93- 021 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 CASE ~93-022: KEN ROELOFS CONST., INC., FOR KENNETH D~LGR~N, 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 75 & 76 AND LOT B IN THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION, PID ~19-117-23 13 0008t VARIANCE FOR DECK The Building official explained the request. Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK, STREET FRONTAGE~ AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 4347 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOTS 75, 76 & LOT B IN THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, FIRST DIVISION~ PID %19-117- 23 13 0008, P & Z CASE %93-022 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 CASE %93-024: GLORIA SISTEK, 5342 PIPER ROAD, WHIPPLE SHORES~ PID %25-117-24 VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOT 39, 21 0110, The Building official explained the request. Commission recommended approval with conditions. RESOLUTION %93-83 The Planning RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE AT 5342 PIPER ROAD~ LOT 39, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID %25-117-24 21 0110, P & Z CASE %93- 024 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 CASE %93-025: DAVID SCHRUPP FOR LINDA KUNDE, 4916 HANOVER ROAD, LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 18~ DEVON, PID %25- 117-24 11 0082, VARIANCE FOR DECK The Building official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with Councilmember Jensen voting Mound City Council J~e22,1~3 nay because she felt there was no hardship when it comes to a deck. The Council asked that another Whereas be added to the proposed resolution stating, "Whereas, the additional 25 square feet of hardcover is far enough from the lake to minimize the runoff effect on the lake. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-84 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A HARDCOVER VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 4916 HANOVER ROAD, LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 18, DEVON, PID #25- 117-24 11 0082, P & Z CASE #93-025 The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay for the same reason as at the Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. 1.10 CASE ~93-026: KAREN & LEEANNE PEDERSON, 2050 WATERSIDE LANE, LOTS i & 2t BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK CROCKER,S, PID 313-117-24 33 0022, VARIANCE FOR DEC~ The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA AND SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT 2050 WATERSIDE LANE, LOTS 1 2, BLOCK 2, LAKESIDE PARK: A.L. CROCKER,S 1ST DIVISION, PID #13-117-24 23 0022, P & Z CASE #93-026 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 CASE ~93-027: GREG & VICKI PEDERSON, 6087 ASPEN ROAD, 18, BROOKTON, PID ~14-117-24 31 0019, REOUEST: VARIANCE FOR POOL LOT The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-86 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A POOL AT 6087 ASPEN ROAD, LOT 18, BROOKTON, PID #14-117-24 31 0019, P & Z CASE #93-027 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council June 22, 1993 1.12 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION: ROBERT & MARILYN BYRNESt 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANEt LOT 10t BLOCK 38~ WYCHWOOD~ DOCK SITE ~51735~ CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND TO REPLACE EXISTING STAIRWAY The Building official explained the request. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~93-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND8 PERMIT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING STAIRWAY ON BRIGHTON COMMON ABUTTING 2851 CAMBRIDGE LANE, LOT 10t BLOCK 38t WYCHWOOD~ FOR 5 YEARS RENEWABLE, DOCK SITE #51735 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road was present and gave the following reasons not to build a grocery store, liquor store and bank on the community center site: It is a historical landmark in the community. It is too costly for the city and he does not think Mound residents should subsidize this with tax increment financing. It is too costly for the Westonka School District. The cost of restoring and bringing the building up to fire and accessibility codes would cost district residents millions of dollars less than replacement cost. It has extra space which the school district is in need of which means less is construction. The Community Center is centrally located and convenient to all citizens. According to The Laker, the City and the School District have shown an interest building an auditorium with a seating capacity of 500 or more, at a cost of two million dollars. The Community Service Building already has an 1200 seat auditorium and all you would have to do is replace the gym out at the high school. Green space in the center of Mound is irreplaceable. I do not want to see the football and softball fields turned into a parking lot. If you measure a good community economy only in terms of dollars, then it makes no sense to move the liquor store which contributes $100,000 per year to the City budget. Where will this money be made up from, what services will be cut, until some future point in time when a new stores cost and increased overhead allows it to turn a profit? Mound Ci~ Council J~e ~,1~3 9. We need to look at the human side of our community's economy, we do not need a store that sells drugs being made more visible. 10. If the ball fields are paved over, we will lose forever a large share of Mound's best Bluebird nesting habitat. Fifteen years ago Bluebirds were on the verge of being put on the endangered species list, but through the efforts of many dedicated individuals in the Bluebird recovery program, they are making an amazing comeback. Bluebirds have nested at the ball fields for the last two years, and to his knowledge are the only nesting Bluebirds in the City of Mound. What value can you put on these beautiful birds. We need to examine the Community Center proposal in terms of what is ethically and aesthetically right as well as what is economically expedient. The Mayor pointed out that the City took an interest in the Community Center because the possibility existed that the School District may cease to use that facility. There was no proposal. A poll has been taken by the School District and results indicate that this is not feasible at all and is not going to happen. The Council thanked Mr. Meyer for his comments. 1.14 ~PPROVAL OF FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ORDINANCE AND THE SUMMAR~ ORDINANCE The Building Official explained that the Floodplain Overlay Ordinance and Summary are in ready to be adopted in their correct form. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #63-1993 AN ORDINANCE MODIFYING ANDADDING SECTION 3OO:15 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING A SUMMARY OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.15 ~ESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUThW~S~ METRO DRUG TASK FORC~ Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-88 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound Ci~ Coundl J~e ~,1~3 1.16 ~PPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SION - OUR L~DY OF THE LAKE INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to approve a portable sign permit for Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival for the followlng: I over street banner in The Highlands; 5 free standing "A" frame wooden signs in the following locations (Mound Depot, $ Points old Fina Station, Super~nerica Station, parking area across from John,s Variety, north wall of OLL), from July 3 to July 26, 1993. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by ~hrens to waive the fee for the above portable sign application. The vote was unanlmously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $329,304.02, when funds are available. & roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.18 REQUEST TO ~DDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL RE: MILFOIL TREATMENT - DUTCH LAKE, NANCY NORDSTROM, 5856 OI~LNDVIEw BLVD. The Council reviewed the letter submitted by Ms. Nordstrom. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to contribute the same amount given last year ($500.00) to help fight the milfoil in Dutch Lake. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for May 1993, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Be Letter dated May 25, 1993, written from the League of Minnesota cities to Michael Durell, Minneapolis re: the removal of Mayor Johnson from office. Letter dated June 8, 1993, from Mo Mueller, of the Parks & Open Space Commission re: her lack of attendance at recent meetings. POSC did not take any position on this letter. The Council to let the Park & Open Space Commission make a recommendation on this item. Dm Letter dated June 14, 1993, from Brian Asleson of the Parks & Open Space Commission resigning from the POSC. The Council acknowledged Mr. Asleson for his fine work and dedication to the Commission over the years. Jo Km Mo~d CityCouncil J~e22,1~3 E. Notice from the Governor's Office re: vacancies on Metropolitan Council due to redistricting of the Metro Council districts. Ge Letter dated June 9, 1993, from Governor Arne Carlson re: FY 1994-95 budget of the State of Minnesota. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 10, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes - June 14, 1993. The schedule for the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board for the remainder of the year: ~eeting Date Mayor/city Council July 6 Skip No August Meeting Sept. 7 Liz Oct. 5 Andrea Nov. 2 Phyllis Dec. 7 Ken Packets will be sent to us prior to these meetings. send them out as I get them. I will Notice from State of Minnesota, Public Utilities Commission re: Minnesota Independent Equal Access Corporation ("MIEAC,,) filing for a general rate increase. Letter dated June 12, 1993, from Hennepin County Old Tyme County Fair inviting you to attend this year's events. REMINDER: Lake Area Mayor's Meeting has been rescheduled for Wednesday, June 30, 1993, 5:30 P.M., Shorewood City Hall. Agenda will focus on service delivery analysis to be performed with technical assistance to be provided by the Metropolitan Council. REMINDER: Mound City Days, June 18-20, 1993. REMINDER: City of Orono Open House at new City Hall, Sunday, June 20, 1993, 1-4 P.M. REMINDER~ Bruce Miller Day, Thursday, July 1, 1993. The City Manager updated the Council. All activities will now be at parking lot between Community Center and the Pond Arena from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. There will not be an evening banquet at the Lafayette Club. Mound Ci~ Co~dl June ~,1~3 MOTXON made by Smith, seconded by ~essen to adjourn at 9:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk · · u, I I P C'D JUL ! 1993 Sune 28,1993 To: Mound City Council From: Mound Evangelical Free Church The congregation of Mound Evangelical Free Church, 2117 Commerce Blvd., requests that the Mound City council lift the parking restriction on the south side of Alder Road, from the intersection of Commerce Blvd. west approximately 300 feet. We have contacted the police chef, Len Harlem, and he stated that he would have no objections to this request, in fact he stated that he does not know why there is a NO PARKING THIS SIDE restriction place upon this section of the street. Len Harrel stated that after looking at this section of the street, parking on both sides of the first 200 feet would not impede passage of emergency vehicles because the north side of the street has been widened to accommodate parking on both sides of the street. Y .U6 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT SUPPLEMENT TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 7, 1993 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval - Balboa Addition This report is intended to provide clarification and to update the City Council on several issues relative to the proposed preliminary plat known as Balboa Addition (Case Number 93-023). This case was on the Planning Commission's agenda on June 14, 1993. The original planning report addressed a number of issues and identified other issues that were unresolved at that time. Since the report was drafted and subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the City Engineer and I have met with representatives of Balboa to review all outstanding issues. The following is a commentary on some of the issues pertaining to this case: · The preliminary plat identifies right-of-way being dedicated for Fairview Lane. NSP has a lease agreement with Dakota Rail for the overhead utility lines that n:n along the north side of the building. The City of Mound does not need easements for utilities in this at'ea. · All City utility lines are located in the dedicated right-of-way areas for Fairview Lane. Therefore, no other easements will be necessary. · Park Dedication - The initial planning report did not discuss park dedication requirements. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances states," In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commerci'al, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof, or in a planned development area, or where a waiver or variance is granted, a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes..." Subdivision 3 of this section further states that, "At the City's option, except for minor subdivisions as herein defined, the subdivider shall contribnte an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to Subd. 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule set by resolution of the Council which cash contribution shall be a minimum of Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Dr~ign 7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525" Minneapolis, Mi~nesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Planning Report Supplement July 7, 1993 Page 2 ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication of cash be less than $500 for each lot being created." In this particular case, two new lots are being created. The City's park needs in this area are being adequately met by existing facilities and therefore, it is assumed that a cash dedication is in order in lieu of a land dedication requirement. According to representatives of Balboa, the sales price of the two lots is approximately $220,000. This results in a park dedication fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the ordinance. The original staff report contained a recommendation that the newly subdivided lots be combined for tax purposes with existing parcel 76. Parcel 76 includes the balance of the property owned by Balboa. This clause was included to ensure common ownership of all parcels, particularly since proposed Lots 1 and 2 individually are unsuitable for conforming industrial structures. The City Attorney has further concerns regarding Title issues pertaining to the subdivision. These concerns are addressed in the staff recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the Balboa Addition subject to the following conditions: Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. RESOLUTION ~D2- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR "BALBOA ADDITION" INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. LOCATED NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT ~300 SHORELINE DRIVE P&Z CASE #93-023 WHEREAS, the preliminary for Balboa 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 I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. WHEREAS, the Mound Advisory Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the preliminary plat, with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. To approve the preliminary plat for Balboa Addition as shown on the attached Exhibit A, upon the following conditions: a. ~ .ark dedication fees shall be~required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. b. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. c. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the city with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the city of Mound. 2. The existing legal description of the property to be platted is attached as Exhibit B. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-023 Balboa Addition The proposed legal descriptions are as follows: Parcel 1 (33,942 square feet): Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended southerly; thence North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds East a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 846.76 feet to the southwesterly corner of Lot 22, Block 11, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park; thence South 2 degrees 33 minutes 02 seconds East a distance of 40.00 feet to said line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly of, as measured at right angles to, the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right- of-way; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West parallel with said center line a distance of 850.35 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel 2 (68,733 square feet): Ail that part of Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way located in the south Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North 2 degrees 43 minutes 32 seconds East along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13 a distance of 799.82 feet to the center line of said Dakota Rail, Inc. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-023 Balboa Addition railroad right-of-way; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes' 58 seconds East along said center line a distance of 1347.46 feet to the east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 13, said east line is also the center line of Cedar Lane, formerly Ivy Street, extended Southerly; thence South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West along said east line a distance of 10.04 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of-way which is the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing South 2 degrees 34 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of 40.16 feet to a line parallel with and 50.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to said center line; thence North 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds East parallel with said center line a distance of 1586.25 feet to the west line of Lot 10, Block 2, "L.P. Creivers Subdivision of Lot 36, Lafayette Park"; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said west line of Lot 10 a distance of 8.77 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 10; thence South 89 degrees 51 minutes 08 seconds East along the North line of said lot 10 and its easterly extension a distance of 144.02 feet to the center line of Fairview Lane; thence North 1 degree 08 minutes 52 seconds East along said center line of Fairview Lane a distance of 41.93 feet to a line parallel with and 10.00 feet southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said center line of the Dakota Rail, Inc. railroad right-of- way; thence westerly, parallel with said center line a distance of 140.37 feet, along a non-tangential curve, concave to the south having a radius of 8584.37 feet, a central angle of 0 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds and a chord that bears South 87 degrees 56 minutes 13 seconds West; thence South 87 degrees 26 minutes 58 seconds West continuing parallel with said center line and tangent to said curve a distance of 1589.10 feet to said point of beginning. Mound city Council July 13, 1993 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 13, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 13, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Councilmember Smith arrived at 8:35. P.M. 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: Joanne Matzen, Pam Koring, Justine Guyot-Goode, Duane Norberg, Joyce & Marvin Nelson, Duane Leisinger and Mark Jorland. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the Minutes of the June 22, 1993, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 PRESENTATION OF BRUCE MILLER CANVASBACK PRINT BY THE NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS Mark Jorland and Duane Leisinger, representing the Northwest Tonka Lions presented a print of Bruce Miller's Canvass Backs, the 1993 Duck Stamp Winner, to the City Council and the Citizens of Mound. The Council thanked the Lions for their participation and the gift. 1.2 REQUEST TO REMOVE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, MOUND EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH The city Manager introduced Mr. Duane Norberg, Trustee, for the Mound Evangelical Free Church. He stated that they need the extra parking mostly on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings. He has contacted the Police Chief and he has no problem with removing the no parking on the South side of Alder Road. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-89 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD FROM THE INTERSECTION OF COMMERCE BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 1.3 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE NO. 93-023: PRELIMINARY PLAT F O R BALBOA ADDITION, DAKOTA P~IL, INC. NORTH OF EXISTING BALBo~ BUILDING EAST OF FAIRVI~W LaWEA~D SOUTH OF LYNWOOD BLVD. PID #13-117-24 34 0068 & 0077 AND 13-117-24 43 0144 The City Planner explained the case. The staff recommendation was approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. 2. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. 3. The Owner-Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. He stated that the Council can approve the preliminary plat with these conditions and have the Park Dedication Fee clarified before the final plat is approved. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Joanne Matzen, Attorney representing Welsh Companies, stated they agree with the conditions except for the park dedication fee requirement. She stated that this is not a typical platting. There will not be further development and it does not cause additional burdens on the community. She requested that the Council delete the Park Dedication requirement in this platting. The City Attorney stated that Park Dedication fees are required of every new plat. He stated that he has discussed this with Ms. Matzen and because they are paying an inflated amount for the property the park dedication fee could be less than $22,000.00. The City Attorney suggested that the Council can approve the preliminary plat this evening and he and the Staff will continue to negotiate on the park dedication fee before final plat approval on August 10. Ms. Matzen stated that timing is very important because the closing on the property is set for August 16 and the property is in receivership and any extra costs need to be approved by the court prior to closing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council indicated they would like the City Attorney to continue to negotiate with Ms. Matzen and Mr. Hart about the Park Dedication Fee and bring it to their Committee of the Whole Meeting next Tuesday for discussion. This could then be acted upon on the next Mound City Council City Council Meeting, July 27. Johnson moved and Jessen RESOLUTION %93-90 July 13, 1993 seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR **BALBOA ADDITION*. INVOLVING LANDS OWNED BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. LOCATED NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE Councilmember Jensen asked that #la. in the proposed resolution be changed to read as follows: "Park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.,, The Council agreed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 13 117 24 21 0021 ~OT8 1 2 3 BLOCK 8 DREAMWOOD PID The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Ms. Koring was present and agreed with the proposed resolution. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 1701 AVOCET LANE, PART OF LOTS 1, 2 AND BLOCK 8, DREAMWOOD, PID %13-117-24 0021, P & Z CASE %93-028 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 ~~ ~_RE_UEST FOR FENCE VARIANCE DR. DONALD SWEEN 2028 ARBOR LANE LOT 6 S RAVENSWOOD PID 13-117-24 41 005-U5BD' OF LOTS I & 32 S & C The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 7-1 vote. Ms. Sween was present and agreed with the proposed resolution. Jensen moved and Ahrens RESOLUTION %93-92 seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT FoR 2028 ARBOR LOT 6, ~u~u~VISION OF LOTS i AND LINDQUIST'SRAVENSWOOD ~T~ a~'. 0035, P & Z CASE #93-029 I I 1, I ! ii, i I BALBOA /~I)DITION FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION {93- EXHIBIT A · m~-~=-'~j ~r_~ ~:=~ iD:EGAH FIELD 546-6839 ~J50 P04 EXHIBIT RESOLUTION ~93- F~IBIT B HutchtA~_l_tha.t. porti, on_of Burlington Northern Rallroad Coma ' son., ~nneso~a Branch Line ri ht-of-w . p ny s Wayzat~ .t.o of the ?4a~n Track centerllne as ^ri-g~--~- -aY~'-va.r'v~n.g in w~tdth on each sine and across Hennepin Counev u~--~J-?-'"~_?___?~ca.TM ana constructed upon, over -a..-.---~au~¢, ue$cr~Dea as follows, to-wit: All that portion of said Railroad Comport's 10 being 50 feet wide on ea-~ '-,~ ...... Y. _ O-foot wide ri htoof-way · . ~- a,uc or. the hereinafter described ~in Track ~-~]] ~N~, °~gw~nao]fI~'selc°tCtao?~ anud,.~c,ons.t,r.u.c~,t..ed _upon, over and across the Sectlon g, &overnment Lot n~'~.~[ ~:a~:' ~ct~w,, Government Lots 3 and 4 of 1 ..... .ion ll, Government Lot l, I~tN£¼, Government Lots ~, 3 and 4 of Section 10, Government Lots 1 ~rtton of Governmen ~^+ - . and 2, Sectton 15 an · t ,~, 7 of Section I$ all .in T1171t R23W d a Hennei~n County, Minnesota 1-' ......... ' , Sth P.M., · , ~"9 oe~we, en the bou:n~esterly 1the of ~tantor~s Htnneapolts to ~11mar ~50 foot wide r~ hr-of-wa Of the i¢esterl.y 11ne g y and the 5outherly extension of Lot 78 of the original Plat of Hlnnetonka Beach on file anti of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in said Hennepin Count~. _MAIN TRACI( CENTERLINE DESCRIPTION f Comaencing at a point on the East 11ne of said Section 1 d~stant ~23.~ eet South of the Ei corner of satd Section ! - - .c. enter~tne of sa~d 111nnea ol - , sa.~d po~.nt being on the p ts to W~llmar 250 foot wa de ri h - - · .Mesterly. a.t a.n angle of 89o39, ._ ..... g t of.way, thence ? .Xs6. eet; thence as.u,r.e_d_ f?"' tiorth :o )test for a distance nav~ng a radius of 6 177 =c ~_~_~:~$,?,~,u,g .a .t.a_n_g.enttal curve to the right . , .~ ~c~ ~oe~Ta angle ~"2Z' f feet, thence conttnulna ~+~..,..~_ _,___ ) o.r a distance of S55.3 ~ No .....~o,cr~ a,ang a cornpouna curve tO the eight having a radius of 2~)38.3g feet (delta angle 7°48') for a distance of 400 feet; thence continuing Northwester~] along a compound curve to the ri ht having a radius of 3,437.87 feet {delta angle ° , g 13 O0 ) for a distance of 777.0 feet to the end of said compound curve; thence Northwesterly ta. ngent to the last described curve a distance of 29.3 feet to the Point of Beginning of the Main Track centerline to be described; thence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southerly having a radius of ~,910.08 feet (delta angle 37° 05') for a distance of Z,236 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 3,814 .feet; thence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southeasterl? i~aving a radius of 2,864.93 (delta of 18° 00') a distance of gO0 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to last described curve a distance of ~,400 feet; thence along a tangential curve' to the !eft concave Southeasterly having a radius of S,729.6S feet (delta angle 4° 34'} a distance of 456.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent 'to last described curve 3,244.3 feet; thence along a tangential curve tO the left concave Southeasterly having a radius of ~,864.95 (delta angle ~4° 08'} a distance of 706 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to last described curve 863 feet; t.hence along a tangential curve to the left concave Southeaster y ha~ing a radius' of 2,854.g3 feet (delta 24° 47') a distance of 1,240 feet; t~ence'Southwesterl~y tangent to last described.curve a distance of 4,500 feet; thence '' to the ri ht . along a tan ential curve ngle 79· g concave Northwesterly hav~ng a radius of Z,637.28gfeet {delta a 20') a distance of 2,266.5 feet and there terminating. lB ~, ! i ~, ~-~-'~o ~ 05:~1 ID:E~A~ FIELD 546-6839 ~350 P05 All that portion of said Railroad Company's property at Minnetonka Beach on said Branch Line situated in Government Lots 7, & and 5, Section 16, TllTN. RZ3W of the §th P.M., described as follows: Begin?lng at the point of intersection of the North line of Lot gO of said original plat of Minnetonka Beach and said Southerly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 78 of the original plat of Minnetonka Beach; thence Westerly along the North lines of said Lots 20 through ! inclusive, said original plat of Mtnnetonka Beach and the Westerly extension thereof to the centerline of vacated Lafayette Place; thence Southerly at right angles to the last described course 20 feet; thence Westerly parallel with and $0 feet Southerly as measured at right angles to said Main Track centerline to the Easterly line of Northview Road; thence North along said Easterly line feet; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of 45 foot wide We~twood Road to the East line of Lake Street according to said recorded plat of Minnetonka ~each; thence Northerly along said East line of Lake Street to a point $0 feet Northerly and at right angles from said Main Track centerline; thence Easterly in a straight line to a point in the Northwesterly line of Cottage Place 8g.4 feet distant Northeasterly measured along said Northwesterly line from said ~atn Track centerline; thence continuing Easterly along said straight line to the Southeasterly line of said Cottage Place at a point 75 feet Northerly and at right angles to said Main Track centerline; thence Easterly parallel with said Main Track centerline to the centerline of said vacated Lafayette Place; thence South along said centerline ~5 feet; thence Easterly 30 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot -~01 said original plat of Mtnnetonka Beach; thence continuing Easterly along the South lines of said Lots ~0~, 10~, 8g, 87, SS, 84, 83, 8~, 81, 80 and 7g a distance of ~,192.4 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 78; thence Southerly along the Southerly extension of the ~esterly line of said Lot 78; a distance of 100 feet to a point on the North line of said Lot 20; thence Westerly along said North line to the. Point of Begtnnlng~ also, All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100 foot wide right-of-way being 50 feet wide on each side of the hereinafter described Main Track centerline upon, over and across Government Lots 4 and 5, Section ~6, and Government Lots $, 5 and 8 and the SENSE¼ of Section ~7, Tll7N, RZ3W, lying Westerly of the ~esterly line of said Lake Street; also, An additional parcel of land being SO feet wide and lyidg adjacent to and Southerly of the hereinabove described 200 foot wide right-of-way situated in said Government Lot 8 of said Section 27, T~lTN, R23W, lying between two lines drawn parallel with and distant respectively 50 feet and 200 feet Southerly measured at right angles and radially to the hereinafter described Main Track centerline and bounded on the NortheasTerly side by a 'line drawn at right angles and radially to said hereinafter described Main Track centerline distant 697 feet Easterly from the West line of said government Lot 8 as measured along said parallel line distant ~00 feet Southerly and parallel with said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, bounded on the West by the West line of said Government Lot 8. EXCEPTING T~EREFRDM, the following five parcels .of land situated in Government Lot ~, Section 16, and Lot 6, Section 17 TIL7N, R23W, described as follows: ' -2- PARCEL I Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of Lot 26, Block I, Townsite of Langdon Park; thence Southerly on a Southerly extension of the Westerly line of said Lot 26, a distance of 18 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with the Southerly line of said Lot 26 to its intersection with a line which is parallel with and distant 118 feet Easterly from the Westerly line of Said Lot 26; thence Northerly parallel with said Westerly line of Lot 25 a distance 'of 18 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 2; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of Lo~t 26 to the Point of Beginning. .PARCEL II_ Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of Tract B, Registered Land No. I71, Files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Survey thence Southerly on a ~outherl? extension of the Westerly line of said Tract B, a distance of 10 feet; thence Easterly along a line parallel with the Southerly llne of said Tract B to its intersection with a Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Tract B; thence Northerly along said extension of said Easterly line to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract B; thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Tract B to the Point of Beginning. _PARCEL III Beginning at the Southeasterly corner of Tract B,. Registered Land Survey No, 172, in Lot 27, Block l, Townsite of Langdon Park, thence Southerly on a Southerly extension of the Easterly line of said Tract B, to the point of intersection with a line drawn parallel with and distant I0 feet Southeasterly measured radially to the South line of said Lot Z7; thence Northeasterly along said line drawn parallel with and distant 10 feet Southeasterly measured radially to the South line of said Lot 27 a distance of 115.5 feet; thence Northwesterly on a line drawn radially from the last described course to the point of intersection with said South line of said Lot 27; thence Southwesterly along said South line of said Lot Z7 to the Point of Beginning, .PARC.EL IV That part of Government Lot 6, Section 17, TllTN, RP.3W of the 5th P.M., described as follows: Beginning at the most Southerly corner of Lot 7, Wallace's Addition to the Village of Mtnnetonka Beach; thence on an assumed bearing of NS4°E along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 7 to the most Easterly corner of said Lot 7; thence S2g°E a distance of 16.67 feet; thence S58°I~ to an intersection with a line bearing .S29oE through the Point of Beginning; thence NL:9°W to the Point of Beginning ' PARCEL V A strip or piece of land 5 feet wide and 150 feet long being all that part of the right-of-way of the railway of the former Great Northern Railway Company Section 17, TltTN, R23W of the 5th P.M., lying parallel with .and adjoining the Southeasterly lines of Lots 2, 3 and 4 in Wallace's Addition to the Village of Hinnetonka Beach Hennepin County Minnesota according to the recorded I)lat thereof. ' ' I I _F~'N l~ACK CENTERL[NE DESCRzP'rl"ON Beginning at ~he point of te~'na:~on of the herelnabove descried Track center]~ne eescr~pt~on; thence Nesterl~ ~ngen: to the la~: described curve Z,993.5 feet; thence Southwesterly along a :angentta] curve to :he left hav~n9 a radius of 1,910.08 feet (de]ia angle 42~ 00') a dfstance of 1,400 feet; ~ence ~outhwester]y tangent to :he last described curve 1,000 feet; ~nce Southwesterly along a tangential cu~e to th ' of 2,292.01 feet 'fde]ta a~- ~ ~,, . e r~ht hav~ng a radius Southwesterly alon-'a tan-~L'~'~ ~:_~v~ a d~s~an~e o( 800 feet; t~nc of 2,637.28 feet (delta an-le ~- ~e,~ ....... L~ ~ight having a radius a -.. ~ i a a)scance oT 4)9 feet; thence ~esterly tangent to ~e last described curve 698.1 feet- ~gential ~rve ~ th . t thence ~eSterly alon a 13~ 40') a dist---~ .,e~f~ ~av~ng.~ radius of Z,864.93 feet described c~,e'[';-~~- ooJ.j feet; ~nce South~sterly tangent'tg'~e"~ , ay t~t; thence ~esterl al . asr right having a radtu~ of 2-A~a e~ ,~-- ,:_ ~_ ong a tangential cu~e to the feet and there teminating?;~;j~ ,ue~ t~elta angle 16° ~5.) a distance of 830 All that portion of said Railroad Corn an's ~ing 40 feet ~de on the P ~ ~140 ~oot wide ri hr-of-wa :ne hereinafter d ' North ~J~ and 100 feec ~oe on ~e So~h ' constructed unon Ls~b~ ~ Track centerltne, as or~ginall loca[lde of also, r~ ~ne o? county Road No. SI {Sunset Orive); All ~at potion of said Railroad Company's station ground property at Spring Park, ~tnnesota, varying in width on each descried ~tn Track center . _ . ~l~e o~ said hereinafter over and across Gover~entl)~: ¥ o?g~nall~ ~oca~ and constructed u~n, described as follows, to-wit:'~" ~' ~' ~ an~ 6, Section 18, TlZTN, ~W, Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly line of said County Road No. dis~nt 52 feet North and at right angles to said hereinafter described Main Track centerline; thence ~esterl~ parallel with said ~in Track centerline to ~e intersection of a line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerltne distant 8Z6 feet West as ~asured along said Main Track centerline from the East line of said Section 28, TI17~, R~W; thence South at right angles to the last described coupe 1.5 feet; ~ence West parallel with said Main Track centerli~ ~04 feet; thence North ~.5 feet as measured at right angles to said Hain Track centerline: thence ~est parallel wi~ said Main Track centerline and S~ feet Northerly thereof to a point on the West line of Lot 22, Block Townstte of Langdon Park, according to the plat thereof on file and of ~cord in the Office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County; thence South g feet' measured at right angles to said ~in Track centerline; thence .Westerly ~rallel with, SO feet ~ortherly of and at right angles to said Main Track ' centerline to the West line of said Section 28' line to a . , thence South alon point SO feet distant fr~ g said West ?~th?ly. of said Main Track centerl(--.' ,~[~r~d at .right angles to and . --.-, ~-un:e :as~er,y parallel with said ~a~n [rac~ centerline to the point of intersection w~th the Southerly line of vacated Warren Avenue, Village of Spring Park; ~ence Easterly along said Southerly line of vacated Warren Avenue to a' line drawn at right angles to. said Southerly line at a point in said Southerly line which is 1,100 feet Wester)~ f~ the most Easterly boundary of said Avenue; :hence Northerly -4- along said right angle line ~00 feet to the Northerly line of said vacated Warren Avenue; thence Easterly along said ~ortherly line to a line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerltne at a point 220 feet Westerly, measured along said Main Track centerltne, from the East line of Lot 22, said Block 22, Townslte of Langdon Park; thence North along said line drawn at right angles to said Main Track centerline to a point being $0 feet Southerly of and at right angles to said Main Tr~ck c~nterltne; thence Easterly parallel with said Main Track centerline to a line Brawn at right angles to said Main Track centerline distant 660 feet Westerly from the East line of said Section 28 as measured along, said Main Track centerline; thence South along said line at ~ght angles to said 'Main Track centerline 25 feet; thence Easterly parall with Said Main Track centerline 20 feet; thence South and at right angles to the last described course 25 feet; thence East parallel with and distant 100 feet Southerly of, as measured at right angles to, said Main Track centerline to the intersection with said Northwesterly line of County Road ko. 51; thence Northeasterly along said Northwesterly line to the Point of Beginning; also, ' EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described parcel of land: Comnenctng at a point on the South line of said Government Lot 8 distant g32.4 feet West from the Southeast corner thereof; thence Northerly parallel with said East line to the South line of vacated Warren Avenue, being the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land to be described; thqnce continuing · Northerly parallel to said East line to the Southerly right-of-way line of Burlington Northern Railroad Company; thence Easterly along the Southerly right-of-way line to a line drawn parallel with said East line of Government Lot 8 distant $34.85 feet ~est of said East line as measured along the Southerly line of said vacated Warren Avenue; thence Southerly parallel to the East line of Government Lot 8 to the South line of vacated Warren Avenue; thence Westerly along the South line of vacated Warren Avenue to the Point of Beginning. All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100 foot wide Branch Line right-of-way, being ~0 feet wide on each side of said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, as originally located and constructed upon, over and across Government Lots 7 and 8, Section 13, TI~7N, Rg4W, Sth P.M., lying £aster)y of the East line of Block 2, L.. P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park; also, All of Lots 7, 8 and g, Block Z, said L. P. Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park; also, · All that portion of said Railroad Company's 100 foot wide Branch Line right-of-way, being SO feet wide on each side of said hereinafter described Main Track centerline, upon, over and across that part of said Government Lot 7, Government Lot $ and the SW¼SW~ of said Section 13; Government Lots g, l0 and 1I of Section 14; Government Lot 4, Section 23; the NE¼, S~N~t and NW¼SW¼ of Section ~2; the SE¼ of Section 2~; the NW¼~W4NE¼ and the ~W~ of Section 28; the SE¼SE¼~E¼, the SE¼ and. the SE¼SE¼SW¼'of Section 29; the and the NW~NW¼SW¼ of Section 32; and the SE¼ and the SE¼SE¼SW¼ of Section 31; all in Tl17N, Rg4W, Sth P.M., lying between the West line of said Block L. P, Crevier's Subdivision of part of Lot 36, Lafayette Park and the South )ina of s~id Section 3! Tl17N, R24W, being the South line of Hennepin County;. also, ' ~or~h~es~e~]y O~ and ~d~ecent ~o ~he ~ere~n~bove ~escr~bed ~00 ~oo~ r~ght-of-we~; also, ~ound, ~nneso~ lying , - ~ ed ~n the SW.S~ of said Section 13 TlITN, R~4W, described ~s ~ollows, to-wit: ~e~inntng at a point ~0~ feet Southerly of ~nd at right angles hereinafter described Main Track centerline d(;tant 3;2.5 feet ~esterly, measured along a line parallel with, dt;t;nt 50 feet Southerly from and at right ~ngles to ;aid ~ain Tr~ck ;enterlfne from the Wester)y line of the East 25 feet of ;aid S~SW); thence Southerly at right an~les from sai~ ~mfn Track centerlf~ 40 feet; thence West=r)y parallel ~th setd ~ain Track centerl(ne to ~ point ~(stant ~.KE~t ~eEte~)y as ~;ured along ;at~ ~r~llel )in feet Southerly of =a]a Main Tract cent P · 90 SWtS~t; t~nce due S ........ . ._ .erlin~ from the East line of said ?o~n ~ see;. thence westerly in ~ straight line 208 feet, ~re or less. to a nt 100 feet Southerly, ~sure~ at right engles, said ~ain Track centerline distant 6Z5,~ feet EasteMy, measured alo,g ~ line p~rmllel witA, 100 feet Southerly from ~nd at r~ght angles to said ~in Tr~ck centerline f~m the g'est line of said S~SW~; thence ~esterl~ in a straight line b23.7 f~;t, more or less, to a point on said West lt~ of ~ dlstan~ 69.47 feet South measure~ ~lo~g said West line f~m said ~in Tr;;~ centerlin~; ~;ncm North ~lon~ said ~est line of the ~)S~i to a point di;~nt 50 feet Sou~erly f~m, ~sured at right 'lngle~ to, ;~id Main Track ;en~erline$ thence Easterl~ ~rallel with said ~in Tr~ck centerline dis~nt 50 ;eet therefrom to the Point of Beginning; also, All that portion of Said Railro~d.Comp~,; stalfon ground proper~ ~ound, ~lnnesota lyin~ adjacent to ~n~ ~ortherly of the bereinabove described ~00 foot wide Branch Line right~f-w~y situated ~n the SW~SWE of said Section 13, TI~7N, Rg;W, lying be~en two lines =rawn parallal with ~nd distant re~Pectivel~ 50 feet and ~50 feet No~he~ly, measured at right angles to, said ~in Track centerline; bounded on the E ,~t.~ngle) to said ~ain Track c~nt-rl;.. ,;...tlt side by a line drawn at TFack centerline; bounded on the ~est by said West line of the SW(S~i of Section ~3; also, All that poPtlon of smid ~tlroa~. Company's station ground proper~ at St. Bontfaclu;, ~innesota, lying aajacent to. and Northwesterly of the heretna~v, d,~cribcd 100 FoOt w(~e Br=nch Line l(ght-of-~ay situated in ;aid ~( of Section 3~, TlITN, R24W, lying between'two lines drawn ~arallel ~tth and distant ~especttvely 50 feet and 100 feet Northwest, fly, measured st right angles to, said hereinafter described ~in Track centerIine; bounde~ on the Southwest sl~e by a )~ne dra~n a; rt h; an, 1 Main Track ten r e~.. ~n ~_ g , g es. to sa(~ herel,dF~=r d~,.;b d te line dis .... ~v -vet ~or~hea;terl of the ~ as measured along said Main Track centerl(ne~ bounded on the North'~ast ' Y 'South'line of said side by a line drawn at right angles to said Hain Track c,ntcr)ine distant 469 feet Sout~est. of the ~orth line of ;aid ~; also, All that portion of said Railroad Company's station gmund property at St. Bonffaclus, Minnesota, lying ~djacent to and Southeasterly of the heretnabove described 100 foot wide Branch Line right-of-way situated in said NWE, Section 32, Tll/~, Rg4W, lying between two lines drawn parallel with and d!s~ant, respectively, 5U feet and 200 feet Southeasterly of, measured at right angles to, said hereinafter described Main Track centerltne; bounded on the Southwest side by a line drawn at right angles to said Hain Track centerline distant 600 feet Northeasterly of the South line of said NWl as measured along said Main Track centerline; bounded on the Northeast by a line running due North ~rOm a point, l,l$6.5 feet South and 375.375 feet West of the Northeast corner of said NW~. . 14AIN TI~ACK CE~TERLINE DESCRIPTION Beginning at the point of termination of the hereinabove described Main Track centerltne description: t~ence Westerly tangent to the last described curve 6,70g.b feet; thence Westerly along a tangential, curve to the left having a radius of 8,~94.4~ feet {delta angle 6e 18') a d~stance of 945 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 4,16g.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 4,[6g.7 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 3,81g.83 feet (delta angle [6e 09') a distance of 1,076.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 5,~31 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 2,864.93 feet (delta angle lge ~0'} a distance of 966.7 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 10o123.9 feet,'passing a point on the West line of Section 28, TI[TN, R24W, distant 2,gTg feet South of the Northwest corner thereof; thence along a tangential curve to the left having a radius of 7,639.49 feet (delta angle [3° ~1') a distance of 1,779.4 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 5,730.6 feet; thence Southwesterly along a tangential curve to the right having a radius of 5,7~9.65 feet (delta angle I0e 27') a distance of 1,045 feet; thence Southwesterly tangent to the last described curve 3,193 feet to a point on the South line of Section 31, T[17N, R24W, and there terminating. lOA.EX~.142 -7- I II ! _~ 9-~ TUE 12 : 29 - JUL-- 1 ---- -- P.01 Sent By: Sent To: LWINTHROP A Professional A~sociation 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center $0 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (612) 290-8400 Telecopy (612) 292-9347 Facsimile Cover Letter loanne L. Mar. zen Date: Time: Re f#: NOTICE - CONFIDENTIAL IKFORMATION 'l'ha information in this fax communication is privileged and strictly codidential. It is iateadexi solely for the u.~ of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of &is mc.saage is not the intended m:ipieat, or the employee or agent re.spoasiblo ~ deliver it to the intended r~cipieat, any dia.~rnlnation, distribution, copying or other usc of the information contained in this eo_mmualcatlon is strictly prohibited. If you have received this co_mmualcation ia error, plea.~ first notify the sender.immediately at the above telephone number of your erroneous receipt sad then return this fax communication at once to the sender at the above addre.~ either via United States Po,~al Service or by the method of delivery q~e~:ified by the sender, This communication consists of X pages, including this cover letter, If all pageS are not received, please ~ontact Susan Carl~on at 2~0-8523. JUL-- 1 $--9~ TUE 1 2 : ~0 P.02 W/ NTH ROF) & WEI NSTI N E GAily w. ~OTT ~, ~U~I~ A. K~OC~C LLOYO W. 0100~$ JU~IC K, WI~IAMSON It?IT ~, b~U~IN MANK T, JOM~SON BAOOKS ~, POg(v A?TORNEy$ AND ¢O(,JNS~:I.,O~$ A? {..AY( (612) 2~)-8546 July 13, 1993 DANr[L W. NARC)T Mr. Edward Shukle, Ir. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Mai/wood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 BY FAC$IMIL~ Re: Dakota Rail/Balboa Addition Dear ~c. Shukle: This office represents the _receiver for the Balboa building located at 5300 Shoreline Ddve in Mound. In connection with the operation of this building, Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. has leased a portion of the adjacent railroad right of way to the rear of the building which provides ~ to the loading docks. Control over this adjacent property, currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc., is critical to the opeation of the Balboa property. On May 27, 1993, Dakota Rail submitted an application for a major subdivision of land to facilitate a sale of this portion of the railroad right of way to Balboa. The City of Mound, as you know, does not allow a major subdivision of land without the creation of a plat. Therefore, we have submitted the proposed plat of 'Balboa Addition' to the City for approval. In reSponse to a suggestion made at the Planning Commission Hearing on the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition, the City Planner recommended in his supplementary planning report of Suly 7, 1993, that a park dedication fee of $22,000 (10% of the purchase price for the land) should be exacted. We question whether a park fee is appropriate under these circumstances. At its hearing on the final plat on 3'uly 12, 1993, and a~ter further consideration of the issue, the Planning Commission voted to delete the park fee from the requirements for plat approval. TUE i 2 : ~0 I I II P=05 Mr. Edward Shulde, Ir. J'uly 13, 1993 Page 2 As noted above, the purpose of the Balboa plat is simply to enable title to the subject property to transfer. Virtually no development of this property is planned or even possible. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances reads in relevant part as follows: In every plat...or subdivision of land allowing development for...commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof...a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes... (emphasis added). Since this particular subdivision does not allow for development, it follows that no authority exists for exaction of a park dedication fee. Minnesota caselaw, requiring a 'rational nexus" between the exaction imposed and the need created by the subdivision, is in accord. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 17-18, 246 N.W.2d 19, 26 (1976), the court interpreted § 462.358 of Minnesota Statutes which enables exaction of reasonable park fees. Recognizing thc possibility for arbitrariness and unfairness in the enforcement of such exactions, the court wrote: A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the n~ds created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become 'grand theft." Thus, the court stated that reasonableness of the fee is measured by the impact on the recreational needs of the community as a result of the subdivision. See also Middlemist v. City oft~tymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (1986). The use to which this property will be put is the same as its present use. No additional services will be consumed; no additional needs will be created by the proposed subdivision. We, therefore, respectfully request that the requirement of a park dedication fee be dropped from the conditions for approval of the final plat. In addition to the foregoing, since the Balboa building is in receivership, the intended purchase must be approved by the court. The court has previously approved an expenditure of S220,000 for the subject property. The 10% park fee essentially increases the purchase price to $242,000 necessitating a new court order authorizing the purchase. The purchase agreement between Balboa and Dakota Rail calls for a closing on or before August 16, 1993. Since time is of the essence in this transaction the ne~l for court approval could cripple or kill this transaction. JUL-- ! $--95 TUE ! 2 I- $ 1 P . 04 Mr. Edwaxd Shukle, Jr. Iuly 13, 1993 P~e 3 Assuming thc City feels thc continued existence and use of the Balboa building is an economic benefit to the community the exaction of park fees should be reconsidered. On behalf of the purchaser we ask that you review this letter and the City ordinances and the cases. If you would like to discuss any of the foregoing points in mom detail, please feel free tn call us. We appreciate your consideration and again respectfully request that you advise the council that the park dedication fees do not apply under the foregoing circumstances. Very truly yours, WINTIEROP & wEINs~, P.A. Ms. Denise Brown Curtis Pearson, Esq. Thomas Underwood, F.~I. Mr. Thomas M. Hart I I 1, ! I II, I I CITY of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-023 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE 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 13, 1993 to consider a request for Preliminary Plat involving land located north of the Balboa building for lands owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. The subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene ~. ~lark, City Clerk Published in "The Laker" June 28, 1993, and mailed to property owners within 350' on June 25, 1993. June ~ ~93 RECEIVED UOUNO PLANNING & INSP. FROM: M.E. Petcrson, Community Service Mgr. NSP Co., Minnctonka Area TO: Peggy James, Planning & Inspection City of Mound SUBJECT: Dakota Rail Replat Lease Agreement with Northern States Power Co. Northern States Power Company Mlnr~tonke 550,5 Cour~ty Road 19 P.O. Box ~0 Excelsior, M~nnosota 55331 Tolepho~o (812) 474-~1 Dear Peggy: At 1:15 PM on Tuesday June 22, 1993 i had a conversation with the l'resident of Dakota Rail, Mr. Elli Mills in regard to the above subject. He informs me that Northern States Power Co. has a 5 year lease agreement with Dakota Rail for their facilities within the Railroad Right of Way and that wc do not need to draw up a new Easement due to the above mentioned re-plat. Sincerely, M.E. Peterson I I l, ! · II, I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF TI{E MOUND ADVISORY PLANNI~G COMMISSION JUNE 14, 1993 Case #93-023: Dakota Rail, Inc., North of the Existing Balboa Building East of Fairview Lane and South of Lynwood Bird,, PID #13-117-24 34 0068 & 0077 and 1:3- 117-24 43 0144, PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALBOA ADDITION - PUBLIC HEARING, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Planning Report written by Mark Koegler. The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create two new parcels located on the north side of the existing Balboa Building. Parcel 1 totals .78 acres and Parcel 2 has a total area of 1.58 acres. Most of Parcel I is currently used for employee and truck parking. Parcel 2 contains the loading dock area on the north side of the building and the access drive off of Fairview Lane. The parcels will continue to be used in the future as they are currently used today. At the time the report was written, a revised survey had not been submitted, and staff noted the following items that needed to be addressed: 1. Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. An easement needs to be established along the north side of the building in Parcel 2 to accommodate NSP's overhead utility lines. All local utility lines need to be added to the plat. The plat needs to contain a name. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed division by Dakota Rail subject to the following conditions: Easements shall be established for all water service and storm sewer crossing points along the railroad tracks. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing Parcel 76. Parcel 76 includes the balance of the property owned by Balboa. It was clarified that the survey received by the Planning Commission in their packet was an updated survey dated June 9, 1993 which should reflect changes to address staff's concerns. The Building Official further explained that because the City Planner was unable to attend the meeting, the Planning Commission should voice any concerns they may have regarding the application and they will be addressed at the City Council's Public Hearing. Vice Chair Michael opened the public hearing. Darlene Bjork who resides on Fairview expressed a concern about the amount of truck traffic and wants to make sure this subdivision will not increase this use. The Commission confirmed that no change is use is proposed. The Building Official stated that if a change in use is proposed it would be required to follow the procedure for a Conditional Use Permit and the neighbors would be notified. Vice Chair Michael closed the public hearing. June 14, 1993 Mueller expressed the following: 1. Should a Park Dedication Fee should apply? Staff will verify this. 2. Is there any sanitary sewer easements for this area? 3. Why is it recommended that Parcels I and 2 be combined into one tax parcel? Can you combine parcels that are divided by another property (the railroad right-of-way)? He would rather not see them combined for tax purposes. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Ranus, to recommend &pproval of the Preliminary Plat for Balboa Addition according to the most recent survey with a revised date of June 9, 1993, upon the following conditions: Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. Proper easements be established for NSP's overhead utility lines. Easements be established for all local utilities. Verify that there is no sanitary sewer at crossing points along the railroad tracks, but that easements for water services and storm sewer be established and granted to the City. A Park Dedication Fee be collected as determined by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! I 1, ! i tt i i Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 9, 1993 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval - Balboa Addition APPLICANT: Dakota Rail, Inc. CASE NUMBER: 93-023 HKG FILE NUMBER: 93-93-10d LOCATION: East of Fairview Lane, South of Lynwood Boulevard and North of the Existing Balboa Building EXISTING ZONING: Industrial (I-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Industrial BACKGROUND: The owner (and applicant) is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to create two new parcels located on the north side of the existing Balboa Building. Parcel 1 totals .78 acres and Parcel 2 has a total area of 1.58 acres. Most of Parcel 1 is currently used for employee and truck parking. Parcel 2 contains the loading dock area on the north side of the building and the access drive off of Fairview Lane. COMMENT: This report is a compilation of comments from both the city planner and city engineer. At the time of the writing of this report, the preliminary plat drawing is incomplete. The surveyor is currently modifying the drawing to reflect Mound's platting requirements. Specific items that need to be addressed include: 1. Right-of-way needs to be dedicated at Fairview Lane. An easement needs to be established along the north side of the building in Parcel 2 to accommodate NSP's overhead utility lines. Land Use / Environmental ' Planning/Design 7300 Metro ~mlevard/Suite 525 · Minneapolis. Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax: (612) 835-3160 Dakota Rail Preliminary Plat Planning Report June 9, 1993 Page Two 3. Ail local utility lines need to be added to the plat. 4. The plat needs to contain a name. As was stated earlier, it is our understanding that the Owner's surveyor is currently modifying the preliminary plat drawing to include these items. Staff will update the Planning Commission at the meeting as to the Owner's compliance with the preliminary platting requirements. The proposed division does not present any major planning or engineering issues excepts as noted above. The parcels will continue to be used in the future as they are currently used today. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for the proposed division by Dakota Rail subject to the following conditions: Easements shall be established for all water service and storm sewer crossing points along the railroad tracks. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing Parcel 76. Parcel 76 includes the balance of the property owned by Balboa. II ~, ! JUN-- 10--~S THU 7140 June 10, 1993 Mr. John Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN $5364-1687 RECEIVED JUN ! 0 1993 ld0~J~l) PLANNi~ & INSP. I I 11, P. 02 Northern States Power Company Mlnnolonke Division 5505 Counly Road 19 P.O, Box 10 Excelsior, Mlnno$ola 55331 Telel3hOne (612) 474-8881 Subject: Major Subdivision request by Dakota Rail, Inc. Involving lands North of the Balboa Building at S300 Shoreline Drive. Dear Mr. Su~herland; Northern States Power Company has an over-huad fcader line running within the property now owned by Dakota Rail Inc. which serves the Mound Area. This was previously owned by Great Northern Railroad. N.S.P. Co., currently holds permits which give us the right to be in this area. we would like to reserve this right: of way in its entire~y for easement rights to continue to serve the CJ.~y of Mound. I would like to have a copy of the new Plat map fo~: any new development which may require new elec~ricai service or the z'e-routing of present facilities. Sincerely, ,~ M.E. Peterson Manager, Community Services 470-3305 CITY of MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-023 NOTICE OF AN INFORMAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE 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 14, 1993 to consider a major subdivision of land located north of the Balboa Building for lands owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. The subdivision will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: Ail that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of way located in the South Half os Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. 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 Mailed to property owners within 350' on June 3, 1993. ~HERMAN WI NTH ~:~O P 'BERT R. WEINSTINE ,CHARD A,HOEL ROGER D. GORDON STEVEN C. TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID P. PEARSON THOMAS M. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNAPP MICHELE D. VAILLANCOU RT DAVID E. MORAN.JR. DONALD J. BROWN ! I I WI NthrOP & WEI NSTI N E A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN GARY W. SCHOKMILLER TODD B. URNESS SCOTT J. DONGOSKE PETER J. GLEEKEL EDWARD J. DRENTTEL JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A. KNOCKE LLOYD W. GROOMS JULIE K. WILLIAMSON BETSY J. LOUSHIN MARK T. JOHNSON JENNIFER WIRICK BREITINGER BROOKS F. POLEY ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MiNnESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL~ MINNESOTA SSIO1-4901 TELEPHONE 6i2) 290'8400 FAX (612) 292-9347 DIRECT DIAL (612) 290-8546 JULIE WI{~LEY SCHNELL THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPh C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM KRISTIN L.PETERSON JOAN NE L. MATZEN WILLIAM L.WINSON EVAN D. COOBS THOMAS A. WALKER GfNA M, GROTHE FOLLEN PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAIG A. BRANDT DAVID A. KRISTAL KARL A,WEBER JONATHAN D. CRAN TOMAS L.STAFFORD CARLA J. PEDERSEN JAMES W. DIERKING CATHERINE A. DOMINGUEZ CHRISTOPHER W. MADEL SUZANNE M. SPELLACY JOSEPH S- FRIEDBERG OF COUNSEL DANIEl W. HARDY OF COUNSEL June 8, 1993 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 HAND DELIVERED Re: Dakota Rail, Inc./Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: With this letter, please find enclosed the original signed Application For Major Subdivision of Land by Dakota Rail, Inc. A copy of the signed Application was sent to you with my letter of May 27, 1993. You should soon be receiving, if you have not already received the revised Preliminary Plat from Egan Field & Nowak. Please call me if you have any questions about this Application. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. JLM: sic Enclosure JUN-- 8--9~ TUE ! I :02 (Revised 12/8/92 ) FiECEiVED~' '~ JUN 8 ~993 Application for IdflllNl) PU~INI~ & 1VfA.TOR SUBDMSION OF L~._/P~L~~Y PEAT / ~~ ~AT C~ty of Hound S341 Ha~ood ROadt MO~, ~ ~5364 ;hone: 472-0600~ ~ax; 472-0620 C£ty CouncL1 Date: Site V£eit Scheduled: Zoning sheet Complatedt Copy to cLty Planner= cory to PubL£c Workst Copy to City Engineer: Sketch Plan Reviewt. Escrow Deposit: ~150.00 Sl$~.00 $100.00 ~_ $1~000.00 Def£c£ent Unit charges? Delin~uen~ Taxes? Pleale t~s or ~rint the follo~ ~fomt~on~ Address of Subject P=ope~. , ~und, ~ ~ner's N~ Dakota ~il, Inc. Day Phone (813) 585-4727 ~ne='e Ad,ess_ 25 Ad~s S~eet ~h, Hutchinson, ~ 553~0 Appl~can¥/~ N~ (l~ othe~ =hen o~e=) Balboa ~nneso~ Co., Inu./~o~ ~il, ~c. Denise Bra, Welsh C~pahi~s~ ~a~. Ad,ess__8 Pine ~ee Drive, Ste. 240, ~den Hills, ~ 55112 Day Phone_ (612) 484-4334 N~e of Su=veyor~ Jack ~lk%, c/o ~an Pield ~ N~, ~u. Day P~one (612) 546-6837 N~e of Engineer=_ J~gk BOlke. c/o ~an Field & Nowak~ Znq~ Da~ Phone (612) ~46-6837 Z:XZSTING L~GAL D~-SCRZPT~ON: Addition ~on~ng District ~-1 PROPOSED PLAT HA~E= Block R.R. 13-~17-24-34-006-~ .... PZD No. 13-117-24-43-014-4 ~ea$$hold PID No. 13-1i?-24-34-~0~7 Use of Prog~ty~ Railroad. Track/Access tO ~oading Dock Has an application eve= been made for zoning~ variance, conditional use perm£=, or other action taken, resoLutioa number(a) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by ~]~ owners of the sub, eot property, or an ex~pI&na=io~ gSven~w,h~ this is not the case. ~t~a~ure of Owner D~'te - ~ Signature o£ Owner Date i1 I ~, i · II, I ~ (R~vksed 12/8/92) Application for MA. IORSLrBDlX~SION OF LAND / PI:~.L~II~ARY PLAt Cit~ of Mound 5341 Heywood Road, Hound, MN 55364 Phone= 472-0~00, Fax= 472-0620 HAY 2'1' 1993 ,, Planning Commission Site Vieit Scheduled: Copy to City Planner: copy to PubLic Works: Copy t~ gi~y gnginee=~ ........ ,, Other: a~C~ ~ ~ i'$ ,, ' Sketch Plan Review: Final PXat: $.1_00.OO -----'Escrow Deposit: ..... ~_1,000.00_- Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the folXowfn~ information: Address of Sub,eot Property , Mound, MN Owner's Name Dakota Rail, Inc. Day Phone (813) 585-4727 Owner's Address 25 A~am$ S~reet North, Hutchinson, MN 55350 ~licant's ~am~ (l~ ocher t~a~ %whet) Balboa .Minnesota Co., InC./Dakota Rail, Inc. c/o uen~se ~rown, wels~ companies, znc. - - Address 8 Pine Tree Drive, Ste. 240, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Day Phone (612) 484-4334 N&me of Surveyor: Jack Polka, C/O Rgan Field & Nowak, Inc. Day Phone (612) 546-6837 Name of Engineer: Jack Bolke..__=/o Ecan Field & .Np~ak, Inc. Day Phone (612) 546-6837 EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot See Exhibit A attached Addition Zoning District Block R.R. 13-!17-24-34-006-8 FID No. 13-1.13~24-43-014-4 Leasehol~ FID No. 13-117-24-34-007-7 Use of Property: Railroad Track/Access tO Loading Dock PROPOSED PLAT Res an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (x) no. If ~as, list date(e) of applica~ion, action taken, reso%ution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. This application must be signed by al~ owners of the subject property, or an ex~planation given why this is not the case. 'Signature of owner Date SHERMAN WINTHROP ROBERT R. WEINSTINE RICHARD A. HOEL ROGER D. GORDON STEVEN C* TOUREK STEPHEN J. SNYDER HART KULLER DAVID R. PEARSON THOMAS M. HART IV DARRON C. KNUTSON JOHN A. KNARP MICHELE D. YAILLANCOURT DAVID E. MORAN, JR. DONALD J. BROWN WINTHROP JON J. HOGANSON SANDRA J. MARTIN GARY W.SCHOKMILLER TODD B. URNESS SCOTT J. DONGOSKE PETER d. GLEEKEL ROBERT S. SOSKIN EDWARD J. DRENTTEL JEFFREY R. ANSEL LAURIE A. KNOCKE LLOYD W. GROOMS JULIE K. WlLLIAMSON BETSY J. LOUSHIN MARK T, JOHNSON & A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 3200 MINNESOTA WORLD TRADE CENTER 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET SAINT PAUL/ MINNESOTA TELEPHONE (612} 290-8400 FAX {612) 292-9347 DIRECT DIAL (612) 290-8546 WEINSTINE JULIE WIDLEY SCHNELL THOMAS H. BOYD JOSEPH C. NAUMAN DANIEL C. BECK ERIC J. NYSTROM KRISTIN L. RETERSON JOANNE L. MATZEN WILLIAM L. WINSON EVAN D. COOBS THOMAS A. WALKER GJNA M. GROTHE FOLLEN PATRICK W. WEBER CHARLES A. DURANT CRAIG A. BRANDT DAVID A. KRISTAL KARL A. WEBER JONATHAN D. CRAN ALOK VIDYARTHI TOMAS L STAFFORD CARLA J. PEDERSEN JAMES W. DIERKING CATHERINE A. DOHINGUEZ CHRISTOPHER W. MADEL SUZANNE H. SPELLACy JOSEPH S. FRIEDBERG OF COUNSEL DANIEL W. HARDY OFCOUNSEL BAND DELWERED May 27, 1993 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Dakota Rail, Inc./Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. Dear Sir or Madam: With this letter, please find enclosed for filing the Application for major subdivision of land currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc. Dakota Rail is in the process of selling a portion of its property to Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc., which owns adjacent land. Kindly review the enclosed documents, and call me or Tom Hart of our office if you require further information. It is my understanding from prior conversations with Peggy that for a lot split of this nature, it will not be necessary to create a formal plat with a distinct name. If I am mistaken in my understanding, please advise immediately. As we discussed with Mark Kegler, it is our hope that the requirement for a topographical map can be waived in this instance. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A. Joanne L. Matzen JLM/gm/~328 Enclosure cc: Denise Brown (w/encls.) Jack Bolke Thomas M. Hart mi m I I t ! ! Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. mil! May 4, 1993 Mr. Elli Mills, President Dakota Rail, Inc. 801 West Bay Drive, Suite 800 Largo, Florida 34640 Dear Mr. Mills: I am in receipt Of your letter dated April 27, 1993 regarding the potential subdivision of land currently owned by Dakota Rail. When we discussed this issue on the telephone, the focus of the conversation was on the form of the subdivision that would be required (plat versus metes and bounds description). Your letter raises another issue, specifically, the conveyance of property and subsequent subdivision by parties other than Dakota Rail. As I generally stated on the telephone, the City of Mound requires subdivisions to take place prior to the conveyance of land. The City's procedures require that Dakota Rail, as the land owner, be the applicant on the subdivision application form. This is the same process that you followed when you divided the Norwest Bank parcel. Therefore, in order to sell the subject parcel to Mr. Royer, Dakota Rail will first have to submit an application and complete the subdivision process. Regarding the form of the subdivision that will be required, I am enclosing a copy of Section 330:20 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. As you can see, minor subdivisions involving the creation of metes and bounds descriptions can only occur in cases of small scale residential subdivisions. Therefore, in order to subdivide the subject site, you will need to comply with the platting requirements found in the Code. Sincerely, R. Mark Koegler, PLA Consulting City Planner El'lC. CC: Mr. Ed Shulde, City Manager Mr. Curtis Pearson, City Attorney l~nd Usr / Envitonrncntal , Planning/Design Metro Boulevard ! Su,te 525 ' Minneapolis. M,nnesota 55439 ' (612) 835.99(~n ! m NIO~N! 1 ~V~'NUB¥ . ]ldd¥ I II III ~31AUIYJ ~ V1 ~o~ 31VAN~OO ? J~V] RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT 1701 AVOCET LANE, PART OF LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK S, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 21 0021, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-028 WHEREAS, the owner, Pamela Koring, has applied for a variance to recognize a nonconforming rear yard setback to the principal structure to allow construction of a conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is a corner lot, fronting on both Three Points Blvd. and Avocet Lane. The house faces Avocet and is addressed off of Avocet, however, Zoning Ordinance Section 350:310, Subd. 81. defines "Lot Line Front" and states, "in the case of a corner lot it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street." Therefore, Three Points Blvd. is the official front yard and the south lot line is the rear, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, the principal structures is setback 10 feet from the rear yard resulting in a variance request of 5 feet, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming 10 foot rear yard setback to allow construction of a conforming deck at 1701 Avocet Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. II 1, ! ! i Proposed Resolution 1701 Avocet Lane Page 2 Case $93-028 e 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 conforming 16' x 15' deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 1 and 2 except the Northwesterly 26.2 feet of said Lots 1 and 2, and the Northeasterly 15 feet of Lot 3 except the Northwesterly 26.2 feet of said Lot 3, all in Block 8, Dreamwood. 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. MINUTF~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 1993 ,,A~. E~...~_2_8'_ PAMELA K RIN 1701 AVOCET LANE LOT"' I . BLOCK 8 DRE~AMW O 2 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to recognize the existing nogconforming setback from the dwelling to the rear property line in order to extend the existing deck. The deck extension is fully conforming to the City Code. This property is a corner lot and according to the Code Three Points Blvd. is the official front yard due to the lot width and thus requiring a 15 foot setback in the rear. ' Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to expand the existing deck in a fully conforming location as it is not practical or feasible to move the house to a conforming location. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 5}4~ MA~'WOOD ~OAD MOU~':Z Mm.~ESOTA 55364 ::_:Z 472 5600 cA?, 6'2 472 0620 DATE: TO: FROM: Planning Commission Agenda of June 28, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and St~a~..~ Jon Sutherland, Building Official~v/. ~ SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Pamela K. Koring CASE NO. 93-028 LOCATION: ZONING: 1701 Avocet Lane R-2 Two Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback from the dwelling to the rear property line in order to extend the existing deck. The deck extension is fully conforming to the city Code. This property is a corner lot and according to the code Three Points Blvd. is the official front yard due to the lot width, and thus requiring a 15 foot setback in the rear. The location of the dwelling, constructed in 1976 does not appear to be nonconforming as the house fronts on Avocet where the normal setback to the south would be 6 feet if this were the side yard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to expand the existing deck in a fully conforming location as it is not practical or feasible to move the house to a conforming location. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the city Council on July 13, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper 4/93 .,VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OP MOUND 534X May~ood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Pax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site Visit Scheduled: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No..~ '~0~<~ Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: ' -' - eeleeeleeeeee~eT~~· eeeeeeeeeeeee~leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.eee.eeeeeeeeeeeelee ~lease ~¥pe or prin~ the ~ollowing in~orma~iom: Address of Subject Property. \~ Owner's Name~~~_ ~, ~~ ~ay Owner's Address ~'~O~ k~~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Block ~ Use of Property: ~,~J~O~_. Has an application "ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (~) no. If y~s, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot~ i , ,~ ~ ~ Addition %~£~'~ C C 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): \ II 1, ! ! It 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No (~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) required requested VARIANCE (or existing) SETBACKS: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. ft. sq ft ~C~_sq ft "sq ft ~O sq ft Front Yard: Rear Yard: E W ) Lake Front: ( N E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E Side Yard: ( N S Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specifyeach non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ') too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~t~ ~ ~~ ~D .~D ~-~ ~%~ ~ 5. Was 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 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case No. 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? 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. ' ?" '" ©© Pl~t o£ Survey £or Hus~m~n Investment Co~par~ in bot~ 1~ 2, ~n~ ~ Dl~c~ 8, Dr~'ood Honnapin County, Minnesota Certi£tcate of Subway: :~ '' ; I hereby certify that this in t, t. rue ::nd r'orr~.(-t renresent~t,l.)n of a su~oy o~ ~e ~d~rias of i~t~ l and ~ exee-~t, the Northv~ct- erly 26.2 feet of said ~ts l ~nd 2, and the ~:orU.~nst,rly l~. ~t of ~t 3 except, thc North~csL,:rly PA.2 feet of s~,1d [~L 3, ,~ll ~n Block 8, ~ea~d, and thc loratto:~ of u!l ,xist]n~: b,~ldings, ~f any~ thereon. It do,~s not uur~rt ~ shn%~ other tmDrovc~nts or enc~ach~nts. Scale~ 1" = ~0' ~r,ion h. C;~ln ~~ o , I~n ~rker ~ng ~]ke~ )4innesotz HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: SQFrX30% = SQ FT X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH X X TOTAL HOUSE ........... SQ FT GARAGE: TOTAL (]ARAGE DRIVEWAY: TOTAL DRIVEWAY X DECK: TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK @ 50% x OTHER: X = TOTAL OTHER ........... TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER .............. MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS? BY DATE __~YES NO ,~11 i DECK COSTS Total Cost 2 17.29 34.58 18 106.56 Price Quantity Item Sacb 13 Joists (2 x 10 x 10) 9.77 127.01 (green treated lumber) Beams (2 x 10 x 16) (green treated lumber) Decking (1 x 6 x 16) 5.92 (green treated lumber) Posts (4 x 4 x 8) 3.95 (green treated lumber) Cement Nails Labor (by family - no charge) 3 11.85 25.00 10.00 $315.00 I am extending my existing deck (16' x 6') by 9 feet in width (16' x 15'). There will be two sets of posts (6 altogether) to support the deck (see sideview drawing). I will be using 2" x 10" joists, putting them 16" on center.' I will be using green treated lumber for all of the wood. Cement will be used also above ground to avoid rotting of the wood. GENERAl, ZONLNG L~'OR,~LATION SI{EET ACCESSORY BUXLDI~ FRONT: N S · FRONT r N · · · ZDE~ N S E SIDE; N L~SHO~ z 50' ACCESSORY BOIL~ T~ N S : N S g W SIDEr N S E W N S B W RESOLUTION #93- REBOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ~RBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS X ~ID 32~ SLURP ~ LINDQUIST'S I~VENS#OOD, PID #13-X17-24 41 0035, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has City licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The city does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance 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.350:420. 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. ii I ~, ! ! il, i ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION JULY 12, 1993 Case //93-029: DR. DONAI.D SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. VARIANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the city Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case #93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried ? - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. III J, ! ! it i i MINUTF~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI.~SION JUNE 28, 1993 CASE #93-029; DR, DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD, OF LOTS 1 & 32, $&L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, VARIANCE FOR FENCE, Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence at the side property line extending to the shoreline. This request results in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. The applicant's property abuts public property known as Arbor Lane which is used for commons docks. There is a lift station on this adjacent property which they would like to screen and they also have several concerns dealing with the use of the land, its impacts on their privacy, and the need for a buffer between the two. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. It was noted that the applicant's were not present. Mueller commented that he is not in favor of this request as it will set a precedence for other properties abutting public land. Hanus does not have a problem with the request, the applicant's view will be cut the most. The Building Official noted that a fence height variance was previously granted for the Terwilliger's to allow a 6 foot high fence that abuts a fire lane which is used as an access to the commons. Sutherland also indicated on the overhead that the neighbors view would not be blocked by the fence due to the angle of the houses. Weiland commented that he agrees with Mueller that a precedent should not be set and any problems with traffic or noise should be taken care of and the unsightly debris should be removed. Mueller questioned if the lift station could be fenced as it is so brightly painted. Voss confirmed with staff that tall bushes could be planted along the property line with no minimum height. Clapsaddle commented that the applicant's should not complain about cars and traffic as the commons area was there before they purchased the house, but the rest of the issues should be addressed by the City. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to deny the variance as requested as plantings and other methods of buffering could be used to solve tho problem. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Michael, ross, Hanus and Jensen. Johnson opposed. Johnson commented that he was opposed to the motion because he has no problem with the fence and he feels it would solve the problem. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993. CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT 534* MAYWOOD ROAD MOU%;D MINNESOTA 557i.-:' ;687 ~612} 472 0600 FAX 6'2~ 472-062.~ DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of June 28, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and~ Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Dr. Donald Sween 93-029 2028 Arbor Lane, Lot 6, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist Ravenswood, PID #13-117-24 41 0035 R-iA Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking a variance to City Code Section 350:475, Subd. 5 regarding fence height. This property abuts city property known as Arbor Lane which is used for commons docks. There is a lift station on the adjacent public property as noted in the photographs submitted by the applicant. The applicant has several concerns dealing with the use of the public land, its impacts on their privacy, and the need for a buffer between the two. The request results in variances for fence height of 3 feet to the limit of 36 inches within 50 feet of the ordinary high water, and for see- through visibility level which is required to be equal to that of a chain link type fence. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993. This case printed on recycled paper II I i · il, I i 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 ..~ JUN z 1 !';'.93 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. ~ ~'~?'~E}tC~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property -~69.~y ~~/t~., Owner's Name,~.~_.j .~/)-?(f'./..,(d:/,.;,~d:~_,~ Day Phone Owner's Address ~C.¢y~// W~-K~6r~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address /- Day Phone ----- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~o~ ~ ~oo~ ,~on_~d,-- C~ 10% I,h~l ~ <~+ L '~"~' ' ~'~---~ .o. Zoning District -- Use of Property: 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. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number Page 2 Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~/), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No ( ). If no, specifyeachnon-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Was 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 4/9~ Variance Application Page 3 Case No. q~-0 ~-I 6. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~), No (). If yes, explain T.' - Are the ~25~dl~lons of ~arasnlp for wn~cn you request a variance pecull~ ' only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~/), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. APplicant's Signature Date FA~ 612 473 6002 ANCHOR SCIENTIFI ~ CITY OF ~IOtND RECEIVED .. . JUN .. 8 S993 Cert~Lf~cat~ of Survey' for of Lot 6, 'SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32 SKARP AND LINPQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD' Hennepin County, Minnesota ,{ ......... "":;I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: Lot 6, "SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32, SKARP AND'LINDQUIST,S RAVENSWOOD". This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existino house and deck thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed addition. It does not Purport to show any other im- provements or encroachments. Iron marker Existino spot elevation Rearings shown are ba~ed upon an assumed datum. * : Denotes distance shown on record plat. Mark S. Cronber$ Minnesota License Nu. mb~ tZTSS OA~ 5-29-92 SC~L~ 1"-20' 10eN0'92_242 il I l, ! i U GEN~-~v~L ZONI~4G I~i~'OI:L!VL~TION SI[E~I' Survey on file? yeses_ no__ Required Lot ~idth: Existing Lot Width , Depth 8~TBACK$ REQUIRBDI FRONT; H S · FRONT: N S B SIDE: W s K W REARz N S E # LAAESHOi~z 50' {measured fro~ EXXSTZNG A~ID~OR ~ROPO$SD SETBACKS: PRINCIP~ BUILDING FRONTI N S g W ~RONT~ N S g SIDE: N S g $lPK~ N S g ~ N S g W THIS PROPERTY CONPORJ~ING7 YES. Date of survey lot of Record? yes ~'~ , i(,f~O~&~e,~n afl improved public ltre~t) ~r ? no ? FRONT SIDE: SLOE: RY.A~ t ~ S HORZ ACCESSORY SUI~)ZI~ SO' (measured fro~ 0,~,~,) ACCESSORY BUILDII~ FRONT: FRONT: SlDE~ SIDS~ ~SHO~! WILL TH· PROPOSED IMPRO~M~NTS CONFO~J4? YES DAI~, / /,__ KO (3O) CITY of MOUND 53,4.' ~ ",'~A Y',','OO D MOUND L'I, iN~'4 E S DTA 6'12, -:-2 0601 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM; SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Marvin Nelson 93-035 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8 Shadywood Point, PID ~18-117-23 32 0012 ' R-1 Single Family Residential The applicants are requesting a variance for the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 3.7 feet to the required 30 feet for the existing dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. The existing dwelling has a permanent foundation and the owner has no plans for moving the structure at . this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 27, 1993. JS:pj printed on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Ma~wood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~-0~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~g~e~:': Please type or print the following information: Address of Subject Property ~DOJ~-- ~-~/~ ~ ~3(9 ~ ~/~ Owner's Name /~'~(?pC>[IL~ ~J~ L(~(O/] Day Phone ?~.3- V3~-~-" Owner's Address ~0~ ~ '~/~0/~''' C'~'~Of3~ Z /%)' Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .ot ¢ Zoning District Use of Property: Block 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.): J 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback r_e~ulations for the zoning district in which it is located~ Yes (), No ~). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe ~easo for variahce request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) n SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W~) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. i~}~ ~3 ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft ' ~ ' ~qq ft sq ft s q ft ~~~s f t s q ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~), No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Se Was 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 (7~- If yes, explain Iii J, !, i II, ~ ~ 4/93 Variance Application Page 3 Case NO. ~5--05~ Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (i). 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: 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. owner' s Signature applicant's Signature CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR. JOYCE NELSON OF LOTS {5 AND 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Existing Legal Descriptio~-~ Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, "SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN." This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hardcover. It does not purport to show any other improvements . e: Iron marker found o: Iron marker set Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum. Lot Area = /~,zt~!f, ~ RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26.3 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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 conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~93-035 Be This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. II 1, ! i It ~ ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-035: Marvin Nelson 2025 Shorewood Lane Lots 5 & 6 Block 8 Shad ood Point PID//18-117-23 32 0012. V~CE FOR GARAGE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26.3 foot setback variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as requested upon the condition the existing shed be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on July 13, 1993. II 1, ! ! I~ ~' !" ='-'50/ Existing Legal Description Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, "SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hardcover" It does not purport to show any other improvements . ~~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCQVER CALCULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA HOUSE: GARAGE: J'H¢~ DRIVEWAY: 8Q FT X 30% = SQ FT X 15% = LENGTH WIDTH _ 33. ? /2 c,- xx _2~.3 X _ 12. o X /0, o = /2_ 0 TOTAL'GARAGE ****************** TOTALDRJVEWAY ***************** 753.7 DECK: (if impervious - /~'/ X x surface under deck - 100[) OTHER: = /72. o TOTAL DECK TOTAL DECK ¢a4...¢. j'~-(~, C~. ~,~ ~.'o _ TOTAL OTHER PROPOSED HARDCOVER ' TOTAL · · *** **** **** · *** ** UNDER (OVER) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT8 * · · , , , , , , , . , , , BY: D ATE: _YEI~..._NO .! ? CITY of MOL'ND To: From: Mayor and city council Gino Businaro, Finance Director Date: July 9, 1993 Re: Bond Recall Herewith please find the city Attorney's memo and two resolutions calling for redemption of outstanding bonds. It is our recommendation that you authorize calling for redemption of the $700,000 outstanding General Obligation improvement Bonds of 1979 and the $100,000 outstanding General Obligation Bonds of 1982. The cash in the Debt Service funds is sufficient to pay the principal and any accrued interest for these two bond issues. This bond redemption will benefit the city in two ways. First of all, the high interest rate payments on the bonds will be ended. Secondly, cash surpluses will be transferred to fund 30 and will be made available for future allocations. The surplus cash has been generated by property assessment prepayments, the interest on the assessments and favorable investment returns. If you need additional information on this matter please feel free to call me at 472-0608. printed on recycled paper A. THOI~A$ WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, UAHES D. I-ARSON, P.A. THOI~A$ F. UNDERWOOD, LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A mA~TN~SHim INCLUDING PROFE:SSlONAL ASSOCIATIONS ONE FINANCIAL I~LAZA, SUITE IIOO 120 SOUTH SIXTH STREET NINNEAPOLIS, NIINNESOTA $5402-1803 June 25, 1993 Mr. Gino Businaro Finance Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 JUN 2 8 1993 Dear Gino: Re: Call for Redemption - $300,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1982 $3,100,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds of 1979 I enclose herewith proposed resolutions for consideration by the Mound City Council. In addition to the resolutions calling for redemption of the outstanding bonds published in a periodical' I have prepared the notices which should be published in a Minnesota city of the first class for its metropolitan area, which circulates throughout the state anf furnishes financial news as a part of its service. I can visit with you later as to which paper you might want to use for the publication. I am also suggesting that immediately upon approval of these resolutions by the City Council, certified co ' agents so they are awar . _ ~l.es be sent to the a in u ' · o e of what is t£ansplrln and P y g bllcatlon of the notices, an =~--~ ...... g~. that after the · ~u~v~ or publication be transmitted to hem and to this office indicating that the publication has taken place. I further advise you that the publication should take place by the terms of the resolutions on Or before August 15 1993. It is important that you meet the statutory requireme~%s-a~l_ls° people have an opportunity to see the notice and to prepare for the reinvestment of their funds. If you have any questions or comments concerning the resolutions or the notices of call for redemption, please contact me. CAP:ih Enclosures Si~erely, .~ ~..~ls A. P~arson City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE WHEREAS, on July 1, 1979, the City issued $3,100,000 of General Obligation Improvement Bonds to mature in the years 1982 through 1996, and WHEREAS, on April 1, 1992, all outstanding bonds maturing after that date became subject to a call for redemption at the option of the City in inverse numerical order on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par and accrued interest, and WHEREAS, after the April 1, 1993, maturity, there are bonds outstanding in the amount of $700,000 maturing as follows: $200,000 on April 1, 1994; $200,000 on April 1, 1995; and $300,000 on April 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has advised the City Council that there is currently sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1979 to pay the balance due on said bonds, and WHEREAS, it is determined that it is in the best interests of the City to call for redemption of said bonds and to terminate the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1979, and the Finance Director is to advise this Council if there are any surplus funds on hand after the redemption, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, as follows: 1. All outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1979 dated April 1, 1979, having stated maturity dates of April 1, 1994; April 1, 1995; and April 1, 1996, shall be called for redemption immediately. 2. The outstanding bonds total $700,000, and the City Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to transfer to Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association, formerly known as the Northwestern National Bank of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the paying agent on said bonds, sufficient monies to pay principal and interest and any outstanding expenses to call the bonds. 3. The City Clerk, City Finance Director, and City Attorney are further authorized and directed to publish a Notice of Call for Redemption in a periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class for its metropolitan area which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service. The Notice of Call for Redemption shall be published on or before August 15, 1993. A copy of said Notice of Call for Redemption is marked Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. A copy of this Resolution shall be sent to Norwest Bank Minneapolis, N.A. and to any person who may have registered their names with the City as owners of said bonds. Attest: Mayor City Clerk ! I ~, ! · il, i I EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OP 1979 CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that, by order of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on October 1, 1993 all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1979, dated July 1, 1979, having stated maturity dates of April 1, 1994; April 1, 1995; and April 1, 1996, the outstanding bonds being called totaling $700,000 in principal amount. The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to October 1, 1993, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at Norwest Bank Minneapolis, National Association, in the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, on or before October 1, 1993. Dated July 13, 1993. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Francene Clark City Clerk City of Mound RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE WHEREAS, on October 1, 1982, the City issued $300,000 of General Obligation Improvement Bonds to mature in the years 1984 through 1997, and WHEREAS, on October 1, 1992, all outstanding bonds maturing after that date became subject to a call for redemption at the option of the City in inverse numerical order on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par and accrued interest, and WHEREAS, after the October 1, 1993, maturity, there will be $100,000 of bonds outstanding, with $25,000 of bonds maturing on October 1, 1994; October 1, 1995; October 1, 1996; and October 1, 1997, and WHEREAS, the City Finance Director has advised this Council that there is sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1982 to pay the balance due on said bonds, and WHEREAS, it is determined that it is in the best interests of the City to call for redemption of said bonds and to terminate the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1982, and the Finance Director is to advise this Council if there are any surplus funds on hand after the redemption, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, as follows: 1. Ail outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982 dated October 1, 1982, having stated maturity dates of October 1, 1994; October 1, 1995; October 1, 1996; and October 1, 1997, shall be called for redemption on or before the call date of October 1, 1993. 2. The outstanding bonds total $100,000, and the City Finance Director is hereby authorized and directed to transfer to First Trust Company of Saint Paul, in St. Paul, Minnesota, the paying agent on said bonds, sufficient monies to pay principal and interest and any outstanding expenses to call the bonds. I I ~, I · il, i I 3. The City Clerk, City Finance Director, and City Attorney are further authorized and directed to publish a Notice of Call for Redemption in a periodical published in a Minnesota city of the first class for its metropolitan area which circulates throughout the state and furnishes financial news as a part of its service. The Notice of Call for Redemption shall be published on or before August 15, 1993, and shall call all outstanding bonds for redemption on October 1, 1993. A copy of said Notice of Call for Redemption is marked Exhibit A and is hereby incorporated in and made a part of this resolution. A copy of this resolution and the Notice of Redemption shall be sent to the First Trust Company of Saint Paul and to any persons who have registered their names as owners of said outstanding bonds. Mayor Attest: City Clerk EXHIBIT A NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that, by order of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on October 1, 1993 all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982, dated October 1, 1982, having stated maturity dates of October 1, 1994; October 1, 1995; October 1, 1996; and October J 1997, the outstanding bonds being called totaling $100,000 in principal amount. The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to October 1, 1993, on which date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at First Trust Company of Saint Paul, in the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, on or before October 1, 1993. Dated July 13, 1993. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL Francene Clark City Clerk City of Mound 11 i, ! ! it i CIT5' X'IOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE NO. 93-034 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC. INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF THE BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the city Council of the city of Mound will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 10, 1993 to consider a Final Plat request for the proposed Balboa ,ddition involving land located north of the Balboa building for lands owned Dy Dakota Rail, Inc. The Final Plat will result in the creation of two new parcels, generally located in the following described property: All that part of the Dakota Rail, Inc., railroad right-of-way located in the South Half of Section 13, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota. A copy of a plat map showing the location of the proposed subdivision is attached for your reference. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. F~ancene C. Clark, City Clerk ~ublished in "The Laker" July 26, 1993 and mailed to property owners within J50' by July 26, 1993. pr~nted on recycled paper ! ',, I I J, i i I~ I i Mound city Council July 13, 1993 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 CASE NO. 93-035 R~QUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE, MARVIN NELSON, 2025 SHOR~WOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID %13-117-23 32 0012 The Building Official explained the request. Commission recommended approval. The Planning Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-93 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SF. ADYWOOD POINT, PID %18-117-23 32 0012, P & Z CASE %93-035 Councilmember Jensen asked that the following be added to the proposed resolution: "7. Removal of existing shed." The Council agreed and so did the applicant. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.7 APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF T~; $3,100t000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE The city Managed advised that there is currently sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1979 to pay the balance due on these bonds. Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-94 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $3,100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 ISSUE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 APPROVAL OF A ~SOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE The City Managed advised that there is currently sufficient money in the General Obligation Improvement Bond Fund of 1982 to pay the ii, Mound City Council July 13, 1993 balance due on these bonds. Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-95 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR REDEMPTION OF OUTSTANDING BONDS OF THE $300,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 ISSUE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A FINAL PLAT REQUEST FOR THE PROPOSED "BALBOA ADDITION" BY DAKOTA RAIL, INC., INVOLVING LANDS NORTH OF TR~ BALBOA BUILDING AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE, AUGUST 10, 1993, 7:30 PM MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set August 10, 1993, for a public hearing to consider a final plat request for the proposed ,,Balboa Addition" by Dakota Rail, Inc., involving lands north of the Balboa Building at 5300 Shoreline Drive. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 RESOLUTION APPROVING MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES The City Manager explained that this is a way for the lake communities to study ways to cooperatively deliver services. Councilmember Jensen stated this agreement will allow the Met Council staff to gather data and crunch numbers. The Council will be updated as the study continues. Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %93-96 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 APPROVAL OF PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT AND TEMPORARY ON-SALE NONINTOXICATING HALT LIQUOR PERMIT FOR INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL, OUR LADY OF THE LAKE CHURCH MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve a Public Dance Permit and a Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit for the Incredible festival, Our Lady of the Lake Church. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ti · 1, i · II, i I Mound City Council July 13, 1993 1.12 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENTS - REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $3t861.51 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve Payment Request %5 from Gridor Construction, Inc., for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project in the amount of $3,861.51. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $329,202.59, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR JUNE 1993. Be Eo Fo LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR JUNE, 1993. LMCD MAILINGS. LETTER FROM TRIAX CABLEVISION RE: JUNE SUBSCRIBER STATEMENTS. LETTER FROM ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES (AMM) RE: SUMMER OUTREACH BREAKFAST SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 14, 1993, AT 7:30 AM, MINNETONKA RADISSON HOTEL, (RIDGEDALE). PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP IF YOU WISH TO ATTEND. LETTER FROM LOCAL RESIDENT RE: MOUND CITY DAYS. PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHANGES AS OF 4-1-92, AS PREPARED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. LMCD ADOPTED BUDGET FOR 1994. THE SCHEDULE FOR THE WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR: MEETING DATE NO AUGUST MEETING SEPTEMBER 7 OCTOBER 5 NOVEMBER 2 DECEMBER 7 MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL LIZ ANDREA PHYLLIS KEN J. REMINDER: C.O.W., TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1993, 7:30 PM. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 K. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 6-28-93. 1.2 RECONSIDER REQUEST TO ~OVE NO PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD, FROM ?WR INTERSECTION OF COMMERC~ BLVD. WEST APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET, MOUND EVANGELICAL FRE~ CHURCH The Building official explained that he has spoken with the Fire Marshal and he advises that a certain number of feet on the South side of Alder Road needs to remain no parking because the Fire Department would need to hook into the fire system on that side of the Pond Arena if there were a fire. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to reconsider Item #1.2, Resolution #93-89, because new information has been received. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council discussed the situation and Duane Norberg agreed that to leaving a to be determined number of feet no parking on the South side of Alder Road to accomodate the Fire Department equipment. The Building official will contact the Fire Department and find out how many feet from the corner of Commerce Blvd. and Alder Road that will be required to stay no parking. Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-89 RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE NO PARKING RESTRICTION ON A CERTAIN SECTION OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF ALDER ROAD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Smith arrived at 8:35 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION The City Attorney asked that he be allowed to present the Summons and Complaint to the Council and visit with them to get direction in Executive Session. He further related that the allegations made in the complaint, essentially relate to a sign which is in front of the House of Moy and it is the contention of the plaintiff that the City, which has not taken action to get rid of the sign at this point, is violating their freedom of speech and First Amendment rights. The Attorney stated that is unfortunate that the materials that appeared both in the newspaper and on TV tonight emphasize the crosswalk when the litigation basically relates to the two signs that are in front of the House of Moy. Mr. Pearson stated that he has spoken to Mr. Tanak, the attorney for the House of Moy, and with direction from the Council, Mr. Pearson is hopeful that they can work out a relatively quick settlement as it relates to this matter. Mound City Council July 13, 1993 The City Attorney also stated he needs to speak to the Council about another litigation which relates to the Bluebird Lane situation. The Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:45 P.M. The Council resumed after Executive session at 9:25 P.M. The City Attorney stated he has report to the Council of two lawsuits. The first relates to the lawsuit that was served today by the House of Moy vs. City of Mound and after discussion the following action will be taken. MOTION made by Ahrens moved, seconded by Jensen directing the City Attorney to negotiate with the plaintiff and their attorney and indicating that the City of Mound has no intention of depriving anyone of their First Amendment rights and that we shall try to resolve this lawsuit in a equitable fashion as quickly as possible with a minimum amount of expense to both the Plaintiff and the City. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney reported that the second item that was discussed related to a threatened lawsuit by 5 residents on Bluebird Lane against the City of Mound. He reported that Mr. Shukle, and Mr. Fackler and Mr. Pearson have been working on this for some extended period of time. They have visited the site and have reported back to the Council with various findings. The Plaintiffs have demanded 7 different remedies, of those we have previously indicated that we don't think 5 of them are negotiable. There were 2 items that were left open, one related to marking the Commons and the other related to the number of dock sites. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen directing the City Attorney to respond to Mr. Maynard indicating that the City will put forward some minimal suggestions relating to the demands, but in essence it is the consensus of the Council that the dock sites are very important to the people in the subdivision and there is not desire to make any change. Councilmember Ahrens stated that she has always said that there is room for some more movement so she cannot vote for the motion as it was made. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens voting nay. carried. Motion COUNCIL SALARIES The Mayor stated that he asked the City Manager to review what Council salaries have been over the years. He reported that in 1966 the Mayor got $30.00/month and the Council got $10.00/month; · · ii, I I Mound City Council July 13, 1993 in 1969 the Mayor got $75.00/month and the Council got $50.00/month; and in 1978 the Mayor got $150.00/month and the Council $100.00/month. The 1978 salary is still in place. This was food for thought. No action was taken. MOTION made by Jessen, ~econded by Ahrens to adjourn at 9:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 93 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAKE MINNETONKA AREA CITIES WHEREAS, the City of Mound and other cities around Lake Minnetonka have begun studying ways in which to cooperatively deliver services; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has indicated that they are willing to provide technical assistance to conduct a three year program review and analysis of city services and alternative methods of delivery; and WHEREAS, such a project is designed to assist local governments in reviewing and analyzing their services and to search for ways to assist them in implementing efficiencies or alternative delivery systems; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has proposed a technical assistance Memorandum of Agreement which is hereby made a part of this resolution; and ' WHEREAS, the purpose of the Agreement is to officially commit the Metropolitan Council and the cities indicated to a three year collaboration relating to service delivery, and WHEREAS, the Agreement is effective upon execution and shall remain in effect until July 31, 1996. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves the City of Mound's participation in the attached Memorandum of Aqreement between the Metropolitan Council and the cities so indicated and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the Agreement. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF AGREEM~ENT FOR ~OPOLITAN COUNCIL TO PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSI_SWANCE IN PROGRAM REVIEW/ANALYSIS TO LAK'E MINNETONKA AREA CITIES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into the day of , 1993, between the Metropolitan Council ("the Council") and the cities of Chanhassen; Deephaven, Greenwood and Woodland; Excelsior; Minnetonka; Minnetonka Beach; Minnetrista; Mound; Orono; Shorewood; Spring Park; Tonka Bay; Victoria; and Wayzata (Cities) for the purpose of conducting a three-year program review and analysis of city services and alternative methods of delivery. I. NEEDS STATEMENT Less state aids and flattened property tax revenues have resulted in revenue decreases to local governments. The economic conditions of recent years have required public agencies to focus on efficiency and effectiveness. Agencies are faced with choosing between needed services and desirable services or different ways to deliver services. Many cities have trimmed staff and ceased expansion of services as revenues have flattened or decreased. With staff stretched thin and often performing more than one job, it is almost impossible to free up staff to do special projects Such as looldng at ways to create greater efficiency-in services or to provide them in a different way. Governor Acne Carlson has placed a priority in asking local governments to find ways to deliver services more efficiently and effectively. He has asked the Metropolitan Council to assist local governments in this effort. As a result, the Metropolitan Council is offering to a select number of community groups some technical assistance. The technical assistance will enable local units to examine current practices and to evaluate a variety of options and efficiencies for a variety of services. According to Minnesota Statute 473.244 Subdivision 10 the Metropolitan Council is authorized to conduct special studies and prepare reports regarding the necessity for the consolidation of common services of local governmental units and the kind of consolidation most suitable in the public interest. It is not the intent of this agreement to consolidate municipalities~ This agreement is entered into recognizing that: Competition between local governmental units can produce pressure for efficiency; Big is not always better. Large cities are decentralizing decision making and providing service delivery at the neighborhood level; and Maintaining community identity and local control are important elements in decisions on service delivery. The Lake Minnetonka area cities currently cooperate and contract for services in numerous ways such · · u I I · EngineerinffConstruction · Maintenance/Public Works · Public Safety · Recreation/Youth/Senior/Culture · Administration and Miscellaneous The work groups, in cooperation with Council staff w/Il: determine the best means to measure costs, personpower and efficiency; identify specific areas where a 'value for money' study could be valuable in providing comparability data and establishing performance benchmar -ks; identify areas where cooperative efforts could be undertaken on a "fast track;' identify different standards and levels of service for each community; produce reports in each functional area; · develop serv/ce delivery options w/th a cost analysis. The Council staff w/Il: Conduct "value for money' studies to be agreed upon by the Steering Committee and Metropolitan Council staff; · meet w/th each city's staff to accumulate data; coordinate the efforts of the Steering Committee, advisory groups and work groups; develop and administer a citizen satisfaction survev document which may be utilized by the various cities to incorporate satisfact'ion in determining set2v/ce levels; offer technical assistance in analyz/ng and developing, or mediating serv/ces and in implementing cooperative service delivery options chosen by the city councils on an as needed basis. 3.04 .Prepare Draft Report. A draft report of the results in each of the service areas with recommendations will be prepared by Council staff in consultation w/th the work groups. The draft will be presented to the advisory group(s). The recommendations will include an analysis of various options including cost and feasibility questions regarding implementation. 3.05 ..prepare final report. Final reports will be prepared by Council staff on behalf of the advisory group(s) in each of the set-v/ce areas for discussion and approval by each of the IN WI'I~ESS WIIEREOF, the parties have causcd this agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representative. ,M E~FIiO 1,O LITAN COUNCIl, CITY OF CI LXNH. ASSEN By: Sharon G. Klumpp, Executive Director Mayor Date: City Manager Approved as to form: CITIES OF DEEPHAVEN, GREENWOOD, WOOD LAaND Assistant Council CITY OF EXCELSIOR Mayor o[ Deephaven Mayor of Greenwood Mayor of Excelsior Mayor of Woodland City Manager CITY OF MINNETONKA Administrator CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACII Mayor Mayor City Manager Clerk CITY OF MINNETRISTA CITY OF MOUND Mayor Mayor City Administrator City Manager CITY OF ORONO CITY OF SHOREWOOD Mayor Mayor City Adzai::ixtrator CI'IT OF' SPRING P.\RK CITY OF TONFL.'t B:',.Y Mayor Mayor Administrator Administrator CITY OF VICTORLA CITY OF WAYZATA Mayor Mayor Administrator City Manager 2¥o3 ~ $25.00 Day - Single Dance · $200.00 Yr.- Annual Dance Date Of Single Dance / License Year Annual Dance EVENT: LOCATION OF DANCE: CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 pUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APp$ICATIO~ TYPE OF DANCE: TIME PERIOD OF DANCE: ADDRESS: HOME PHONE PHONE CHAIRPE_~SON OR ADDRESS: HOME PHONE #: WORK PHONE #: Date Applicant' s SignAtu~ Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Police Dept. Adm. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. D~Died $10.00 for 3 days plus $2.00 per day after third day Limited to Ten Consecutive Days Only Four Per Year to any Organization Dates Permit Will se~ CITY OF MOUND TEMPORARY ON-SALE NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR PERMIT Address of Event: ~. 3 ~ f Cvy~y%4e~-~ ~/V ~ - -- . Chair.man Organization~ ~~ f ~ ~~r Title _ Address:_= ~~~~ ~IV~ Address :~~ ~&~~.~ Phone No.:_ ~7~- /~ ~ Home Phone: ~.~1 to the City Clerk ~ to the C~issi~r of Mlic Safety as a c~itim of the issu~e or re,wa[ of his [ice~e. Pr~f of fi~ial r~ibility she[[ ~ gi~n ~ fi[l~ a certificate that there is in eff~t ~ in- ~ra~e ~[icy or ~[ providi~ the mini~ covera~s for dr~ sh~ [i~i[ity es r~fr~ ~ Mi~sota Statutes, ~tim ~OA.(~, ~ivisfm 1. It ia the int~t of this s~tim to r~ire the mfni~ imur~e c~ereg~ ~ts r~ir~ ~ Ri~otm law. ~ount o~ Cove=a~e:~ Secti~ 810:10. ~. 1. ~licati~ Fo~. In the case of ~y ~[icati~ for a T~rary [~ sale a~ c~t(~ of ~r ~ ~[ic I~ or ~[ic sch~[ ta~, the ~llc~t ~a[[, ~ior to iss~e of s~ [ic~se, fi[e the writtm c~t of the ~r of s~h [a~ to s~h ~e of its I~. Date Applicant s ~ur~-- J JUL 08 '93 ll:llAM MCCOMBS FRflHK ROOS P.~/3 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 $12/476-8552 FAX Planners Surveyors July 8, 1993 Mr. Edward 3. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota 1992 Lift Station Improvements MFRA 99868 Dear Edt Enclosed is Grtdor's Final Payment Request in the amount of $3,861.51 £or the 1992 Lif~ Station Improvements. Because this wo=k is fully completed, we do not recommend any amount be retained. We have reviewed this project with Oreg Skinner, your Utili=y 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 $3,861.51 which is full payment for thie project. I~ you ha%e contact us. any questions or need additional information, please Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosures An Equal O;:)lJortunlty Employer 11 P. BILLS. July 13, 1993 BATCH 3063 BATCH 3064 TOTAL $131,395.79 197,806.80 $329,202.59 O0 O~ ! 0 0 ! ,.4 h- 0 oo ,o o !gm ,,,7 Z~ 0 Z hi Z 0 ,< 0 0 a --/ ~J la= 0 Z !> :0 I I Io Iii I ~0 ~0 o o o 0 Z · oo oo ~0 0 o o 0 Z ~ o 0 ~J o 0 0 , 0 O, 00, 0 O, I ,,( ..J ,~ ,,.j tZ t, pQ~ Un,' TZ' ~"Z ~,.J n,'I I Il Q: LU ! ~ "~Z .I LU ! ~z_J LJZ ~"Z i1~. ~P' I~ Z l,&,l UJ i'% ~'~ '% Z UJ .,J G. V) Z .J · Q. -- la. , t~ ~4~-~ ~1 O0 0 0 0 Z kkJ · Z 0 0 I-- Z ~0 ~0 o oo O..J '.r r,, O, I!1 z z _= ',-z = ziz .z M Vt .-.I O0 O~ 1.4.-i 0 2: Z 3: iV) I-' I- F.- O~ I-, O~ I-, ::) ).. a,. IV) ri, (v~ C~ .( 0 ,4 0 ~4 Z I%I Z f~ 0 I +Z I-- I,,- ' Z 0 -.I CIO V) I',.. .( 0 /.'1 ,,-I I% Z O, (2: ::) FZ t-- Z ZZ ,,-,~ Q::: t0 I I ,4' I ,4* ! el'L,) LU I n*~.j ~'Z tun" ~- ...) I ! I ~1 *! 0 b. h' V) kU kU ~ n,' --I Z 0 ~0 11 0 Z ),,, I- Z :) 0 0 0 n, z tu o~ Z OC~ tU,.J VIZ Z-~ O0~, VIZ, Z t.J _J ~Z ~--) Z Z /% ZI ,W tU ~ tUi n,i ::l: :~:: :3:i -r Z Z hi: 0 h~ · I- ~n Oi ~ni 0 · · u I I iZ o o o o o O00Z o oo O~ ! 0 o ,.4 zD 0 X 0 o' oo 0 ,mC k- Z Z 0 ~'~ 0 ,-4 Z uJ I'1 o oo ~.1 in o ..J I- 0 l- O Z bJ ~C ~1~ 0 bJ t~J Z Iii I · I · ,% i-4 I I 0 z I. iJ Z 0 Z uJ o oooo I I I ooo 00.4, I I ! Il I Z 0 ed Z 0 I--. q,,,,; fl,...I u..IZ 0"~' 0 oo ~4 I o oo oo oo Z Z 0 l- Z 0 ~J ;I I~1 I ii f~ Z ~ I h,,,~ ZZ t,LJ .J .J Z~ ~ 0 0 ~ Z Z ~ 0 · .41 0 Z )- · )- Z 0 C~ Z bJ %, ~. 0 o ~-~ oo ~4 o o ! ,.4 o. C~ 0 0 ~Z o O 0 tu CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD qOAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 ~687 (612,472-0600 FAX ,6:2; 272.0~20 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 8, 1993 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building official~-~, JUNE ~993 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY This month 50 building permits were issued for a value of $658,130 which included 3 new dwellings and 1 demolition of a dwelling. Total construction value for year-to-date is $1,856,424, about 15 percent down from last year at this point. There were also 31 plumbing, mechanical and other miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 81 in June. PLANNING AND ZONING Our new Shoreland Management Ordinance and the maximum 30 percent hardcover regulation is keeping our staff, Planning Commission and City Council busy with variance requests. The DNR who mandated the ordinance throughout the state is also very busy as each community is required to notify them of variances and other actions taken in the shoreland zone. The 30 percent maximum is an admirable goal, but time will tell if it is realistic for some of our older metro lake communities. Some problems have surfaced with the lake lapping at the door due to the continual rain. This fact helps in keeping the hardcover regulation in proper perspective. The Rental Task Force and Planning Commission have completed their reviews of the proposed rental ordinance and it will be forwarded back to the Council with comments as soon as possible. Review of the Truth in Housing Ordinance is continuing at the Planning Commission level. July 9th is my 3 year anniversary and I am very pleased to be here as Building official and to be involved with all the changes we are experiencing. JS:pj City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: ,toNy. Year: ~'n~o mur~'~'a YEAR TO DATE ~ t ~a.~rr~ t unrrs VALUATmn t UN~ ~ZON V~UA~N S~O~ F~Y D~ACHED 3 3 3~4 ~ 000 9 946 ~ 463 S~O~ F~y A~ACHED ~ F~Y I D~ M~ F~Y ~ ~ MO~ ~s~ HSO. ~l~ ~ M~I ~ s~ 3 3 314,000 9 946,463 N I P~ V~UA~N I P~ V~UA~N O~E I ~O~SlON~ ~U~ ~ I ~H~ TONS I P~ V~UA~ON I P~S V~UA~N nDO~ns ~ .amc~,n~ ~Ut~DmO 3 ~ 05,627 ~ 7 317,530 D~nCH~ nCC~SOaV aureolas 2 12,523 7 51,103 D~ 8 20,014 20 47,694 s~mo ~ 1 4,609 1 4,609 M~sc~us ~OD~L 30 174,357 83 351 ~ 009 S~Zva.~ 44 317, 130 128 771,945 · ZO.S V~U~N t ~ V~Un~N ~C~ / ~Am 1 20, 000 8 47 ~ 345 O~E I ~O~SlON~ ~DU~ 1 7,000 2 33,221 ~/~ . 1 57,450 S~T~ 2 27,000 11 138,016 D~OLX~ON~ ~ P~(~ ~ UN~S VALUATION ~ P~$ VALUA~ON ~~ D~LLmOS 1 2 D~AC~D ACC~SORY BU~D~GS co~aezo.s/c~os or uss t p~ffs i UNffS VALUATION I P~ V~UA~ON ~ P~ ~ UN~ V~UA~ON ~ UN~ V~UA~N ~ PE~ 9 TOT~ S0 3 ~8,[30 .' [~[ ee~z~ co~ ~,s ~o~. v~.~u~ · n~ma 50 151 ~ a ~A~O wA~ 7 ~ 6 s~.s 5 16 ~mo 8 54 ~H~ 3 30 o~mo 1 2 ~w, ~ ~CAV.~ ~, ~. 7 ~ & ~ 8~ 283 CITY of NIOUND 534: L"-,'WOOD ROAD MOUND L''.',SSOTA 55364 16ET ,~'i 4:'2-0690 FA~ £'2 472 0620 PARKS JUNE REPORT PARKS June was a busy month, the Around Mound Run and Mound City Days occurred during a time when rains where delaying the general mowing and maintenance work. The Minnesota Tree Trust crew finished the installation of the new play structure at Three Points Park. The final work was great but they had a lot of trouble with the rain and vandalism setting them behind schedule. DOCKS The updating of all of the encroachments on public and commons lands saw the mailing of renewal applications to all owners of thee structures. Tom McCaffrey has been very busy with this process and we hope to begin the renewal processing shortly. TREE/WEEDS Three notices were sent for hazardous tree removal from private property and seven weed notices sent to private land owners. CEMETERY Phil Haugen has been doing a good job with the grounds maintenance at the cemetery. The weather has caused problems but Phil has managed to work around the storms to provide a neat appearance to the cemetery. BEACHES The beaches at Three Points, Wychwood, Centerview, Pembroke and Mound Bay Park opened for their regular summer schedule. If the rains continue and the lake level goes up any higher, we won't have to worry about cleaning the sand off each morning. Right now we are down to about 10 feet left of sand at Mound Bay Park and Pembroke is under water. JF:ls printed on recycled paper ~n ~, ! i it I I 08--Jui-93 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSIN^RO, FINANCE DIRECTOR JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT INVESTMENTS Balance: The following is the June investment activity: June 1, 1993 Bought: CP 3.23 CP 3.23 Money Market Money Market Shearson Due 9-22-93 Shearson Due 9-22-93 4M Monthly Income Reinvested Matured: Federal Home Loan Dain Bosworth Federal Farm Credit Shearson Federal Natl Mtg Assn Dain Bosworth CD 3.90 Marquette (Recall) Balance: June 30,1993 $4,579,315 495,956 744,067 100,000 4,007 (2oo,ooo) (199,340) (4oo,ooo) (~ 75,ooo) $4,949,005 Repo~s Various reports were prepared and filed in June. The City Annual Financial Report and related information were submitted to the National Government Finance Officer Association for their review and comments. It is our expectation that we will receive the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting again this year. As required by law, a lengthy report was prepared for the State Auditor and filed with the 1992 audited Annual Financial Report. Other reports dealt with employee salaries and benefits. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND M!NNESOTASE3644687 ~6~2 472-0600 FAX(6~2 472-0620 July 2, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS MANAGER JUNE MONTHLY REPORT Half of the year has gone by already. How time flies when you are having fun. Even the 12th coldest and wettest June in modern times could not dampen our spirits here at the liquor store. We had our 2nd best month ever, grossing slightly under $135,000. Our best month was last December when sales rocketed to almost $145,000. I am anxious to see if we can top that figure in July. Last year in June sales were $117,357 and customer count was 10,398. We were exactly 15% up in sales in June of 1992. With the incredible increase in sales and because I lost one employee last month and because I have been putting in 50 hours per week, I decided it was time to add another person, putting our total of part-timers to seven. They are cordial and conscientious individuals. A little green but with our training program they seem to be coming around famously. On another topic, this is the 4th year anniversary of our card board baler. Since its inception I have estimated that we have recycled 22,000 pounds or 11 tons of cardboard. JK:ls 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: Ed Shukle FROM: Len Harrell SUBJECT: Monthly Report for June 1993 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 1,099 calls for service during the month of June. There were 44 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conducts, 7 burglaries, 34 larcenies, and 1 arson. There were 70 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 6 child abuse/neglect, 1 narcotic, 16 damage to property, 3 liquor law violation, 6 DUI's, 8 simple assaults, 10 domestics (2 with assaults), 4 harassments, 3 juvenile status offenses and 13 other offenses. The patrol division issued 113 adult citations and 4 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 21 tickets. Warnings were issued to 19 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 11 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 18 adults and 11 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 5 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 13 vehicular accidents, 2 with injuries. There were 44 medical emergencies and 67 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 16 occasions in June. Property valued at $21,978 was stolen in June. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JUNE 1993 II. INVESTIGATION The investigators worked on 7 child protection issues and 6 criminal sexual conduct cases in June. Those 13 cases accounted for 79 hours of investigative time. Other cases included burglary, robbery, assault, deprivation of parental rights, damage to property, forgery/NSF checks, theft, threats, absenting, and harassment. III. Personnel/Staffinq The department used approximately 87 hours of overtime during the month of June. Officers used 111 hours of comp-time, 178 hours of vacation, 53 hours of sick time, and 9 holidays. Officers earned 98 hours of comp-time. Mound City days and the Around Mound Run accounted for approximately 72 hours of over-time in June. IV. Training The department sponsored a full day "situational" (FATS) shooting course for all officers. The firearms instructors attended a one day "use of force" update for training the department. Other courses included a two day "data practices" course, a two day "pursuit" course, a two days "bicycle patrol" course, one day of "Wilson Leadership" training, and two seminars in preparation for "Operation Rescue". Police Reserves The Reserves donated 499 hours during the month of June. Officer John Ewald requested to be relieved as the reserve liaison in June. Sgt. Grand has assumed those duties. Reserves Jim and Katie Fox, and Tom Geyen resigned during the month citing other personal commitments. TO' Chief Harrell FROM: Officer Ewald, #18 DATE- July 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Crime Prevention During the month of June, I contacted seventeen businesses in Mound that are involved in retail sales and discussed problems in their individual area and store concerning kids congregating, shoplifting and employee theft. Most of the businesses believe that the congregating is not the problem it has been in past years, but that the shoplifting is still a growing concern. I ad- vised them that the police should be contacted on each incident that occurs. Employee theft does not seem to be a concern, even though they admit that it probably does happen. I have put on three lectures' 2020 Commerce Boulevard, 2461 Commerce Boule- vard and 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, concerning senior citizen safety and the vulnerability of seniors. I have made periodic visits to the three senior citizen locations, partici- pating in their meetings and general discussions. My plan for the month of July is to locate areas that would like to become involved in the Neighborhood Crime Watch program and to get the neighborhood areas set up. OFFENSES REPORTED CLEARED UNFOUNDED ~JNE EXCEPT. CLEARED 1993 CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVENILE PART I CRIMES lio~icide 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Co~duct 2 0 1 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 0 0 0 0 Burgtary 7 0 1 0 Larceny 34 0 2 6 Vehicle Theft 0 0 0 0 Arsm 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 46 0 4 6 0 PART Il CRIMES Chi td Abuse/Negtect 6 3 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 O 0 Crimina[ Oamage to Property 16 0 0 1 0 I~eapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotics 1 0 0 1 0 Liquor Laws 3 0 0 2 1 Dt~I 6 0 0 6 6 Sin~ote Assaut t 8 1 3 0 0 Domestic Assautt 2 0 2 0 0 Ooeestic (No Assautt) 8 0 0 0 0 Harassment 4 0 0 0 0 Juveni te Status Offenses 3 0 0 3 0 Pub[ ic Peace 0 0 0 0 0 T respess ing 0 0 0 0 0 Att Other Offenses 13 0 2 9 11 11 0 0 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 TOTAL 70 4 7 22 18 PART Ill & PART IV Property Damage Accidents 11 Persenat Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Medicats 44 Animal Complaints 67 Mutual Aid 16 Other Genera[ Investigations S]7 11 TOTAL 977 Hennel~in County Child Protection 8 TOTAL 1,099 11 28 18 22 in · I, i · tt I MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE 1993 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH Hazardous Citations 40 Non-Hazardous Citations 65 Hazardous Warnings 12 Non-Hazardous Warnings 14 Verbal Warnings 103 Parking Citations 21 DWI 6 Over .10 6 Property Damage Accidents 11 Personal Injury Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 2 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 21 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 2 Juvenile Felony Arrests 11 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 11 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 1 Part I Offenses 44 Part II Offenses 70 Medicals 44 Animmal Complaints 67 Other Public Contacts 837 YEAR TO DATE 284 284 77 80 769 177 39 29 44 10 0 20 118 4 24 38 148 323 194 410 4,406 LAST 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 TOTAL 1,390 Assists 89 Follow-Ups 40 Henn. County Child Protection 8 Mutual Aid Given 16 Mutual Aid Requested 0 7,480 204 155 28 56 7 6,518 441 132 37 74 27 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 1993 ADULT 6 6 3 5 0 29 1 0 9 0 2 0 1 0 31 0 0 21 1 6 0 8 0 134 JUV 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 · · u I I MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1993 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants ADULT 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 2 3 JUV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 1-Jul-93 13:25 PRO03 Primary ISN's ooLy: No Date Reported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 Activity codes: All Property Status: At[ Property Types: All Property Oescs: Brands: Al Nodets: Att Officers/Badges: Alt MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop lnc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov~d 1 93000904 01 01 S 5/26/93 50 8 93000928 01 01 R 5/31/93 50 6/01/93 B BICYCL 93000990 01 01 S 6/07/93 241 B BICYCL 93001001 01 01 S 6/08/93 125 B BICYCL 93001008 01 01 S 6/09/93 451 B BICYCL 93001008 01 02 S 6109/93 452 B BICYCL 93001060 01 01 S 6/15/93 130 B BICYCL 93001060 01 02 S 6/15/93 130 B BICYCL 93001096 01 01 S 6/20/93 120 B BICYCL 93001125 01 01 R 6/23/93 400 6/23/93 B BICYCL 93001136 01 01 S 6/25/93 600 C 93000964 01 06 S 6/03/93 100 C 93001048 01 05 S 6/14/93 295 C 93001083 01 05 S 6/19/93 500 E 93000910 01 01 R 5/27/93 3 5/27/93 G 93001083 01 03 S 6/19/93 500 G 93001083 01 04 S 6/19/93 350 G SHOTGU 93001015 01 01 S 6/10/93 250 d 93000964 01 01 S 6/03/93 250 j 93000964 01 02 s 6/03/93 1,200 J 93000964 01 03 S 6/03/93 250 J 93001059 01 02 S 6/15/93 600 d 93001059 01 03 S 6/15/93 1,000 J 93001059 01 04 S 6/15/93 300 0 93001129 01 01 S 6/24/93 150 R 93000908 01 01 S 5/26/93 170 R 93000911 01 01 R 5/27/93 53 5/27/93 R 93000913 01 01 R 5/27/93 132 5/27/93 R 93000964 01 05 S 6/03/93 1,000 R 93001029 01 01 S 6/12/93 85 R 93001048 01 01 S 6/14/93 325 R 93001048 01 02 S 6/14/93 520 R 93001048 01 03 S 6/14/93 220 R 93001083 01 01 S 6/19/93 700 R 93001083 01 02 S 6/19/93 250 R 93001142 01 01 S 6/20/93 50 R 93001145 01 02 S 6/12/93 350 R 93001145 01 03 S 6/12/93 100 R SPEAKE 93000987 01 01 S 6/07/93 150 R SPEAKE 93000988 01 01 S 6/07/93 100 R SPEAKE 93001142 01 02 S 6/20/93 100 R SPEAKE 93001145 01 01 S 6/12/93 120 R SPEAKE 93001146 01 01 S 6/13/93 60 R STEREO 93001144 01 01 S 6/23/93 300 Page I Fl115 421 50 1 U3498 421 1 B3894 NISHIKI MOUNTAIN 418 1 U3498 ~OUNTAIN 404 1 U1499 GIANT CROS NUTRA 421 1 U1499 O B CROSS APPROACH 421 1 U3497 FREE SPIRI 418 1 U3497 418 1 U3498 HUFFY FREESTYLE 404 400 1 U1497 422 1 U1493 FUJI 10 SPEED 405 1 T8029 421 415 1 TC159 404 1 B3364 CANNON 35MM 411 3 1 U3288 422 1 B3364. S & g 411 1 B3364 S & g 411 1 TF029 g FIELD 20 GA 421 1 TB029 421 415 1 TB029 421 415 1 TB029 421 415 1 B3394 418 2 B3394 418 1 B3394 418 1 TG029 419 1 TG159 421 53 1 U3288 405 132 1 TG159 405 1 TB029 421 415 1 TG159 421 1 TC159 SONY CD 404 TC159 404 2 TC159 404 1 B3364 PIONEER VSX5600 411 1 B3364 SONY 411 1 TG169 PIONEER 1 TC169 APELCO 1 TC169 US MARINE BAY 40 1 TG169 MAJESTIC 405 4 T4169 PRIONEER 418 2 TG169 KENUO00 2 TC169 B ACCOUSTI 1 TG169 REALISTIC 1 TC169 SC)NY XR240 Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 Value Code Assnd Assnd Run: 1-Jul-93 13:25 PRO03 Primary ISN's only: No Dat~Reported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 :tivity codes: At( ?roperty Status: ALt Property Types: Att Property Oescs: ALL Brands: Models: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLE#/RECOVEREO BY DATE REPORTED Page Prop Prop Ino no ISM Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Va[ue 93000955 01 01 R 93001015 01 02 S 930010~8 010~ S 930010?0 01 01 S 93001O8O 01 01 S 930010~0 01 02 S 9300100~ 01 01 S 93001039 01 01 R 93001059 01 01 $ 93001~ 01 O? S 93001128 01 01 $ 93000908 01 02 S 93001119 01 01 S 9300113~ 01 01 S 9300O995 01 01 S 93001083 01 06 S 93001083 01 08 S 93001144 01 02 s 93001145 01 O~ s 93000903 01 01 R 9300~17 01 01 R 93000946 01 01 S 93000964 01 04 S 9300~4 01 01 S 93001008 01 03 $ 93001050 01 01 S 6/01/93 6/10/93 6/14/93 6/17/93 6/1~ '93 6/18 '93 6/09/93 6/13f93 6/15f93 6/19/93 6/24 ?93 5/2~ '93 6/23/93 6/25/93 6/08/93 6/19/93 6/19/93 6/23/93 6/12/93 5/26/93 5/29/93 5/29/93 6/03/93 6/08/93 6/09/93 6/14/93 60 25O 120 3,000 4O0 650 125 85 58 25O 50 1,500 100 150 35 25 48O 130 13 5O 15 5O 24O ?2O 100 **** Report TotaLs: 21,978 Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brar~ Model Off-1 Off-2 Recov'd Value Code Assnd Assnd 6/06/93 60 1 TG029 421 1 TF029 421 I TC159 404 1 TC059 ICAWASAKI 421 1 TC059 422 I TC059 422 1 T3021 416 6/13/93 85 1 TG021 419 1 B3394 418 1 B336~ 411 1 B3434 418 1 TG159 421 I TC159 JEEP 422 1 TG159 418 1 B3~ 422 1 B3~ 411 1 B3~ 411 1 TC169 I TC169 5/26/93 13 1 U3288 405 5/29/93 50 I T4159 419 1 TG099 416 1 TS029 421 1 T4029 422 4 U1499 421 3 TG029 404 422 415 8~6 81.000 Run: 1-JUL-9] 14:32 CFS08 Primary ]SN's only: No Date Reported range: 05/26/93 - 0612519'~ Time range each day: 00:00 - :>3:59 Ho~ Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Dispositions: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: ALL Oays of the week: ALL HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 29 9001 J-SPEEDING 1 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 1 9003 d-NO O/L~ EXPIRED D/L 1 9014 STOP SIGN 2 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 1 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 3 9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 3 9040 NO SEATBELT 8 9050 ALLO~ING INCONPETENT TO DRIVE 2 9100 PARKING/ALL OTNER 19 9150 NO TRAILER PARKING 2 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 5 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 31 9221 J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 2 9301 LOST PERSONS 1 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNOS 9 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 9 9315 UNCLAIME DESTROYED ANIMALS 4 9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIOENTS 1 Page n · ~, I · tt I Run: 1-flu(-9~ 14:~ CFS08 Primary ]SN's onty: No Dat~Reported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 T~ ~nge each day: 00:00 - 7-~:59 How Received: At L Activity ResuLted: ALL Dispositions: ALt Officers/Badges: Att Grids: ALL Patrol Areas: ALt Days of the week: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Carts For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9440 H/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. 1 9450 PROPERTY DAHAGE ACCIDENTS 10 9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 1 9561 DOG BITE 2 9562 CAT BITES 1 9563 DOG AT LARGE 1 97~ ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 6 9710 NEDICAL/ASU 4 9720 MEDICAL/OOA 1 97-50 MEDICALS 37 97-51 MEDICALS/DX 2 9800 ALL OTNER/UNCLASSIFIEO 7 9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 8 9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 1 9900 ALL HCCP CASES 8 9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 7 9920 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT 4 9930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 1 9950 INFO/INT 2 9~.' ~RRANTS 5 9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 3 9992 HUTUAL AID/8100 9 Page Run: 1-Ju[-93 14:~2 CFS08 Primary ISN~s on[y: No Date Reported range: 05/26/93 - Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Ail Officers/Badges: Ail Grids: Alt Patrol Areas: Ail Days of the week: Ail M(XJND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLls For Service iNCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION [NC[DENTS 9993 9994 A5351 A5352 A5353 A5354 A5355 A5505 83364 B3394 B3434 B3864 MUTUAL AID/6500 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS NRM-HANOS-AOLT-FA~ ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-STR ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM ASLT 5-1NFL[CTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLO-AC~ ASLT 5-THRT BOO[LY HARM-NO ~/EAP-CHLD-ACQ BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-CC~q THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-CC~I THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-O-UNK ~EAP-CC~4 THEFT BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK 14EAP-COM THEFT B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-CO# THEFT B~390 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK I,~EAP-UNK ACT B4990 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK t~EAP-UNK ACT ~C500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK ~1115 ARSON 1-[NHAB-NO t4EA-SG RESID-$299 LESS :2109 CRM AGNST FAN-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-OTHER I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM'MS'NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION :2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK [NJ-UNK VEH Page Run: 1-Jul-93 14:32 CFS08 Primary ISN's on[y: No Da~* Reported range: 05/26/9:] - 06/25/9:] 1 ange each day: 00:00 - 2:]:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: AIl D Jsposi t ions: Ail Officers/Badges: A[ [ Grids: All. Patrol Areas: Ali Oays of the week: ALi NOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Ceils For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF DESCRIPT]ON INCIDENTS TRAF-ACCID-NS-DR[VE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH OEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP-CHLD-FA~ J~500 J3EO0 K6004 L107:] CSC 1-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-l:]-15-F L3073 CSC 2-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-13-15-F N3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER M~ JUVENILE*HABITUAL TRUANT M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY M8199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER N3060 DISTURB PEACE-MS-CONCEALING IDENTITY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS Pl120 PROP DA/~GE-FE-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT Pl130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P2110 PROP DAI, La. GE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P2120 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT P2130 PROP DAMAGE-G/4-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3110 PROP DAHAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3120 PROP DAJ(AGE-MS-PUBL[C-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE'MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-NS THEFT-S250 LESS-FE-FRM BUILDING-HONEY 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 8 2 1 1 1 P3 P3600 T3021 Page R~.m'~: 1-Jul-9~ 1~:32 CFS08 Primary ISN~s onty: No Date Reported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 2~:59 How Received: ALL Activity ResuLted: ALL Oispositio~s: ALL Officers/Badges: ALL Grids: ALL Patrot Areas: ALL Oays of the week: ALL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors CaLLs For Service INCIOENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF OESCRIPTION INCIDENTS T4029 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP T4159 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM MOTOR VEHICLE-OTH PROP T4169 THEFT-S250 LESS'MS'FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YAROS-OTN PROP TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TC169 THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP TF029 THEFT-2OI-SOO-GH-BUILD[NG-OTH PROP TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GN-BUILDING-MONEY TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP TG099 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-G~-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP U1493 THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-501-2500 U1497 THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 U1499 THEFT-FE-B[CYCLE-NO-MOTOR-35000-OR-MORE ~32~ THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE U3497 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO NOTOR-201-S00 UZ~98 THEFT-NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS Page Report TotaLs: 375 Run: 1-Jut-g3 15:00 OFF01 Primary ISN's onty: No ~eported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: AIL Activity codes= Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ACT ACTIVITY COOE DESCRIPTION A5351 ASLT 5'INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS'ADLT-FAH A5352 ASLT 5'#S'INFLICT BO HRM'HANOS'ASLT-AC A5353 ASLT 5'INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM'HANDS'AOLT-STR A5354 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS'CHLD-FAN A5505 ASLT 5'THRT BOOILY HARM'NO ~EAP-CHLD-ACQ B3364 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-N'UNK I~EAP-COH THEFT B3394 BURG 3'UNOCC RES FRC'U'UNK WEAP'COH THEFT B BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK ~tEAP-COH THEFT B3864 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COH THEFT B3894 BURG 3'UNOCC NRES NO FRC'U'UNK ~EAP'COH THEFT B4390 BURG 4-UNOCC RES FRC'U'UNK ~EAP'UNK ACT 84990 BURG 4'AT FRC RES'U-UNK ~EAP'UNK ACT DC500 DRUGS'ORUG PARAPH'POSSESS-UNK-UNK Fl115 ARSON 1-1NHAB-NO ~EA'SG RESI0-$299 LESS 12109 CRM AGNST FAH'GH'ENDANGER CHLD'OTHER ]3060 CRIM AGNST FAN-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD J2500 TRAFFIC'GH'DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF L]QLIOR J2700 TRAF-ACCIO-GN-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GH-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J35~. TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR d3k.. TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH K60~ DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK ~EAP-CHLD-FAN L1073 CSC 1-UNK ACT-AC~JAINT-13-15-F ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 100.0 1 50.0 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 oo.o Run: 1-Jut-g3 15:00 OFF01 Primary [SN's only: No Date Reported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Oispositions: ALi Activity codes: ALL Officers/Badges: A(L Grids: ALL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ..... OFFENSES CLEAREO ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEAREO L3073 CSC 2-UNK ACT-ACO~IAINT-13-15-F 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M3003 JUVENLLE-HABITUAL TRUANT 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M4199 LIQUOR - OTHER 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0 M5350 JUVENILE'RUNAWAY 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M8199 CRUELTY TO ANIMALS-OTHER 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 N3060 DISTURB PEACE'MS-CONCEALING IDENTITY 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 N3190 OISTURB PEACE-MS'HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 4 0 4 & 0 0 0 0 G Pl120 PROP DAFLAGE-FE'PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 P1130 PROP DAI4AGE'FE'BUSINESS'UNK INTENT 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P2110 PROP DAF(AGE-G/d-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P2120 PROP DAI4AGE'GM'PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P2130 PROP DAJ4AGE-ON-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3110 PROP OANAGE'MS'PRLVATE'UNK INTENT 8 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3120 PROP DAHAGE'MS'PUBLIC'UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3130 PROP DANAGE'MS'BUSINESS'UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3600 LITTER'UNLAWFUL OEPOSIT OF GARBAGE'MS 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 T3021 THEFT-S250 LESS'FE'FRM BUILDING-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 T4029 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 T4159 THEFT-S250 LESS-MS-FRM I~OTOA VEHICLE-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 O.~ TG169 THEFT-$250 LESS-MS-FRM WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TC059 THEFT-501-2500-FE-YARDS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 Run: 1-Jut-~3 15:00 OFF01 Primary [SN's o~[y: No Da, ...... -ported range: 05/26/93 - 06/25/93 Til. ..nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: Att Activity codes: Att Officers/Badges: Att Grids: Att MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIV[TY OISPOSITIORS Page ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEN-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TC169 THEFT-501-2500-FE-WATERCRAFT-OTN PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF029 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-BU[LOING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3 TG099 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-SELF SRV GAS-OTN PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 4 0 4 3 0 0 1 1 25.0 TG' 'HEFT-LESS 200-GN-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 U1493 THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-501-2500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U1497 THEFT-FE-SICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 U1499 THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO-MOTOR-35000-OR-MORE 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 U3497 THEFT'NS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0.0 **** Report Totals: 101 4 97 58 16 12 11 39 40.2 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF JUNE 1993 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 6/14 6/21 k1~~ ICtRS R~ JEFF ANDERSI~i~ ~ X 2 lq.O0 O 4q ~.1~ ?QA ~ GREGANDERSON X X 2 19.00 1~ 43 ~.flel 258.00 JERRY BABB X X 2 17.00 5 32 6.~ 192.00 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.00 ~ 27 &.(l~ 162.00 DON BRYCE X X 2 19.00 0 38 fi.~O 247.00 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19.00 ~ 35 6.00 210.00 DAVE CARLSON X X 2 19.00 ~½ 36 6.00 216.00 JIM CASEY X X 2 19.00 2 40 6.00 240.00 STEVE COLLINES X X 2 19.00 2 36 6,00 216.00 RANDY ENGELHART X X 2 19.00 1~ 25 6.00 150.00 STEVE ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 45 6.25 281.25 PI~ FISK X X 2 19.00 4 25 6.00 150.00 GERALD GARVAIS X X 2 19.00 2 38 6.00 228.00 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 10 58 6.00 348.00 KEVI~GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00 CRAT~ lem~r~k~g~ X X 2 19.00 0 43 6.00 258.00 p~, HENRY X X 2 19.00 10 37 6.00 222.00 BRAI) Y AIq{3.~:~,{A~ X X 2 19.00 2~ 37 6.00 222.00 RC~IMA~?4~q~R, X X 2 19.00 4 34 6.00 204,00 JORNNA~]S X X 2 19.00 5 30 6.00 180.00_ JAMES N-~e~N X X 2 19.00 ~ 37 6.00 222 MARVNEiSON X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.00 180.o~ BRET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 0 27 6.00 162.00 GREGPAIM X X 2 19.00 0 32 6.00 192.00 MIKE PAI~ X X 2 19.00 0 39 6.00 234.00 TIM PAIM X X 2 19.00 2 33 6.00 198.00 GREGPEDERSON X X 2 19.00 2 32 6.00 192.00 TflNYRASMUSSEN X E 1 9.50 0 0 6.00 -O- MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 0 46 6.00 276.00 KEVINSIPP~.]. X X 2 19.00 2 44 6.00 - 264.00 RONSTALLMAN X X 2 19.00 4 30 6.00 180.00 TC~SWENSON X E 1 9.50 2 30 6.00 180.00 WMSWt~SON X E 1 9.50 0 16 6.00 96.00 ED VANECEK X X 2 19.00 2~_ 45 6.00 270.00 RICK WILLIA~ X X 2 19.00 7~ 38 6.00 228.00 TIM W~,Y,T~MS X X 2 19.00 0 24 6,00 144.00 DI~S ~YTCKE X X 2 {19.00 4~ 42 6.00 252.00 37 34 71 ~'~u~ 7,704 2 ~ 92½ 85 177½ 674.50 88 1279 WY3~ ' 177½ I~ 674.~ 88 ~ 1,167.( ~ 9,.5 25 50 O0 5 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF JUNE 1993 MON/~ ~ TO DATE TO DATE NO. OF CALLS 63 42 292 232 MOUND FIRE 12 12 5 g 4 9 I~fl~RGENCY 2~ 11 116 87 MINNETONKA BEACH FIP'E ."': O 1 EIRE~GENCY 1 O 2 ] MINNETRISTA FIRE 0 0 ] 3 9 ORONO FIRE Z 0 ] 2 7 EIM]ntGElxL-'~f § 4 18 9 SHOREWOOD FIRE 0 0 ] 2 M~mGENCY 0 1 ] SPRING PARK FIRE 1 O !5 ]4 .,, ]~ :~-'RGE~-'"f 7 ~ 28 27 MUTUAL AID- FIRE I 1 EIMERGENCY 0 O 1 O TOTAL FIRE CALLS 15 14 105 90 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 48 28 187 142 .CO~m~CIAL 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ) 3 27 34 .nVDUSTUAL 0 0 0 1 GRASS & MISCELTANEOUS 5 7 29 22 AUTO Z 0 6 FALSE ALARM / FIRE ALARMS 3 3 36 2~ NO. OF HOURS _FIRE ?65 334 1410 ]381 MOUND EIM~GENCY 501 231 2228 I 682 T~AL 766 565 FIRE 0 24 49 68 - MTKA BEACH K~ERGENCy 26 0 52 30 TOTAL 26 24 .101 98 .FIRE O 0 237 285 - M' TRI STA M~GENCY 189 59 386 298 TQT. AL 189 59 623 583 FIRE 26 0 236 150 - ORONO .E~GENCY 98 92 350 214 ..... TOTAL 124 92 586 364 .FIRE 0 0 27 126 - SHOREWOOD ]~{]~]tGENCY 0 26 26 16 .,, TOTAL 0 26 53 142 FIRE 17 0 330 280 - SP. PARK _.IjI~IERGENL-'Y 147 164 575 561 TOTAL 164 164 ' 905 841 FIRE 10 69 109 220 - I~[7I'dAL AID _EMERGI~h~CY 0 0 30 0 TOTAL 10 69 139 220 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 177½ 155 967½ 1042½ TOTAL FIRE HOURS 318 427 2398 2510 ,TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 961 572 3647 2801 .T. OTAL FIRE & EIMERGENCY HOb]AS 1279 999 6045 5311 .MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 1 2 3 MUTUAL AID GIVEN 1 1 3 4 DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF MEN ON DUTY ANDERSEN ANDERSON BABB BOYD BRYCE BRYCE /~.5. D CARLSON ...~ J CASEY ~ S COLLINS / /~ R. ENGELHART ~, S. ERICKSON ~ P. FISK ~,~ J. GARVAIS /~ D. GRADY (' K. GRADY ~', C. HENDERSON /f: P. HENR q R. MARSCHKE 9 J. NAFUS )~ J. NELSON .~- M. NELSON (' B. NICCUM (~i G. PALM ~C M. PALM ~- T. PALM G. PEDERSON T. RASMUSSEN M. SAVAGE .__.~ K. SIPPRELL ,'?.. R. STALLMAN _.~ T. SWENSON [' W. WILLIAMS .~ E. VANECEK 2~ R. WILLIAMS ~' T. WILLIAMS ~.~. D. WOYTCKE HOLLND FIRE DEPARTMENT DR ILL REPORT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify [land Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Fi]ms First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss [louse Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations [louse Evolutions Nozzles & [lose Appliances Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused 0 Present / Not Paid M, ,ellaneous : PERSONNEL ~//~J.Andersen ~---~--G.Anderson J.Babb D Boyd D.Bryce S.Bryce 2--~ D.Carlson ~--r/~--J.Casey ~7~ S.Collins ~7~ R.Englehart S.Erickson P Fisk P//~ J.Garvais 2~D.Grady K.Grady ~C.[Ienderson P.IIenry Landsman ~--7/~ R.Marschke ~-~--~ J.Nafus ~---~--J.Nelson bl.Nelson Niccum G.Pa]m Palm T.Palm ~---r/~-~ G. Pederson T.Rassmusen M Savage K Sipprel l R Sta] lman .S ,enson wT. Swenson .Vanecek .Williams ~---r~--~_ T .Wi 1 1 iarr, s % L/~ ;1 ~---r/~D. Woytcke MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT DRILL REPORT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify []and Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Fi]ms First Aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operations Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas Demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliances []ours Training Paid : ~ Excused X Unexecused O Present / Not Paid Miscellaneous : PERSONNEL ~/~J.Andersen _~_~_G.Anderson J ---~D'Babb .Bo~d D.Bryce S.Bryce D.Carlson J.Casey ~ S.Collins ~ ~.Englehart Eri kson ~_~A~_~P.Fisk J.Garvais D .Grady K. G rady C. []enderson ~/~ P. Henry ~----J~B. Landsman ~_~ R.Marschke J .Nafus J Ne 1 son ~.Ne]son . Niccum G Palm ~/z~M Pa lm ~/~ T.Palm ~ G.Pederson ' T.Rassmusen ' ~_~__M.Savage ' ~ff~-K.Sippre]l , R.StalIman ~ T.Swenson ~ W.Swenson ~ E.Vanecek ~ ~_R.Williams ' T.Wil liams . i i ~, I i it I I July 8, 1993 CITY of MOUND To: Ed Shukle City Manager From: Subject: Greg Skinner Public Works June Activity Report Street Department The big project for June was preparing for the Seal Coating in July. We put down 331 Ton of blacktop. Mueller has hauled in all of the buckshot to the stock pile. We will begin the project the week of July 19. We also repaired 8 water main breaks. We spent 3 days working on the Run Around Event, Mound City Days, and Bruce Miller Duck Stamp Day. During the rainy days we installed and repaired signs. The Downtown Public Parking signs were also put up this month. Water Department We had 1 water main break on Grandview Blvd and Sunset Rd. We had quite and few Final Readings and locate this month. There were 2 standpipe repairs, and 4 t-off's for repair. I have given 2 different Water Meter Specification to the City Manager to look over for our up-grade project. Sewer Department This was a busy month for us. The first week we had Viking Pipe in town to televise 9,000 of sewer line. We will be reviewing the reports and tapes in July to determine what repairs will need to be done. On June 20th we had major damage to Lift Station B-3 on Westedge and Sinclair. At about 4:00 am a young man was driving home and fell asleep at the wheel. He ran off the road a hit the control panel for B-3 L.S. dead center throwing it 70' to the east. This has been given to the Cities Ins. Co. I have estimated that the cost for repairs to be between $20,000 to $25,000. pti?tod on recyclod ;)J;.?; BOARD MEMBERS Da,,id H. Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock. Secretary Spring Park S:o~ Carlson. Treasurer Minnetrista h' ,~e Bloom Minnetonka Beach A oe~ ~Bert) Foster Deephaven J-:roes N. Grathwol Excelsior ,~E!ten L. Hurr Orono W.!',iam A. Johnstone Minnetonka D~ane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Wctoria P:bert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 ° WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-703. EUGENE FI. STROMMEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 8, 1993 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: JUNE REPORT - LMCD 1.0 E0rasi0n Watermilfoil Task Force. 1.1 Thru 7/2, 254 acres of milfoil have been harvested. Included are Phelps, South Upper Lake, Excelsior, St Albans, Gideon, South Lower lake, Carmen's, and Lafayette bays. Slated for next week are Smith, Brown's and Wayzata bays. 2.0 L;~ke Management Plan 2.1 [&]~Sg..C,.~ I understand that some question continues to arise concerning premises liability for private fu'ms allowing the public to park on their property. The DNR feels that the law is applicable the way it is. Gene Strommen ~s pursuing a ruling thru the DNR from the Attorney General. 3.0 Other General Items 3.1 The lake level is presendy at 930.3 ft, which is near the all time high of 930.5 ft. Some erosion problems are occuring, particularly where large boat wakes can wash up on shore. 3.2 The Board declined to allow the Gideons Bay homeowners' association a variance to place extra long docks out through the cat tail marsh that fronts 5 lots at the west end of the property. Lots 4 and 5 can share a shorter dock and get by, but lots 1 thru 3 will have to dock their boats elsewhere on the development. This could very well result in litigation between the lot owners and the developer. 3.3 The board voted to reduce the allowable decibel level for boats on the lake from 82 to 80. T'nere is some question that this can be done, as it is stricter than the state law allows. 3.4 The LMCD 1994 Budget has gone out to the cities along with a letter explaining the reasoning for setting the budget where it is. 4.0 Mound Specific Items 4.1 The Stocks have been granted a conditional variance that will allow them (the new property owners) to place a small dock on the 20 foot Rp of l~d~/t 5shore that connects their parcel to the lake. Mound Representative - LMCD cc. Gene Strommen JUN 8 LAKE MINNETONKACONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata MN 55391 473-7033 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE JULY 1993 Saturday Friday Monday Wednesday 10 16 19 28 Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata Lake Use & Recreation Committee 5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata Administrative Committee Meeting 5:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Public Hearing 7:00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall 06/24/93 WP/MTG93. Jul Thursday, 1st Friday, 2nd Saturday, 3rd Saturday, 3rd Sunday, 4th Sunday, 4th Sunday, 4th LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL EVENTS CALENDAR 6:30 pm 6:30 pm 10:00 am 2:00 pm 10:00 am 11:00 am 10:15 pm 10:00 am 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:30 pm 6:15 pm 6:00 pm Monday, 5th Tuesday, 6th W~dnesday, 7th Wednesday, 7th Wednesday, 7th Thursday, 8th Saturday, 10th Saturday, 10th 10:00 am 10:00 am Saturday, 10th 10:30 am 10:00 am 11:00 am 2:00 pm 10:30 am 6:30 pm 6:00 pm Sunday, llth Sunday, llth Monday, 12th Tuesday, 13th Wednesday, 14th 6:00 pm Wednesday, Wednesday, 14th 6:00 pm 14th 6:30 pm JUN 2 8 JULY .1993 UMYC Sailboat Race, East UMYC Sailboat Race, Smith MYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East MYC Sailboat Race, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Fireworks, Excelsior Bay MYC Sailboat Race, Main' MYC Sailboat Race, Main Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Is. MYC Sailboat Race, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East WYC Sailboat Race, Main Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Is. MYC Sailboat Races, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Big Island UMYC Sailboat Races, West MYC Sailboat Races, Main SYC Sailboat Races, Big Island WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East MYC Sailboat Race, Main MYC Sailboat Race, Main Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Is. MYC Sailboat Race, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, West · i ~, ! ! I~ I I Thursday, 15th 6:15 pm WYC Sailboat Race, Main .Friday - Sunday, 16-18th WYC Aquatennial Cup Regatta Saturday-Sunday, 17-18th MYC TRASH Regatta Saturday, 17th 10:00 am 1:00 & 3:00 pm 10:00 am & 1:00 pm Saturday, 17th 2:00 pm Sunday, 18th 9:00 am 1:00 & 3:00 pm 10:00 am & 1:00 pm Sunday, 18th 10:30 am Wednesday, 21st 6:00 pm Wednesday, 21st 6:00 pm Wednesday, 21st 6:30 pm Thursday, 22nd 6:15 pm Saturday, 24th 10:00 am 2:00 pm 10:00 am Saturday, 24th 2:00 pm Sunday, 25th 6:00 am Sunday, 25th Sunday, 25th 10:00 am 1:30 pm 10:30 am Tuesday, 27th 6:00 pm Wednesday, 28th 6:00 pm Wednesday, 28th 6:00 pm Thursday, 29th 6:15 pm Saturday, 31st 10:00 am 2:00 pm 10:00 am 6:00 pm 11:00 am Saturday, 31st 6/23/93 MYC Sailboat Races, Big Island E WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East MYC Sailboat Race, Big Island E WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Is. MYC Sailboat Race, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, East WYC Sailboat Race, Main MYC Sailboat Races, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Big Island UMYC Sailboat Race, West Westonka MDA Bass Fishing Tournament Excelsior Bay MYC Sailboat Races, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Main UMYC Sailboat Race, West MYC Sailboat Race, Main Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Is. MYC Sailboat Race, Main WYC Sailboat Race, Main MYC Sailboat Races, Main WYC Sailboat Races, Wayzata Bay SYC Sailboat Races, Big Island UMYC Sailboat Race TRI CABLEVISION 1504 2nd St. S.E., P.O. Box 110, Waseca, MN 56093 507/835-5975 FAX 507-835-4567 . June 15, 1993 JUN 3 ! 1993 Mayor Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Johnson: I would like to take this opportunity to give you and the council an update as to the changes that are taking place, due to the new FCC regulations concerning the cable industry. The June subscriber statements reflected a "neutral price shift." Our expanded service subscribers experienced a reduction of $0.06 in their monthly statement and the "basic only" cable service subscribers received a reduction in their monthly statement of $4.43. In addition, within the next sixty (60) to ninety (90) days, Triax Cablevision will add four (4) satellite channels to the system to bring us into, or as close to, FCC compliance in reference to cost per channel benchmarks. As in the past, we at Triax will make every effort to keep you, the council and our subscribers as informed as possible to all changes that occur and may occur in the future due to the FCC regulations. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Re~gional Manager - Triax Cablevision July 24, 1993 association of metro tan · po!i. mun apal ties JUN P. 8 1993 Edward Shukle Mgr. 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Edward, Metropolitan cities face several critical issues that may be decided by the 1994 Legislature. Urban poverty and the apparent disparity of affordable housing near job creation centers was a matter of much discussion during the 1993 session and will continue to be so when lawmakers return in 1994. Also, 1993 was the first year in several that state-provided city revenue was not cut, but in fact, grew slightly. However, there will be interim hearings and 1994 discussions on less aid to cities, more aid to people and tying property tax to income. We want your views on these and other issues of importance to establish the legislative direction for the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities in the 1994 session. To provide a forum for this exchange of ideas, we are planning our eighth annual summer Outreach Breakfast for you and other city officials in your area. The breakfast is scheduled for Wednesday, July 14, at 7:30 a.m. in the Wellington Room at the Minnetonka Radisson Hotel located on the southeast corner of Highway 12/Interstate 394 and Ridgedale Drive interchange. Exit the interstate at Ridgedale, turn south and drive one block to the hotel on the left. Please R.S.V.P. to Carol, 490-3301, by noon Monday, July 12. Your input on the following issues will be helpful for policy development: * Urban poverty and how to combat it; * Effective location of afforable housing in conjunction with job creation and/or location; * Transit and highway funding alternatives; 3490 lexington avenue north, st. paul, minnesota 55126 (612)490-3301 * Revenue issues dealing with LGA/HACA distribution, LGTF continuation and the desirability of pursing a constitutional amendment or local option for city sales tax, and * How to influence or obtain commitments and/or build identification of metro issues with metro legislators. This is not a formal gathering and we hope for lots of discussion from you. Your opinions, concerns and advice will definitely help shape AMM policies and priorities for the 1994 session. The breakfast also can be an avenue for you tn tell us what you'd like to see the AMM do in the way of member services. Are there other support services that we should provide or improvements to the existing services that you can suggest? have any ~tions, ~rely/ ~ AMM President New Brighton Manager We hope you plan to attend the July 14 breakfast at the Minnetonka Radisson Hotel. We would ask that managers make this information and invitation available to city council members. As always, if you please call the AMM office. AMM Past President Minnetonka Council~er Jim Presser AMM Board Member Richfield Manager June 26, 1993 Skip Johnson, Mayor Mound City Offices 5341Maywood Mound, MN 55364 JUN 2 8 1993 Dear Mr. Johnson, Mound City Days was certainly a success, despite the unpredictable weather! I have one complaint, however, and that is regarding the Carnival held in the Pond/Community Center parking area. Were you aware that many of the game stands were giving knives and lighters as prizes? Nothing is more frightening than to hear that 9, 10, 11 and 12 year old children are being awarded dangerous "toys", and I even heard that the Carnival employees were instructing the youngsters to "quick, hide this (knife) before the cop spots it". One of my sons ended up getting his bike tire slashed during the carnival. I'm sure it was the result of one of these fine gifts being handed to a child who is still too young to understand proper use. Also, the carnival is outrageously expensive, charging $2.50 for the most popular ride. Couldn't we have a city cook-out with wheel-barrel.races, etc. in its place? Let's make different plans for next summer and have a safer holiday. Thank you: ~~ Jeana Fox copy to Mound Police METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-090 June 25, 1993 To: Local Government Key Contacts The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared preliminary population and household estimates (April 1, 1992) for your community. An estimates worksheet, which includes 1990 Census background data, is enclosed. The estimates are used by the Council to monitor population and household change in the Metropolitan Area. We strive to provide estimates that are accurate and that treat each municipality consistently. If you have questions or comments about the estimates, please contact Kathy Johnson at 291-6332. If you prefer to submit written comments, please direct these to Ms. Johnson as well. In early July we will send the estimates to the State Department of Revenue for use in their local aids formulas. If you have questions about these calculations, please address them to Rich Gardner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, at 296-3155. If poss~le, we would like to finalize the estimates before sending them to the Department of Revenue. To do so, we need to hear from you by July 9, 1993. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dottle Rietow Chair Enclosures Recycled Paper ii I 1, ! · i~ I I METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE APRIL 1, 1992 City or Township: Mound 1992 Housing Units gs:h~a:ted ..... Estimated C~h~us C°~Pleted :! OccUPied: : : ~ :HOUSing':~nii~ i HOUs~gUaits: HousehOldS: Single-Family 3,067 3,095 2,973 Multifamily (incl. Townhouse) 884 886 734 Mobile Home 14 23 21 1990 Census Households 3,710 1992 Household Estimate 3,728 ?: :::: : ::. :. : :.: pO~TIO~EsTiMATE i 1990 Census Total Population 9,634 1990 Group Quarters Population 0 1990 Population in Households 9,634 1992 Population Estimate 9,652 1992 Group Quarters Population 0 1992 Population in Households 9,652 : PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1990 Census Persons per Household 2.60 1992 Persons per Household 2.59 All numbers are as of April 1 of each year. This total includes 11 units listed in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. The Census defines these units as those not fitting the defined housing categories, such as houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans. Since no information on "other" units is available between censuses, for purposes of 1992 population and household estimation, these units have been allocated to the single and multiple family categories. This was done based on persons per 'other" household and the ratio of single-family to multifamily housing in the jurisdiction. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT June 28, 1993 TO: FROM: Me~rdoer Municipalities ~J~0 JUN 2 9 1993 Treasurer Scott Cari~,- SUBJECT: 1994 Adopted Budget The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1994 fiscal year budqet as adopted June 23, ].993, is hereby enclosed. During the cities' advance review of the draft 1994 LMCD budget, two cities expressed concern about the proposed administrative levy for 1994 which show a return to historical levels. A one time decrease in the a~inistrative levy was made in 1993 for two reasons, I. Revenues from permit and license fees were p~ojecL~d ~o increase, thereby fulfilling an objective of the management plan, allowing the reduction in administrative levy and 2. The general fund reserve, at the time of the 1993 budget preparation, was expected to be near $300,000 at the end of 1992. However~ a dispute with multiple dock licensees resulted in a substantial reduction of the projected revenues for 1993 and for future years. This has caused the LMCD to further draw down the general fund reserve in 1993. Also, the figure which w~s used for the general fund reserve for preparation of the 1993 budge~ included a variety of other assets, refundable deposits and deferred revenues, which are not fund reserves. This resulted in a substantial overstatement of actual reserves. The result is that the general fund reserves at the end of 1992 was $197,808, not the $270,000 expected. The attached reserve fund analysis, combined with the audited zeserve funds at the end of !992 projects reserve ~undo for i993 and 1994. This analysis serves to support the 1994 budget adopted by the LMCD board June 23, 199~. You will note that the general fund reserve decreases from 8.7 months at the end of 1992 · _ ,,~o,ic,~s at ~ne end c.f z~93_ and final~, ......... ~ o.3 ,~,~,.~,,o~ at ,~..~ end of 1994. Considering the limited and uncertain nature of LMCD revenues , the Board believes carrying a reserve fund of 6 months, which many cities use as a goal for reserves, is fiscally responsible· ' The E[,R.: reserve fund decreases from 12 months at the end of 1992 to i0 8 mon~ahs at the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · e~..~, ~.~_ 1993 and 6 m~n~h~ at the end of 199g. Again, uncertainty i~ funding sources is a grave concern. ,. . ~ ,^ ~ , ~ Private donations for m::l~e:l con~.~nu~ to ~ ~rease The $57 300 grant from Hennepin County in 1993 is not availmble for 1994. The bottom line is that nearly $!00,000 of revenue budgeted for 1993 are not available in 1994, namely the $40,000 reduction in license fees and the $~V,2,;:.'2 !oRs in grants from Hennepin Co~,~nty for milfeil cen~rol. Page 2 Your LMCD board is striving to provide the quality of Lake management necessary for Lake Minnetonka consistent with the 1991 Management Plan. We are projecting that these increased responsibilities will be accomplished with basically a flat budgen. However, the uncertainty of our funding sources has forced us to return to co~nunity administrative levy's comparable to the historical levels. As a Lake Minnetonka city mayor you have r.y personal co~mitment to le~f and spend only what is necessary. The adopted budget is consistent with that c om~r~i t me n t. ~LN Statute 1038.635, Funding of District provides: Subd. 1. Budget. The board must, on or before July 1 each year, prepare and submit a detailed budget of the district's needs for the next calendar year ~o the governing body of e~ch municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget and the board, upon notice _from a municipality, must hear objections to tke budget. After the hearing, the board may modify or amend the budget. Notice must be given to the municipalities of modifications or amen~en~s. Subd. 2. Municipal Funding of District. a) The governing bcdy or board of supervisors of each municipality in the district must 7rovide the funds necessary to meet. its proportion of the total cost determined by the board, b) A municipality may raise the funds by any means that t~e municipality has to raise funds. The municipalities may each levy a Ua>: not to exceed .00242 percenn of taxable market value on the taxable property located in the district for funding the district. The levy must be within all other limitations provided by law. c). The funds must be deposited in the treasury of the district in amounts and at times as the treasurer of the district requires. Any further questions may be directed to your board z~pr~enLative or ~i~e exacu~ive di~-~ccor. As always, we appreciate your continued support and look forward to continuing to work with the 14 lake cities to protect and manage the tremendous resource Lake Minnetonka is to all of our co~unities. WP: 9~3dept.bL, d Lotus:O011. Beginning Balance 111/93 Months of Reserve BUDGET Revenue Reserve AIIoation Subtotal Expenses Adjustments projected Reserve 12/3i/93 Months Operating Reserv PROJECTED Beginning Balance 1/1/94 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RESERVE FUND ANALYSIS 1993 AND 1994 BUDGETS General Fund Save the EWM Reserve Lake 97,808 $84,427 8163,128 8.7 14 $272,732 $14,000 $139,910 (843,432) $427,108 $98,427 $303,038 ($272,132) ($14,000) (8139,910) 815,000 ($50,000) 8169,376 $84,427 8113,128 7.4 10.8 Equipment Acquisition 8175,O00 850,000 (z) ii!!~i 8225,000 $169,376 $84,427 $113,128 8225,000 BUDGET Revenue $272,500 $14,000 $79,000 Reserve Allocation $10,000 $47,000 Subtotal $441,876 $108,427 8239,128 ($176,000) $50,000 (1) ($272,500) ($27,000)(2) Expenses Adjustments projected ReserVe 12/31/94 Months Operating Reserv Footnotes: ($24,000) ($20,000)(2) 8225,000 $50,000 42,376 $64,427 $63,128 $275,000 6.3 6 As in previous years, $50,000 will be transferred from the EWM Reserve Fund to the Equipment Acquisition at the end of 1993 and 1994 to provide for the eventual replacement of the weed harvesting equipment. A reserve allocation of $47,000 from various reserve funds will be required to make up for a projected shortfall on the EWM Budget for 1994. These projections assume $27,000 to come from the General Fund Reserve and $20,000 from the EWM Reserve Fund. II I l, i I tt I I lotus.budge~l. 6/28/93 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1994 Budget REVENUE 1992 1992 1993 1994 Budget Actual Budget Budget 1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy 2 Reserve Fund Allocation 3 Court Fines 4 Licenses & Permits 5 Interest, Public Funds 6 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultants 8 Other Income SubTotal, Administration (a) Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992 $107,230 $t07,230 $60,000 $103,500 $0 $0 $43,432 $0 $38,000 $46,347 $45,000 $45,000 $85,000 $138,595 $117,300 $112,000 $8,000 $14,336 $7,000 $6,000 $20,000 $16,000 $0 $4,000 $10,000 $8,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $ 15 $__QO $_QO ~268,230 $330,523 ~272,732 ~272,500 EW Milfoil Program a City Contributions b Other Public Agencies c Private Solicitation d Reserve Fund Allocation e Interest SubTotal, EW Milfoil $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $63,000 $170,000 $0 $57,280 $0 $17,000 $25,512 $7,930 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $47,000 $_Q0 $17,722 $5,700 $6,000 :~:~:?i ~ i ~i ~250,000 $106,234 $133,910 $126,000 10 Save The Lake Program: a Private Donations : ' b Interest Sub Total, Save the Lake $0 $9,054 $10,000 $_QO $4,193 $4,000 $0 ~13,247 ~14,000 11 TOTAL REVENUE $20,000 $4,00O $24,000 $518,2_2~0 $450,004 $420,642 ~422,500 (a) (a) DISBURSEMENTS ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services: 1 Salaries 2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tech. 3 Employer Benefit Contributions 4 Total PersOnnel Services $104,500 $106,643 $105,700 $106,150 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $17,000 $18,777 $18,000 $19,600 $121,500 $125,420 $138,700 $125,750 Contractual Services: 5 Office Lease & Storage 6 Professional Services 7 Total Contractual Services $10,130 $10,461 $10,482 $11,600 $~550 $4,926 $~Q ~40Q $15,680 $15,387 $16,032 $17,000 Office & Administrative: 8 Office, General Supplies 9 Telephone 10 Postage 11 Printing, Publ. 12 Maintenance, Office Equipment 13 Subscriptions, Memberships 14 Insurance, Bonds 15 Mileage, Expenses, Training 16 Total Office & Administration $3,500 $3,888 $4,000 $4,300 $2,350 $2,045 $1,600 $2,000 $4,000 $3,082 $4,000 $4,000 $4,500 $1,682 $3,000 $3,000 $1,700 $1,480 $2,000 $2,000 $200 $235 $200 $250 $5,200 $4,804 $6,000 $5,000 ~2~QQ ~3~1129 ~2,50Q $3,000 $23,750 $19,345 $23,300 ~23,550 ~-/'~9 Capital Outlay: 17 Furniture, Equipment 18 TotaI Capital Outlay 1992 1992 1993 1994 Budget Actual Budget Budget $2,000 $4,423 $2,000 $4,423 $5,000 $3,000 $5,000 $3,000 Legal 19 Legal Services 20 Prosecution 21 Process Service 22 Total Legal $18,000 $16,095 $25,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,011 $27,000 $30,000 $300 $30 $200 $200 $43,300 $46,136 $52,200 $50,200 Contract Services/Studies 23 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant 24 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 25 Lake Use Density Study 26 Wetland Inventory Mapping 27 Public Information, Legal Notices 28 Public Access Studies 29 Mgmt Plan Environment Implementation 30 School District Boater Ed. Program 31 TOtal ContraCt Services/Studies 32 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $10,000 $3,075 $0 $2,000 $20,000 $3,000 $0 $4,000 $12,000 $14,750 $0 $15,000 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $100 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $1,435 $2,000 $0 $0 527,500 $30,000 $__0_0 $0 $5,000 $50,500 $22,360 $37,500 $53,000 $256,730 $233,071 $272,732 $272,500 CONTINGENCY/MISCELLANEOUS 33 At approx. 5% of Admn Budget 34 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION $11,500 $268,230 9233,071 $272,732 $272,500 Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM) Weed Harvesting Program 35 Barge Service 36 Trucking 37 Personnel 38 Equipment Ins., WC Ins, FICA, 39 Opn,Supplies,Fund Raising 40 Contract Services 41 Contingency (at approx. 5%) 42 : TOTAL EWM OPERATIONS 43 SAVE THE LAKE PROGRAM 44 TOTAL ADMN, EWM, S/L EXPENSE EWM EQUIP. INFORMATIONAL: Reserve Fund a Accrued for Equipment Acquisition $114,000 $0 $0 $32,000 $20,956 $35,280 $45,000 $25,363 $43,560 $31,000 $19,113 $9,040 $16,000 $16,847 $30,400 $0 $0 $9,250 $12,000 $12,897 $6,380 $250,000 $95,176 $133,910 $0 $0 $14,000 $518,230 $328,247 $420,642 $126,000 $24,000 $422,500 $50,000 $50,000 a · ~, i · tt i I Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Mtka. Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Totals Less Mtka. Balance for 13 cities LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1994 BUDGET DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE Net Tax Capacity 5,226,152 2,2O6,659 1,012,052 57,528,224 1,311,365 4,658,873 6,381,084 11,738,948 7,261,312 1,493,012 2,310,897 2,386,166 7,148,355 1,620,711 112,283,810 57,528,224 54,755,586 % Net Tax Capacity 7.63 3.22 1.48 2O 1.91 6.81 9.32 17.15 10.6 2.18 3.38 3.49 10.45 2.37 of TotalAdmin. Share of $103,500 7,897 3,333 I .532 20,700 1,977 7,048 9,646 17,750 10,981 2,256 3,498 3,613 10,816 2,453 EWM Share of $63,OOO 4,807 2,029 932 1 2, 60O 1,203 4,290 5,872 10,805 6,684 1,373 2,129 2,199 6,584 1,493 100.00% 103,500 63,000 Total Share of 8166,500 12,704 5,362 2,464 33,300 3,180 11,338 15,518 28,555 17,665 3,629 5,627 5,812 17,400 3,946 166,500 6/14/93 Lotus:g4BUDGET MINUTES OF A MF~ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMIF~SION JUNE 28, 1993 Those present were: Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Pamela Koring, Dick McCurdy, Mary McCurdy, Jim Bedell, Lewis Anderson, Del Pfeifer, Bill Netka, Dorothy Netka, Julie Lilledahl, Ron Kreitz, and Paul Kaster. The Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 1993 were presented for approval. NOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the Planning Commission Ninutes of June 14, 1993 as written. Notion carried unanimously. CASE g93-028: PAMELA KORING, 1701 AVOCET LANE, LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 8, DREAMWOOD, PID #13-117-24 21 0021. VARIANCE FOR DECK. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming setback from the dwelling to the rear property line in order to extend the existing deck. The deck extension is fully conforming to the City Code. This property is a corner lot and according to the Code Three Points Blvd. is the official front yard due to the lot width, and thus requiring a 15 foot setback in the rear. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to expand the existing deck in a fully conforming location as it is not practical or feasible to move the house to a conforming location. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 13, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 CASE ~t93-029; DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6 SUBD, OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID//13-117-24 41 0035- VARIANCE FOR FENCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a 6 foot high wooden privacy fence at the side property line extending to the shoreline. This request results in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. The applicant's property abuts public property known as Arbor Lane which is used for commons docks. There is a lift station on this adjacent property which they would like to screen and they also have several concerns dealing with the use of the land, its impacts on their privacy, and the need for a buffer between the two. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. It was noted that the applicant's were not present. Mueller commented that he is not in favor of this request as it will set a precedence for other properties abutting public land. Hanus does not have a problem with the request, the applicant's view will be cut the most. The Building Official noted that a fence height variance was previously granted for the Terwilliger,s to allow a 6 foot high fence that abuts a fire lane which is used as an access to the commons. Sutherland also indicated on the overhead that the neighbors view would not be blocked by the fence due to the angle of the houses. Weiland commented that he agrees with Mueller that a precedent should not be set and any problems with traffic or noise should be taken care of and the unsightly debris should be removed. Mueller questioned if the lift station could be fenced as it is so brightly painted. Voss confirmed with staff that tall bushes could be planted along the property line with no minimum height. Clapsaddle commented that the applicant's should not complain about cars and traffic as the commons area was there before they purchased the house, but the rest of the issues should be addressed by the City. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller to deny the variance as requested as plantings and other methods of buffering could be used to solve the problem. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Michael, ross, Hanus and Jensen. Johnson opposed. Johnson commented that he was opposed to the motion because he has no problem with the fence and he feels it would solve the problem. This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993. RENTAL HOUSING 0RDINANCE Geoff Michael referred to a letter written to the City Council from the Rental Task Forced which was received by the City Manager on 5/25/93 and clarified that as a member of the task force and liaison to the Planning Commission he did not sign the letter or see it until after it was received by the City, and that it does not represent the official position of the entire Task Force. The Building Official, Jon Sutherland, briefly reviewed the changes made to the Rental Ordinance by the Rental Task Force. Liz Jensen clarified for the Commission that it was the direction of the City Council for them to review the revised ordinance and then forward a recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair, Michael, clarified that this is not a public hearing. Michael also confirmed that it is the wish of the Rental Task Force that if this ordinance is going to be approved, they would like this draft approved. Jim Bedell commented that he feels existing laws cover all of the regulations in the proposed ordinance. The Building Official's authority in enforcing existing state laws was discussed. The Building official commented that the purpose of having these regulations in the City Code is to offer City staff direction and to gather the laws into one document. Violations can then be cited by City Code in conjunction with State Statute. It is more effective to enforce state laws when the City adopts an ordinance that establishes minimum requirements and references State Statutes. Clapsaddle thanked those task force members who were present and added that the Planning Commission has no right re-writing ordinances and that it is okay to refer to State Statutes. He feels the ordinance is needed to simplify enforcement and the ordinance is needed for some absent landlords. Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 The Planning Commission reviewed the revised Rental Ordinance Draft dated 5/18/93, page by page, and made the following comments and/or changes. Weiland suggested that the City Attorney develop language to use for those sections which refer to a specific state statute that allows for a current reference. In other words, what happens if the state statute number is modified or changed? The language could be modified to include, for example, "or such State Statute as in affect at that time." Those sections which contain this statement were addressed, "Shall be installed according to the Building Code in effect at the time the building was constructed." What if the building was constructed in 1920 and there was no building code at that time, what do you use for enforcement? It was suggested that a minimum code be chosen, such as the 1945 Uniform Building Code to be consistent with minimum standards. The following statement, wherever it appears, was suggested to be amended as follows: "Shall be constructed and maintained according to the code in effect when the building was constructed. On page 20 of the draft, the Commission agreed that Subd. 7. relating to fire alarms remain in the proposed ordinance. On page 21, Subd. S, relating to Smoke Detectors, it was suggested to modify this section as follows: "Shall be installed according to State Statute ~A ~..:~ .... ~ ~..~ ........... ~~ ............ ~ ~d~ ~- effect --~A- ~ Page 21, Section 319:60 relating to Maximum Density, Minimum Space, for Rental Units: there was discussion about allowing this section to remain, but it was determined to leave it out for now. Page 23, Section 319:80. Mueller would like this section to remain as it requires "The materials used to secure the building shall be painted a color which is consistent with the exterior color of the structure and does not constitute a public nuisance." It was noted that this requirement should apply to all secure, unfit, and vacated dwellings and maybe this should be added to the current City Code. Page 23, Section 319:85 relating to Hazardous Building Declaration. Mueller questioned why not leave this in if it doesn't do anything different? 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 Vice Chair Michael questioned where the Commission wants to go next with this proposed ordinance. Mueller commented that there have already been a couple of public hearings and he suggested the proposed ordinance be moved forward to the City Council with the Planning Commission's comments. Voss agreed. Johnson also agreed to send the ordinance forward, however feels it is unfair to proposed an ordinance only for rental property, it should be for all properties. Council Representative Jensen stated that it would be helpful if the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Council, not just comments. Jensen commented, that as a landlord, this proposed ordinance would not hurt her. In comparing the application of this ordinance to owner occupied as well as renter occupied, she feels they are trying to divide what someone chooses to live in as owner occupied and what someone intends to do as a business owner. If she chose to live in an inadequate house, that is her choice. However, as a business owner, to put someone in an inadequate rental house and when the tenant requests the inadequacies be fixed, they should do so. This proposed ordinance gets into life and safety issues for people that are in the "business" of a landlord. Modifications to be recommended were discussed, as follows: The City Attorney should develop language for those sections which refer to specific state statutes to provide reference to current laws, such as, "or such State Statute in affect at that time." Modify those sections which contain the statement "Shall be installed according to the Building Code in effect at the time the building was constructed." A minimum date should be set to allow for older buildings to comply with a minimum building code. The Planning Commission could not achieve a concensus on these issues, or how to recommend the changes. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the Proposed Ordinance relating to Housing Maintenance Regulations for Rental Housing as written in the draft printed 5/18/93 with the exception that Sections 319:60, 319:80, and 319:85 remain. Motion carried $ to 3. Those in favor were: Johnson, Michael, ross, Hanus, and Jensen. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Mueller and Weiland. 5 I I 1, i i It I I Planning Commission Minutes June 28, 1993 Those Commissioners who voted in opposition clarified that they are in favor of the proposed ordinance, however, did not vote in favor of the motion because they want additional changes as previously discussed. Hanus stated that he is against the ordinance, but as a Planning Commissioner he has been tasked by the City Council to write this proposed ordinance to the best of his ability and he feels this has been done. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend to the City Council that all the regulations outlined in this ordinance apply to all the housing in Mound, not just rental. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Weiland, Johnson, Michael, Marius, and ross. Jensen opposed. CITY COUNCIl, REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Jensen reviewed the City Council Minutes of June 22, 1993. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss, to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: Lines are draw.n Fatality spurs crosswalk loss; petition urges its. restoration By Kevin Diaz Staff Writer A Mound City Council decision to eliminate a popular downtown l~- destrian crosswalk has flared into sore feelings along Shoreline, Blvd., bitterly divided city hall and prompt- ed a lawsuit over free speech.. It started with the first fatal pedestri- an accident in decades along Shore- line Blvd., an extension of County Rd. 15. The City Council deemed the crosswalk hazardous and ordered ii removed, but owners of some nearby businesses objected. Since then, a petition to keep the crosswalk has been signed by more than 4,200 people, including several members of the city planning com- mission and the family of Charles Melony, the 77-year-old pedestrian who was killed there Dec. 15. The petition has prompted officials~ in the city of about 9,600 to take notice. But the dispute was ratcheted~ up another notch recentlY when th~ House of Moy, a restaurant adjacent~ to the crosswalk, was cited by the citY~ for erecting a protest sign on its pro~ erty that read: "Give Pedestrians Brake." The city said Moy needed a permit to~ put up the sign. On Monday, shall Tanick, attorney for House of~ Mo.y owner Fi Yin Moy, filed suit; against the city for violating the taurant's property and constitutional! rights under the First Amendment. "This is not 'about city ordinancesi~ and permits; it's about freedom of' speech," said Moy's da,ughter, Oywah Moy. The Moys and their supporters also say it's about the city's "vision pro- gram" to one day redevelop the whole area into a more upscale retail' zone approximating that of Wayzata.~ Cm~lk ~ontinaed oa ~ Ji~ .~: Staff Photo by Jeff Wheeler Fi Yin Moy sat by her sign protesting the city's removal of a crosswalk outside her Mound restaurant as a pedestrian crossed there anyway. Crosswalk/Even .if it's gone, people will cross Continued from page lB "We're fight in the way of their Disneyland," said Oywah Moy. The controversy has some city of- ficials on the defensive, to the point that one, City Council Member Andrea Ahrens, hung up on a reporter after saying, "We just had a consensus that we weren't going to say anything to anybody. It's gotten to be such a mess." Mayor Skip Johnqon, City Manag- er Edward Shukle and city attor- ney Curtis Pearson were unavail- able for comment yesterday. But Council Member Phyllis Jessen, who formed part of the 4-1 majority in favor of scrapping the crosswalk, said it was a simple question of public safety. "We've had one person killed and another person who has got to live with the guilt of killing him," Jessen said. "We're not going to let that happen again." Crosswalk supporters, however, say the council created a greater threat to safety by removing the crosswalk. "By eliminating the crosswalk, they're not going to eliminate the people crossing the street," said Bill Meyer, chairman of the city's plan- ning commission and a signer of the petition. Petition organizer Michael Durell said that the crosswalk connects a very popular restaurant to the only convenient parking across the street. The House of Moy had been Me- lony's last stop before he was hit by a car. A trip to the nearest intersection with Commeme Blvd. is about a quarter-mile round trip. '.'It's like a bad David Letterman joke," Durell said: "What do you do when a pedestrian is hit at a cross- walk? Take out the crosswalk." Oywah Moy said that while the closing of the crosswalk in May has not affected her family's busi- ness, cars are going faster and destrians continue to cross the road. Jessen, a frequent restaurant pa- tron, agreed that while pedestrians continue to cross the four-lane street, which has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour, there's one im- portant difference. "They stop, they look and then they run." As for the sign ordinance, Jessen said, "That ordinance has been around a long time. Everybody else lives with it." II I l, ! i tt ~ OF A MEETING OF TI-IE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING. Building official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the city Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the City Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition $1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. II 1, i i u MINUTES OF A 1VIEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMI~qSION JULY 12, 1993 Case #93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition*'. FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC tW~ARING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the city Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the City Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the city with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the city of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the city Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing 4evelopment for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case $93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #~ requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. i I 1, I i it I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case ~93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC HF~ARING. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the City Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing 4evelopment for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case $93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. I I it MINUTES OF A MEE~G OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ULY 12, 1993 Case #93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC I-W~G. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the city Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing 4evmlopment for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried $ to 2. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. !1 1, ! i ~ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAl, PLAT - PUBLIC I-W~G. Building official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the city Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the city Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing 4evmlopment for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa Addition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to Z. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. I! 1, ! I, IZ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case #93-034: Dakota Rail Inc., "Balboa Addition". FINAL PLAT - PUBLIC HEARING. Building official, Jon Sutherland, Reviewed the City Planner's report. The request being heard is for the Final Plat for Balboa Addition, tomorrow night the city Council will be holding a public hearing for the Preliminary Plat. The Final Plat, as submitted, addresses all of the planning and engineering concerns that have been raised to-date. The issue of a park dedication fee has been reviewed by staff resulting in a fee of approximately $22,000 in accordance with the formula in the Mound ordinance. Approval of the Final Plat is recommended by staff subject to the following conditions: 1. Payment of park dedication fees shall be required in accordance with Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Newly created Parcels 1 and 2 shall be combined for tax purposes, with existing parcel 76. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the City with title insurance for all easements and rights-of-way that are to be dedicated to the City of Mound. Joanne Matzen, Attorney for Winthrop & Weinstine, and a Representative of Welsh Companies, informed the Commission that they are in agreement with the recommendation of staff, with the exception of the park dedication fee requirement. Matzen believes that this request is not a typical platting situation as the land will not be developed, they are only trying to acquire the fee title of the access that Balboa is already leasing from Dakota Rail. She referred to the City Ordinance which states, "In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial industrial or other . . ." She believes this statement allows a park dedication fee to be exacted for only those properties "allowing development," and this request does not involve a development or and expansion of use. In addition, she stated that there is case law which indicates there must be a rational nexus between the dedication fee exacted and the burden the subdivision places on the community. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-034 Final Plat - Balboa Addition The Planning Commission discussed the park dedication issue. Mueller commented that there are no "new lots" being created because the parcels will be combined with the existing Parcel 0076, therefore three parcels will be combined into one. Mueller also commented, that in his opinion, the Commitment to Insure does not represent clean title and the City Attorney should investigate. Betsy Brady questioned the hours of operation for the trucks at the Balboa building, she stated that they operate during all hours of the night and she is very concerned. The Building Official informed her that she could come into City Hall and discuss the issue with staff. Sutherland added that the businesses in the Balboa building are required to obtain an operations permit which is reviewed by the City Council and notices are published in the local paper when the Council reviews these applications. Chair Meyer confirmed with staff that the platting of this property is not intended to change the use of the building. Mueller questioned if the Conditional Use Permit, which allows for the issuance operation permits, is attached to the current legal description; and does the Conditional Use Permit need to be updated if the legal description changes? Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Balboa &ddition as recommended by staff with the exception of condition #1 requiring payment of park dedication fees as no new lots are being created. Motion carried 6 to Z. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Johnson and Weiland opposed. Johnson commented that he does not like second guessing the attorney and he feels there is a possibility development could be allowed for this property. Weiland agreed. A public hearing will be held on July 13, 1993 by the City Council for the Preliminary Plat. The City Council will review the request for Final Plat on August 10, 1993. !1 1, ! i I RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has City licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. Il 1, ! I it I i MINUTES OF A MF. ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case //93-029: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. VARIANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building Official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case $93-029 variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow oonstruction of a $ foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried ? - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! I l, !, i I RESOLUTION $93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT Vi%RIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANEv LOT 6t SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has city licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. ! I I I MINUTES OF A MF~ETING OF THF~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-029: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035. VARIANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building Official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried ? - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. I RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6v SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOODv PID #13-117-24 41 0035, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has city licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to city Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the city Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. II J, ! i, Ii I ] MINIYrES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-029: DR. DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, Pi i) #13-117-24 41 0035, VARIANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 1_~3. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. 2. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. 3. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out 4. Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom 5. There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case #93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded By Johnson to reconsider the motion made By the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance By Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made By Mueller, seconded By Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried 7 - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. #eiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. !1 1, ! i I I RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has city licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the city of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. Il 1, i I , II, ~ ~ MINUTES OF A 1VrEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case //93-029: DR. DONAI.D SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PI]) #13-117-24 41 0035, VARIANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993." This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent city property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the City plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried ? - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VArIAnCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID ~13-117-24 41 0035, PaS CASE NUMBER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has City licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires fence heights not to exceed 4 feet in the front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-029 The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. I I MINUTF~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case ,993-029: DR. DONALD SWE~N, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6 SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32, S&L RAVENSWOOD, PID//13-117.24 41 0035' VARIANCE FOR FENCE - This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993.,, This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agend-~. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building Official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 foot fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance. Staff recommended approval of the request due to the fact that the busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case ~93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, ross, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the city plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried 7 - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! I RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6t SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i AND 32t SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0035, p&~. CASE NU~ER 93-029 WHEREAS, the owners, Dr. Donald and Jean Sween, have applied for a fence height variance to allow the construction of a 6 foot high fence within the 50 foot setback of the shoreline, resulting in a 3 foot variance, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property to the north is public land known as Arbor Lane which consists of a parking area and has City licensed dock sites, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property also has a pump station which was recently replaced and is brightly painted, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for a turn-around area which results in heavy traffic, and; WHEREAS, the adjacent property is also used for parking and is sometimes abused by the neighbors and used for dumping of various items, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-iA Single Family Residential Zoning District which accord' . Code requires fence heights not to exce ~ ~ ~ =- =~ ~ng to City e .... =~ ~n une front yard, 6 feet in the side yard, and 3 feet within 50 feet of the lakeshore setback, and; WHEREAS, fences within 50 feet of the lakeshore shall maintain a see-through visibility level equal to that of a chain- link type fence and shall blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a 3 foot fence height variance and see-through visibility variance to allow construction of 6 foot high privacy fence along the north side property line, up to the pump station. The remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum fence height of 3 feet. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~93-029 The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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. I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THF~ MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case ~93-029: DR. DONAI,D SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE, LOT 6 SUBD. OF LOTS 1 & 32 S&L RAVENSWOOD PI]) #13-117-24 41 0035~ YAR/ANCE FOR FENCE. This item was added onto the agenda at the request of the applicant. Jean Sween came to the meeting and when she realized she was not on the agenda, she made it known that she received in the mail a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes which stated at the bottom "This case will be heard by the City Council on July 12, 1993.', This was a typo, the date should have been July 13. In addition, she said she did not receive a City Council agenda. Ms. Sween added that she was advised not to appear at the June 28. 1993 Planning Commission Meeting at which her request was recommended to be denied. She requested that she now be given the opportunity to discuss her case with the Planning Commission. The Building Official quickly reviewed the applicants request for a 6 foot high fence extending to the lake resulting in a 3 fence height variance and a see-through visibility variance, foot recommended approval of the request due to the fact that theStaff busy nature of the adjacent City property does present a negative impact. A variance to Section 350:475 assists in alleviating this condition, improves the use and enjoyment of the property, and is reasonable in this case. The applicant explained reasons for needing the fence, including: 1. Adjacent property is used for commons docks which creates noise and commotion. Adjacent property is used as dumping area for leaves, grass and other debris. There is a city pump station on the adjacent property which has bright yellow posts and a red light on the top that flashes and a siren goes off when the power goes out Boaters trespass onto her property to relieve themselves, asking for water, and to use their bathroom There is excessive traffic on the adjacent Arbor Lane which is used as a turn-around area and parking area. A daycare across the street increases the amount vehicles turning around in this area. Planning Commission Minutes July 12, 1993 Page 2 Case #93-029 Variance - Dr. Sween Tom Taylor, Ms. Sween's neighbor to the south, confirmed that the activities at the end of Arbor Lane have gotten considerably worse over the last ten years. He also believes the ground may be too wet to grow trees along the subject property line. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Johnson to reconsider the motion made by the Planning commission on June 28, 1993 relating to the request for a fence height variance by Dr. Sween. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Weiland opposed. The height of the proposed fence was reviewed. The applicant clarified that the height of the fence will taper down to 2 feet high at the lake. Mueller suggested that a 6 foot high fence be allowed to provide screening of the pump station, but the balance be required to conform to the ordinance at 3 feet high. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the fence height variance to allow construction of a 6 foot high privacy fence along the north Side property line, up to the lift station, the remaining portion of the fence extending to the shoreline shall conform to the minimum of 3 feet high. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to see the fence be a temporary solution and have both the applicant and the city plant trees to create a reasonable final solution to this issue. MOTION carried 7 - 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Mueller, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. weiland opposed. Weiland stated that he opposed because he feels it was a financial based decision. Hanus remarked that he did not like the potential height of the trees which could be planted. Clapsaddle commented that the time involved to develop appropriate plantings to provide the desired screening is unreasonable. This case will be reviewed by the city Council on July 13, 1993. RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS $ & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26.3 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision $ of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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 conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-035 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case//93-035: Marvin Nelson 2025 Shorewood Lane Lots 5 & 6 Block Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26 3 foot setback variance. . Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ~equested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded b Mxch approval of the ,,--~ .... Y ' ael to the existin ----aa~e as requested upon the recommend condition unanimously, g shed be removed. Motion carried This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! ! RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A V~RIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTXNG NONCONFOI~IN~ FRONT Y~D SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFOI~IN~ DETACHED G~.GE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26 3 feet, and; . WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 3. 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 conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-035 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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 JULY 12, 1993 Case//93-035: Marvin Nelson 2025 Shorewood Lane Lots 5 & 6 Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID #18-117-23 32 0012. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26 3 foot setback variance. · Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Hichael to reco.n~.end approva{ of. the variance as requested upon the condition the existing shed be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. ! ! RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK S, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&S CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26.3 feet, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; ' WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 3. 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 conforming 36, wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~93-035 Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. · " ' · " I I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case/P93-035: Marvin Nelson, 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID//18-117-23 32 0012. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26.3 foot setback variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as requested upon the condition the existing shed be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26 3 feet, and; . WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. 2. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 3. 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 conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-035 Se This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. I I MO...~ .Midrib_ OF A MEETING OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case g93-035~ Marvin Nelson 2025 Shot wood Lane Lo~ 5 & 6 Block Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant,s request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3 7 from the front property line resulting in a ' variance, request for a 26.3 foot setback Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ~equested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded b M ~proval of the variance - ...... ~ _ichael to recommend ~ne existing shed be-o -~ques~ea upon the condition unanimously, removed. Motion carried This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. an I i RESOLUTION #93- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 2025 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 8, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 32 0012, P&Z CASE NUMBER 93-035 WHEREAS, the owner, Marvin Nelson, has applied for a variance to recognize and existing nonconforming front yard setback to the prinicpal dwelling to allow construction of a conforming detached garage, and; WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.7 feet from the south front property line resulting in a variance request of 26 3 feet, and; · WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback to both the south and east, a 10 foot side yard setback, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing a nonconforming 3.7 foot front yard setback to Shorewood Lane to allow construction of a conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage at 2025 Shorewood Lane. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance 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 350:420. 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 conforming 36' wide by 24' deep detached garage. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case #93-035 This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point. 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. I I I I MINIYrES OF A MF~ETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 12, 1993 Case//93-035: Marvin Nelson, 2025 Shorewood Lane, Lots 5 & 6, Block 8, Shadywood Point, PID//18-117-23 32 0012. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE. Building official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's request for a variance to allow construction of a conforming detached garage. The principal dwelling is setback 3.7 from the front property line resulting in a request for a 26.3 foot setback variance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the requested variance to recognize an existing nonconforming dwelling in order to construct a fully conforming detached garage. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Michael to recommend approval of the variance as requested upon the condition the existing shed be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City Council on July 13, 1993. lm July 19, 1993 I Mr. Kevin Diaz Staff Writer Minneapolis Star Tribune Dear Mr. Diaz, We read with interest your article concerning the crosswalk on County Road 15 in Mound. We have not been directly involved in any of the arguments concerning the crosswalk but we are Mound residents and do occasionally enjoy eating at Moy's restaurant. Most importantly, however, we as well as most people living in Hound, use County Road 15 every day as it is the main route from Mound to Minneapolis. Something does have to be done about this situation. We were driving Co. Rd. 15 just after Moy's put up their personal sign. A pedestrian was trying to cross and we then had to decide whether to stop, although the sign was not official, or to chance having the car directly behind us hit us as they may not acknowledge the sign and would not expect us to stop. A hundred council meetings and reams of paper could be wasted on this situation. It really is so simple. Either the crosswalk is eliminated officially..forever..and it is acknowledged by everyone, or at greater expense, but much safer and wiser solution is to put in a STOP LIGHT.. not a sign. Mound is a densely populated area. It is our guess, if we can use our thinking as reflecting the average Hound resident, the inconvenience of waiting for a light is slight compared to the ambivalence that one goes through second guessing whether the pedestrian is going to try to make it through the traffic. One way or the other it has to be done, because the writing is definitely "on the wall" Someone will be hit or cars will pile up on that spot. There is just too much traffic not to consider it a serious enough problem to deal with quickly. How much is one life worth?..the cost of a stop light..we think so. Muriel and Paul Washa Mound, Mn. !1 ! I , IZ ~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Agenda 8:30 am, Friday, July 16, 1993 conference Rm 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata R£C'D JUL $1993 · 1. Introductions, Chair Tom Penn 2. Review, acceptance/amendment of 6/18/93 minutes as mailed LMCD harvest operations progress, Supervisor Todd Grams: a. Production results since June 21 start b. Public access milfoil fragment clean-up experience c. Public access herbicide treatment results d. Projections for harvest schedule e. Personnel performance f. Equipment performance MN DNR report on exotics control: a. Proposed study of triclopyr in Lake Minnetonka in cooperation with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to control Eurasian water milfoil (See 6/30 Welling ltr. and 7/6/93 Getsinger letter) b. Additional exotics control programs: * MN Conservation Corps boat inspections at accesses * State highway exotics spot inspection experience * Other items . Biocontrol Study Update, U of M Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Dr. Ray Newman &/or staff 6. Hennepin Parks report, John Barten 7. Lake association reports; 8. Additional business 9. Next meeting (Friday, August 20), adjournment I! LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 8, 1993 BOARD MEMBERS Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Inc. David H. Cochran, Chair p. O. Box 461 Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Spring Park, M~ 55384 Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Greetings Charter Boat Licensee: Scott Carlson, Treasurer ' (LOON) Minnetrista Mike BIoom We are pleased to present your 1993 charter boat MinnetonkaBeach registration for operation on Lake Minnetonka. We Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven encourage you to display this certificate. James N. Grath;vol Excelsior JoEIlenL. Hurr Your charter boat operation is recognized by the LMCD Or0n0 Board of Directors as providing valuable public access to WilliamAJ0hnst0ne the lake. The District is pleased that you take the time Minnetonka DuaneMarkus and investment to attract public participation so that a Wayzata wide range of people can enjoy this valuable lake George C. Owen resource. Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Please alert all pilots to maintain minimum wakes during 's Tom Reese ' Mound normal charter operation, in order to make everyone ertE. Slocum visit on Lake Minnetonka an enjoyable, quality experience. Woodland Avoid making large wakes while en route at faster speeds to pickup points. Noise level of music and patron activity can be an annoyance to lakeshore residents. Some lakeshore residents are on regular charter boat routes. We have received calls from these residents pointing out that they have been disturbed by "party boat" noise. Your cooperation in this matter will help us avoid creating further ordinance restrictions in this regard. Note: Please forward copies of any pilot license renewals that expire during the season. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for this purpose. similarly, should your insurance coverage expire during the season, that renewal certificate should be provided promptly · Recently the city of Wayzata advised the LMCD that they will no longer be issuing permits for use of the Wayzata public docks. However, charter boat operators are still entitled to use the Wayzata public docks as a Port of Call. The city of Wayzata requires any charter boats using its docks to list the city as an additional insured. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Charter Boat Licensee, Page 2 The LMCD urges the following guidelines when using the Wayzata public docks: A. Advise advance-booked patrons to park in the City's free municipal parking ramp at the rear of the Carisch Building between Broadway and Walker streets. The Depot parking lot should not be used. Most city streets have limited parking with time limits and are not recommended for charter patron use. B. Advise catering services to avoid tying-up limited space while unloading, using the space only for the time during which supplies are being moved to or from the charter boat (approx. 15-30 minutes). C. Check with the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce, 473-9595, regarding dock-use dates to avoid conflicts with chamber or city special events. The Lake Use and Recreation Committee has concluded that charter boat service on the Lake can be reinforced as a public amenity. You can help us do this by providing the number of passengers served by your charter boat this year by mailing a summary to the LMCD office at the end of the season. LMCD Chair Dave Cochran and Lake Use Committee Chair Bert Foster join in wishing you a successful charter season. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT g~. R. S~rommen ExeCUtive Director enc: certificate, envelope c/enc: Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol City where berthed - Mound City of Port of Call_ Mound c: D. Cochran, LMCD Chair B. Foster, LMCD Lake Use & Recreation Chair ! · 1, i · tt I Z 0 0 Z 0 Z 0 Z 0 I I 1, i I I[ I I BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson, Treasurer Minnetrista Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound abed E. Slocum Woodland IEC'D JUL 't 2 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE FI. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 9, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Multiple Dock Licensees ~'/~~ Executive Director Gene Strommen Notice to Boaters Concerning High Water Welcome to high water ! Thanks to mother nature, now more water has about become too much. Your LMCD invites your quick assistance in getting the message out to boaters to help prevent some of the problems now being experienced by the high water. The enclosed bulletin is provided for your convenience to post in conspicuous places. Please duplicate this bulletin for additional copies to post and circulate as you see helpful. It is important that this information be circulated or posted inunediately. Thank yOU for making it available to everyone who finds Lake Minnetonka their recreation playground. As a business and property owner, you will find the results helpful to preserve the valuable resource we are all trying to maintain on the lakeshore as well. Best wishes for the sunny days we trust are coming. ! I 1, ! i i~ I I HIGH ATTENTION LAKE MINNETONKA BOATERS WATER BOATING ALERT! Record lake levels require extra care while boating to: * Prevent shoreline erosion... * Protect docks, boats at shore... * Avoid nutrients being washed into the lake... How can you still enjoy the lake and avoid further damage? * Watch your boat wake at all times - In small bays, lake areas not marked "Slow, Minimum Wake" In large bays where the wake will eventually wash to shore * Maintain boat speeds which minimize wakes at all times --look behind you OFTEN ! * Limit to.wing of tubes, other devices, in small areas where slow speeds create noticeable wakes * Operate boats, including personal watercraft, during this high water period at no wake speeds when within 300 feet or more of docks or shore * Avoid quick stops and sharp turns when towing persons, including water ski towing Reminder -- * Observers are required for all towing on Lake Minnetonka * Lake speeds -- 40 mph day, 20 mph night * Decibel limit, 82dba Sheriff's Water Patrol will check your boat decibel level on request, 471-8528 Your cooperation is appreciated by the Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 473-7033 I I _we#t ¢nn~pin uman ~Grvices west hennepin human services planning board 4100 vernon avenue south, st. louis park, minnesota 55416 920-5533 JUL ! 3 1993 DATE: TO: FROM: July 12, 1993 WHHS Board Members Marcy Shapiro, Executive Director I am writing to let you know about two meetings related to Hennepin County. The first is a meeting regarding changes in the human service councils. The proposal (see memo from Commissioner Peter McLaughlin) speaks to more diversity, participation, and collaboration as well as strengthening the role of the human service councils in relation to the County Board. It's important that we have strong participation at this meeting on Thursday, July 22nd at 7:00 p.m. at Sabathani Community Center, 310 East 38th Street, Minneapolis, in Room J on the third floor. The second meeting is one sponsored by the County Board on collaboration. It will be on Wednesday, July 28th at 3:00 p.m. at Lutheran Brotherhood, 625 Fourth Avenue South in Minneapolis. See the enclosed information for more details. If you have questions or want more information, call me at 920-5533. ! · 1, i · It I I "I think this is a very. significant moment in the history of our community.., the beginning of a thoughtful approach ro a series of collaborations that I hope expand and grow with the passage of rime." Mark Andrew Chair, Hennepin Counrv Board lnrer'jur~dictional Session April 28, ~993 Unity, Diversity, Community: Hennepin's Quest for Collaboration A State of the County Address and Dialogue Wednesday, July 28, 2993 3 p.m. Lutheran Brotherhood Building First Floor Auditorium 625 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis Reception follows Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Mike Opat, District x Sandra Hilary, District ~ Mark Andrew, District 3, Chair Peter McLaughlin, District 4 Randy Johnson, District 5 John Kcefe, District 6 Emily Anne Staples, District 7, Vice Chair [ DATE: TO: . NEPIN FROM: jSUBJECT: July 8, 1993 Human Service Councils Interested Community Organizations Peter McLaughlin, Chairman Hennepin County Ways and Means Committee Citizen Participation For the past decade, Hennepin County has been served by eight human service councils, five in Minneapolis and three in suburban Hennepin. Historically, the principal function of the Human Service Councils has been to undertake local area human services planning and to advise the Hennepin County Board of its findings and recommendations. In addition to providing valuable community input to County policy and funding decisions, this structure has also met the citizen participation requirements of the Community Social Services Act. Several events have taken place in recent years that make it advisable to re-examine the structure and function of the human service councils. Implementation of the CARE and Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) in Minneapolis, and establishment of the County's Neighborhood Initiatives Fund (making County NRP funds available for social service elements of approved neighborhood action plans), have brought new players and resources to the table in Minneapolis. There has also been some unhappiness expressed regarding both the County Boards' receptivity to the human services council's reports and the composition of human services councils. It is important that human service advisory councils be working in close cooperation with other neighborhood organizations addressing human service needs. The County Board has also been improving its communications with the public and its process for budget development. Over the past few months, the Ways and Means Committee has held six Town Meetings throughout the County to receive input on needs and priorities for 1994. This input, and that from various advisory bodies and community organizations, will be used by the Board in shaping policy direction to our Administrative staff and establishing 1994 budget priorities. In light of these recent developments, and with an eye toward the future, I would like to request your review of the attached proposal for modifying our citizen participation plan. This proposal is primarily designed to achieve closer coordination among human service councils and neighborhood organizations, to ensure broad based and representative opportunities for participation, and to establish a more visible and effective opportunity for budgetary input. I'd also like to ask your participation in a discussion of this proposal and other ideas you might have. The meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, July 22 at 7:00 P.M. at the Sabathani Community Center, Room J on the third floor. Please notify my office at 348-3085 of your availability to participate in this meeting. If you are unable to attend, I would appreciate your thoughts in response to this proposal in advance of the meeting. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN MODIFICATIONS Background: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners established a citizen participation plan in 1980. This plan provides for the recognition of eight human services councils (5 in the City of Minneapolis and 3 in suburban Hennepin County) to advise the Hennepin County Board and the Community Services Department on human service needs and funding priorities, including use of Community Social Services Act funds. Since establishment of the advisory relationship between the human service councils and Hennepin County, a number of institutional and organizational changes have occurred, particularly within the City of Minneapolis, that argue for reexamination and modification of the human service council structure. Specifically, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the Community and Resource Exchange (CARE) have been established involving numerous, active neighborhood organizations. In addition, the Hennepin County Board, the Minneapolis City Council and the Minneapolis School Board have developed an active policy collaboration mechanism linking efforts throughout the city. Minneapolis and suburban communities have become more ethnically diverse over the past decade, adding urgency to the need to ensure that advisory councils reflect community demographics. Proposed Modifications: To address the changes noted above, and update the structure and function of the human services councils, the following modifications are proposed: A single human service council of the City of Minneapolis be established to advise the Hennepin County Board and staff on human service issues and priorities throughout the city of Minneapolis. The Minneapolis Human Service Council would be expected to establish an effective working relationship with the Neighborhood Revitalization/CARE Program and its participating organizations. Input from NRPand CARE Neighborhoods should be actively solicited by the Human Service Council and incorporated into its advisory recommendations whenever possible. ! I ~, i · tt ! To effect the human service council changes in the City of Minneapolis, existing human service council members, human service providers, neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups should be invited to a city-wide conference for the purpose of election of Board members for the Minneapolis Human Service Council, adoption of annual goals, and establishment of a work group to detail administrative steps necessary to implement the council. The conference should be collaboratively organized and planned by the Community Services Department, the Urban Coalition of Minneapolis and the Office of Planning and Development. In addition to continuing to provide human service and CSSA input, the role of the human service councils will be expanded to include research and recommendations on a limited number, priority issues identified by the County Board. Effective January 1, 1994, the composition of each human service council shall be reflective of the demographics of the communities they serve with regard to age, sex and racial composition. Each council should submit a demographic profile of the community and council board to qualify for continued funding. The Ways and Means Committee of the County Board should establish a special budget hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony, funding recommendations and comments regarding any priority issues identified by the County Board (see #4) from the human service councils. ! ! July 19, 1993 Mr. Kevin Diaz Staff Writer Minneapolis Star Tribune Dear Mr. Diaz, We read with interest your article concerning the crosswalk on County Road 15 in Mound. We have not been directly involved in any of the arguments concerning the crosswalk but we are Mound residents and do occasionally enjoy eating at Moy's restaurant. Most importantly, however, we as well as most people living in Mound, use County Road 15 every day as it is the main route from Mound to Minneapolis. Something does have to be done about this situation. We were driving Co. Rd. 15 just after Hoy's put up their personal sign. A pedestrian was trying to cross and we then had to decide whether to stop, although the sign was not official, or to chance having the car directly behind us hit us as they may not acknowledge the sign and would not expect us to stop. A hundred council meetings and reams of paper could be wasted on this situation. It really is so simple. Either the crosswalk is eliminated officially..forever..and it is acknowledged by everyone, or at greater expense, but much safer and wiser solution is to put in a STOP LIGHT.. not a sign. Hound is a densely populated area. It is our guess, if we can use our thinking as reflecting the average Mound resident, the inconvenience of waiting for a light is slight compared to the ambivalence that one goes through second guessing whether the pedestrian is going to try to make it through the traffic. One way or the other it has to be done, because the writing is definitely "on the wall" Someone will be hit or cars will pile up on that spot. There is just too much traffic not to consider it a serious enough problem to deal with quickly. How much is one life worth?..the cost of a stop light..we think so. Muriel and Paul Mound, Mn. ~ JUL-- 1~--95 !1 1, ! ii t Sent By: Sent To: lo,anne L. Matzen .WINTHROP A Professional Association 3200 Minnesota Worm Trade Center $0 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (6~2) 290-8400 Telecopy (612) 292.9347 Facsimile Cover Letter Date: Time: Ref#: NOTICE - CONFIDENTIAL IN¥0RMATION The information in this fax eommu~catioa is privileged and strictly confidential. It is leaded solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If fl~e mulet of this mcsmge is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respo~ziblo to deliver it to the intended recipient, any rinse, ruination, distribution, copying or other u~ of the infocmation contained ;~ tb.ls eo_~muuicatloa ~s strictly proMbited. If you have ~.elved ds communication ~ error, plea~ first notify the sender,immediately at the above telephone number of your erroneous r~:eipt and then r~turn this fax communication st once to the sender at tho above address either via United States Postal ~:rvice or by the me&ed of delivery specified by the sender, This communication consists of /~ pages, including this cover letter, If all pages are not received, please contact Susan Carlson at 290-8523. JUL-- 1 $--9.~ TUE 1 2 : ~0 WI NTH ROp (St WEI NSTI N E SCOTT ,~. DOnOO~KC ~DWAA, D J, OA, IC:qYT~L drF~'l~.Y fl, ANSi, t. k,aURl[: LLOYO W. ONOoHS JUI, I~ (612) 290-8546 July 13, 1993 P-02 Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5S364 BY FACSIMIL~ Pc: Dakota Ra~l,q~lboa Addition Dear Mr. Shuldc: This office represents the receiver for the Balboa building located at 5300 Shoreline Ddve in Mound. In connection with the operation of this building, Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. leased a portion of the adjacent railroad right of way to the rear of the building which provides access to the loading docks. Control over this adjacent property, currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc., is critical to the operation of the Balboa property. On May 27, 1993, Dakota Rail submitted an application for a major subdivision of land to facilitate a .sale of this portion of the railroad right of way to Balboa. The City of Mound, as you know, does not allow a major subdivision of I~d without the creation of a plat. Therefore, we have submitted the proposed plat of "Ba/boa Addition" to the City for approval. In response to a suggestion made at the Planning Commission Hearing on the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition, the City Planner recommended in his supplementary planning report of Suly 7, 1993, that a park dedication fee of $22,000 00% of the purchase price for the land) should be exacted. We question whether a park fee is appropriate under these circumstances. At its hearing on the final plat on J'uly 12, 1~3, and after further consideration of the issue, the Planning Commission voted to delete the park fee from the requirements for plat approval. !1 1, ! I JUL-- 15--95 TUE 12 : 5~ I I Mr. Edward Shulde, Ir. Inly 13, 1993 Page 2 As noted above, the purpose of the Balbo~ plat is simply m enable title to the subject property to transfer. Virtually no development of this property is planned or even possible. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances reads in relevant part as follows: In every plat...or subdivision of land allo~ng development for...commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof...a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes... (emphasis added). Since this particular subdivision does not allow for development, it follows that no authority exists for exaction of a park dedication fee. Minnesota caselaw, requiring a 'rational nexus' between the exaction imposed and the n~d created by the subdivision, is in accord. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 17-18, 246 N.W.2d 19, 26 (1976), the court interpreted § 462.:}58 of Minnesota 8tat'utes which enables exaction of reasonable park fees. Recognizing the possibility for arbitrariness and unfairness in the enforcement of such exactions, the court A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider fax out of proportion to the n~ds created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become 'grand theft. ' Thus, the court stated that reasonableness of the fee is measured by the impact on the recreational needs of the community as a result of the subdivision. See also Middlemist v. City of Hymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (1986). Thc use to which this property will be put is the same as its present use. No additional services will be consumed; no additional needs will be created by the proposed subdivision. We, therefore, respectfully request that the requirement of a park dedication fee be dropped from the conditions for approval of the final plat. In addition to the foregoing, since the Balboa building is in receivership, the intended purchase must be approved by the court. The court has previously approved an expenditure of $220,000 for the subject property. The 10% park fee essentially increases the purchase price to $242,000 necessitating a new court order authorizing the purchase. The purchase agreement between Balboa and Dakota Rall calls for a closing on or before August 16, 1993. Since time is of the essence in this transaction the need for court approval could cripple or kill this transaction. JUL-- 1 ---- ~ -- ~ 9,~ TUE 1 ~ : ~, Z P . 04 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. ~uly 13, 1993 3 Assuming the City feels the continued existence Md use of the Balboa building is a.n economic benefit to the community the exaction of pazk fees should be reconsidered. On behalf of the purchaser we ask that you review this letter and the City ordinances and the cases. If you would like to discuss a.qy of the foregoing points in more detail, please feel free to call us. We appreciate your consideration and again respectfully request that you advise the council that the park dedication fees do not apply under the foregoing circumstances. Very Izuly yours, P.A. Ms. Denise Brown Curtis Pearson, Esq. Thomas Underwood, Esq. Mr. Thomas M. Hart 12 i :29 Sent By: Sent To: ~oanne L. Matzen ~I~ ROP A Profes~onal A~$ocian'on 3200 Minnesota World Trade Center $0 East Seventh Street Saint Paul, Minnesota $$101 Telephone: (612) 290-8400 2'elecopy (612) 292-9347 Facsimile Cover Letter Date: Time: Reft: NOTICE - CONFIDE~ INFORMATION The information in this faX communication is privileged and strictly coafidesafial. It is intended solely for the usa of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or ageat responsible to deliver it to the intcud~ recipient, any dia.sL-mination, distribution, copying or other use of the information contained error, please first notify the sender. ~mmediately at the above telephone number of your erroneous receipt and then return this fax communication at once to the sender it tho above address either via United State~ Postal Service or by the method of delivery specified by the sender. This communication consists of /7/ pages, including this cover letter. If all pages are not received, please ~ntact Su~an Carlson at JUL-- i ~--95 TUE i 2 : ~0 P. 02 SM CJI~,~.~ Wt N'r~ iol) I)Ol~l~R'r (~. wL"tNS?m ~. OAIt~ON C, KNVTSON .JOMN A. KIdAJDll ~ICplIr LC D. YAILIBA. N~L~I' 0&¥10 i,MQIAN, JI, WINTHROP & WEI NSTIN E '"1900 MINNC$O?A wo~l.O ?I~AC:)I: CE:N'Tr~ 30 I'AST S~V~NTH gAUNT P~UL, MIN N ~:9OTA (612) 290-8546 July 13, 1993 DANIEL W, 011' Mr. F.,dwatd Shukle, Ir. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 BY FACSIMILE Re: Da.kota Rail/Balboa Addition Dear I~. ShuMc: This office represents the receiver for the Balboa building located at 5300 ShoreUne Drive in Mound. In connection with the operation of this building, Balboa Minnesota Co., Inc. has leased a portion of the adjacent railroad fight of way to the rear of the building which provides access to the loading docks. Control over this adjacent property, currently owned by Dakota Rail, Inc., is critical to the operation of the Balboa property. On May 27, 1993, Dakota Rail submitted an application for a major subdivision of land to facilitate a sale of this portion of the railroad right of way to Balboa. The City of Mound, as you know, does not allow a major subdivision of land without the creation of a plat. Therefore, we have submitted the proposed plat of "Balboa Addition" to the City for approval. In response to a suggestion made at the Planning Commission Hearing on the preliminary plat of Balboa Addition, the City Planner recommended in his supplementary planning report of July 7, 1993, that a park dedication fee of $22,000 (10% of thc purchase price for the land) should be exacted. We question whether a park fee is appropriate under these circumstances. At its hearing on the final plat on Iuly 12, 1993, and after further consideration of the issue, the Planning Commission voted to delete the park fee from the requirements for plat approval. ! I l, ! !, I I Il P.O.~ Mr. Edward Shulde, Jr. ~Iuly 13, 199:3 Page 2 As noted above, the purpose of the Balboa plat is simply to enable tide to the subject property to transfer. Virtually no development of this property is planned or even possible. Section 330:120 of the Mound Code of Ordinances reads in relevant part as follows: In every plat...or subdivision of land allowing development for...commer¢ial, industrial, or other uses or combination thereof...a reasonable portion of such land and/or cash shall be sa aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes... (emphasis add~). Since this particular subdivision does not allow for development, it follows that no authority exists for exaction of a park dedication fee. Minnesota caselaw, requiring a 'rational nexus" between the exaction imposed and the need created by the subdivision, is in accord. In Collis v. City of Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 17-18, 246 N.W.2d 19, 26 (I976), the court interpreted § 462.358 of Minnesota Statutes which enables exaction of reasonable park fees. Recognizing the possibility for arbitrariness and unfairness in the enforcement of such exactions, the court wrote: A municipality could use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs created by his subdivision in order to avoid imposing the burden of paying for additional services on all citizens via taxation. To tolerate this situation would allow an otherwise acceptable exercise of police power to become "grand theft.' Thus, the court stated that reasonableness of the fee is measured by the impact on the recreational needs of the community as a result of the subdivision. See also Mfddlemist v. City of Hymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (1986). The use to which this property will be put is the same as its present use. No additional services will be consumed; no additional needs will be created by the proposed subdivision. We, therefore, respectfully request that the requirement of a park dedication fee be dropped from the conditions for approval of the final plat. In addition to the foregoing, since the Balboa building is in receivership, the intended purchase must be approved by the court. The court has previously approved an expenditure of $220,000 for the subject property. The 10% park fee essentially increases the purchase price to $242,000 necessitating a new court order authorizing the purchase. The purchase agreement between Balboa and Dakota Rail calls for a closing on or before August 16, 1993. Since time is of the essence in this transaction the need for court approval could cripple or kill this transaction. JUL-- 1 $--95 TUE 12 : $1 P. 04 Mr. Edward Shukle, ~r. Iuly 13, 1993 Page 3 Assuming the City feels the continued existence and use of the Balboa building is ~n economic benefit to the community the exaction of pazk fees should be reconsidered. On behalf of the purchaser we ask that you review this letter and the City ordinances and the cases. If you would like to discuss any of the foregoing lx)ints in more detail, please feel free to call us. We appreciat~ your consideration and again respectfully request that you advise the council that the park dedication fees do not apply under the foregoing circumstances. Very truly yours, Ms, Denise Brown Curtis Pearson, Esq. Thomas Underwood, Esq. Mr. Thomas M. Hart !1 ! l, U I i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force Agenda 8:30 am, Friday, JUly 16, 1993 conference Rm 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata ItEC'D JUL ]. 3 1993 .1. Introductions, Chair Tom Penn Review, acceptance/amendment of 6/18/93 minutes as mailed LMCD harvest operations progress, b C e Supervisor Todd Grams: Production results since June 21 start Public access milfoil fragment clean-up experience Public access herbicide treatment results Projections for harvest schedule Personnel performance Equipment performance MN DNR report on exotics control: a, Proposed study of triclopyr in Lake Minnetonka in cooperation with U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to control Eurasian water milfoil (See 6/30 Welling ltr. and 7/6/93 Getsinger letter) b. Additional exotics control programs: * MN Conservation Corps boat inspections at accesses * State highway exotics spot inspection experience * Other items . Biocontrol study update, U of M Dept. of Fisheries & Wildlife, Dr. Ray Newman &/or staff 6. Hennepin Parks report, John Batten 7. Lake association reports; 8. Additional business 9. Next meeting (Friday, August 20), adjournment July 8, 1993 BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Inc. P. O. Box 461 Spring Park, MN 55384 Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson, Treasurer Greetings, Charter Boat Licensee: Minnetrista Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound err E. Slocum Woodland (LOON) We are pleased to present your 1993 charter boat registration for operation on Lake Minnetonka. We encourage you to display this certificate. Your charter boat operation is recognized by the LMCD Board of Directors as providing valuable public access to the lake. The District is pleased that you take the time and investment to attract public participation so that a wide range of people can enjoy this valuable lake resource. Please alert all pilots to maintain minimum wakes during normal charter operation, in order to make everyone's visit on Lake Minnetonka an enjoyable, quality experience. Avoid making large wakes while en route at faster speeds to pickup points. Noise level of music and patron activity can be an annoyance to lakeshore residents. Some lakeshore residents are on regular charter boat routes. We have received calls from these residents pointing out that they have been disturbed by "party boat" noise. Your cooperation in this matter will help us avoid creating further ordinance restrictions in this regard. Note: Please forward copies of any pilot license renewals that expire during the season. A self-addressed envelope is enclosed for this purpose. Similarly, should your insurance coverage expire during the season, that renewal certificate should be provided promptly. Recently the City of Wayzata advised the LMCD that they will no longer be issuing permits for use of the Wayzata public docks. However, charter boat operators are still entitled to use the Wayzata public docks as a Port of Call. The City of Wayzata requires any charter boats using its docks to list the city as an additional insured. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Charter Boat Licensee, Page 2 The LMCD urges the following guidelines when using the Wayzata public docks: A. Advise advance-booked patrons to park in the city's free municipal parking ramp at the rear of the Carisch Building between Broadway and Walker streets. The Depot. parking lot should not be used. Most city streets have limited parking with time limits and are not recommended for charter patron use. B. Advise catering services to avoid tying-up limited space while unloading, using the space only for the time during which supplies are being moved to or from the charter boat (approx. 15-30 minutes). C. Check with the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce, 473-9595, regarding dock-use dates to avoid conflicts with chamber or city special events. The Lake Use and Recreation Committee has concluded that charter boat service on the Lake can be reinforced as a public amenity. You can help us do this by providing the number of passengers served by your charter boat this year by mailing a summary to the LMCD office at the end of the season. LMCD chair Dave Cochran and Lake Use Committee Chair Bert Foster join in wishing you a successful charter season. sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ~'ug~.~ R. S~rommen Exe~dtive Director enc: certificate, envelope c/enc: Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol city where berthed - Mound city of Port of Call- Mound c: D. cochran, LMCD'Chair B. Foster, LMCD Lake Use & Recreation chair !1 1, I I, . I I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Charter Boat Licensee, Page 2 The LMCD urges the following guidelines when using the Wayzata public docks: As Advise advance-booked patrons to park in the City's free municipal parking ramp at the rear of the Carisch Building between Broadway and Walker streets. The Depot parking lot should not be used. Most city streets have limited parking with time limits and are not recommended for charter patron use. B$ Advise catering services to avoid tying-up limited space while unloading, using the space only for the time during which supplies are being moved to or from the charter boat (approx. 15-30 minutes). Ce Check with the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce, 473-9595, regarding dock-use dates to avoid conflicts with chamber or city special events. The Lake Use and Recreation Committee has concluded that charter boat service on the Lake can be reinforced as a public amenity. You can help us do this by providing the number of passengers served by your charter boat this year by mailing a summary to the LMCD office at the end of the season. LMCD Chair Dave Cochran and Lake Use Committee Chair Bert Foster join in wishing you a successful charter season. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT enc: certificate, envelope c/enc: Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol City where berthed - Mound city of Port of Call- Mound c: D. Cochran, LMCD'Chair B. Foster, LMCD Lake Use & Recreation Chair ! I I I ~ rn !1 BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chair Greenwood Tom Penn, Vice Chair Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock, Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson, Treasurer Minnetrista Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEilen L Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound 3ert E. Slocum Woodland ! I,, It I ! EC'D JUL t 2 1993 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 ° WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 9, 1993 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Multiple Dock Licensees ~ ~~ Executive Director Gene Strommen Notice to Boaters Concerning High Water Welcome to high water ! Thanks to mother nature, now more water has about become too much. Your LMCD invites your quick assistance in getting the message out to boaters to help prevent some of the problems now being experienced by the high water. The enclosed bulletin is provided for your convenience to post in conspicuous places. Please duplicate this bulletin for additional copies to post and circulate as you see helpful. It is important that this information be circulated or posted immediately. Thank you for making it available to everyone who finds Lake Minnetonka their recreation playground. As a business and property owner, you will find the results helpful to preserve the valuable resource we are all trying to maintain on the lakeshore as well. Best wishes for the sunny days we trust are coming. ! l, i i HIGH ATTENTION LAKE MINNETONKA BOATERS WATER BOATING ALERT! Record lake levels require extra care while boating to: * Prevent shoreline erosion... * Protect docks, boats at shore... * Avoid nutrients being washed into the lake... How can you still enjoy the lake and avoid further damage? * Watch your boat wake at all times - In small bay. s, lake areas not marked "Slow, Minimum Wake" In large bays where the wake will eventually wash to shore * Maintain boat speeds which minimize wakes at all times --look behind you OFTEN ! * Limit towing of tubes, other devices, in small areas where slow speeds create noticeable wakes * Operate boats, including personal watercraft, during this high water period at no wake speeds when within 300 feet or more of docks or shore * Avoid quick stops and sharp turns when towing persons, including water ski towing Reminder -- * Observers are required for all towing on Lake Minnetonka * Lake speeds -- 40 mph day, 20 mph night * Decibel limit, 82dba Sheriff's Water Patrol will check your boat decibel level on request, 471-8528 Your cooperation is appreciated by the Board of Directors Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 473-7033 I I w~#t hennepin human west hennepin human services planning board 4100 vernon avenue south, st. louis park, minnesota 55416 920-5533 JUL 1 S DATE: TO: July 12, 1993 WHHS Board Members FROM: Marcy Shapiro, Executive Director I am writing to let you know about two meetings related to Hennepin County. The first is a meeting regarding changes in the human service councils. The proposal (see memo from Commissioner Peter McLaughlin) speaks to more diversity, participation, and collaboration as well as strengthening the role of the human service councils in relation to the County Board. It's important that we have strong participation at this meeting on Thursday, July 22nd at 7:00 p.m. at Sabathani Community Center, 310 East 38th Street, Minneapolis, in Room J on the third floor. The second meeting is one sponsored by the County Board on collaboration. It will be on Wednesday, July 28th at 3:00 p.m. at Lutheran Brotherhood, 625 Fourth Avenue South in Minneapolis. See the enclosed information for more details. If you have questions or want more information, call me at 920-5533. ] I ~, ! I, i[ I I "I think this is a very significant moment in the h/story of our community.., the beginning of a thoughtful approach to a series of collaborations tltat I hope expand and grow with the passage of time." Mark Andrew Chair, Hennepin County Board Inter-jurisdictional ~ession April 28, r993 Unity, Diversity, Community: Hennepin's O_uest for Collaboration A State of the County Address and Dialogue Wednesday,.July ~_8, x993 3 p.m. Lutheran Brotherhood Building First Floor Auditorium 6~5 Fourth Avenue South Minneapolis Reception follows _>..:_ Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Mike Opat, District ~ Sandra Hilary, District = Mark Andrew, District 3, Chair Peter McLaughlin, District 4 Randy Johnson, District 5 John Kcefe, D/strict 6 Emily Anne Staples, District 7, Vice Chair ! I I I DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 8, 1993 Human Service Councils Interested Community Organizations Peter McLaughlin, Chairman Hennepin County Ways and Means Committee Citizen Participation For the past decade, Hennepin County has been served by eight human service councils, five in Minneapolis and three in suburban Hennepin. Historically, the principal function of the Human Service Councils has been to undertake local area human services planning and to advise the Hennepin County Board of its findings and recommendations. In addition to providing valuable community input to County policy and funding decisions, this structure has also met the citizen participation requirements of the Community Social Services Act. Several events have taken place in recent years that make it advisable to re-examine the structure and function of the human service councils. Implementation of the CARE and Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) in Minneapolis, and establishment of the County's Neighborhood Initiatives Fund (making County NRP funds available for social service elements of approved neighborhood action plans), have brought new players and resources to the table in Minneapolis. There has also been some unhappiness expressed regarding both the County Boards' receptivity to the human services council's reports and the composition of human services councils. It is important that human service advisory councils be working in close cooperation with other neighborhood organizations addressing human service needs. The County Board has also been improving its communications with the public and its process for budget development. Over the past few months, the Ways and Means Committee has held six Town Meetings throughout the County to receive input on needs and priorities for 1994. This input, and that from various advisory bodies and community organizations, will be used by the Board in shaping policy direction to our Administrative staff and establishing 1994 budget priorities. In light of these recent developments, and with an eye toward the future, I would like to request your review of the attached proposal for modifying our citizen participation plan. This proposal is primarily designed to achieve closer coordination among human service councils and neighborhood organizations, to ensure broad based and representative opportunities for participation, and to establish a more visible and effective opportunity for budgetary input. I'd also like to ask your participation in a discussion of this proposal and other ideas you might have. The meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, July 22 at 7:00 P.M. at the Sabathani Community Center, Room J on the third floor. Please notify my office at 348-3085 of your availability to participate in this meeting. If you are unable to attend, I would appreciate your thoughts in response to this proposal in advance of the meeting. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN MODIFICATIONS Backqround: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners established a citizen participation plan in 1980. This plan provides for the recognition of eight human services councils (5 in the City of Minneapolis and 3 in suburban Hennepin County) to advise the Hennepin County Board and the Community Services Department on human service needs and funding priorities, including use of Community Social Services Act funds. Since establishment of the advisory relationship between the human service councils and Hennepin County, a number of institutional and organizational changes have occurred, particularly within the City of Minneapolis, that argue for reexamination and modification of the human service council structure. Specifically, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the Community and Resource Exchange (CARE) have been established involving numerous, active neighborhood organizations. In addition, the Hennepin County Board, the Minneapolis City Council and the Minneapolis School Board have developed an active policy collaboration mechanism linking efforts throughout the city. Minneapolis and suburban communities have become more ethnically diverse over the past decade, adding urgency to the need to ensure that advisory councils reflect community demographics. Proposed Modifications: To address the changes noted above, and update the structure and function of the human services councils, the following modifications are proposed: me A single human service council of the City of Minneapolis be established to advise the Hennepin County Board and staff on human service issues and priorities throughout the city of Minneapolis. The Minneapolis Human Service Council would be expected to establish an effective working relationship with the Neighborhood Revitalization/CARE Program and its participating organizations. Input from NRP and CARE Neighborhoods should be actively solicited by the Human Service Council and incorporated into its advisory recommendations whenever possible. !1 1, I i,, tt ~ CITIZEN p~,RTICIP~TION PLAN MODIFICATIONS Back ro/~: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners established a citizen participation plan in 1980. This plan provides for the recognition of eight human services councils (5 in the city of Minneapolis and 3 in suburban Hennepin County) to advise the Hennepin County Board and the Community Services Department on human service needs and funding priorities, including use of Community Social Services Act funds. Since establishment of the advisory relationship between the human service councils and Hennepin County, a number of institutional and organizational changes have occurred, particularly within the city of Minneapolis, that argue for reexamination and modification of the human service council structure. Specifically, the Neighborhood Revitalization Program and the Community and Resource Exchange (CARE) have been established involving numerous, active neighborhood organizations. In addition, the Hennepin County Board, the Minneapolis city Council and the Minneapolis School Board have developed an active policy collaboration mechanism linking efforts throughout the city. Minneapolis and suburban communities have become more ethnically diverse over the past decade, adding urgency to the need to ensure that advisory councils reflect community demographics. Proposed Modifications: To address the changes noted above, and update the structure and function of the human services councils, the following modifications are proposed: 1. A single human service council of the City of Minneapolis be established to advise the Hennepin County Board and staff on human service issues and priorities throughout the city of MinneaPOlis. 2. The Minneapolis Human Service Council would be expected to establish an effective working relationship with the Neighborhood Revitalization/CARE Program and its participating organizations. Input from NRP and CARE Neighborhoods should be actively solicited by the Human Service Council and incorporated into its advisory recommendations whenever possible. !1 1, I I,, u t a To effect the human service council changes in the City of Minneapolis, existing human service council members, human service providers, neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups should be invited to a city-wide conference for the purpose of election of Board members for the Minneapolis Human Service Council, adoption of annual goals, and establishment of a work group to detail administrative steps necessary to implement the council. The conference should be collaboratively organized and planned by the Community Services Department, the Urban Coalition of Minneapolis and the office of Planning and Development. 4. In addition to continuing to provide human service and CSSA input, the role of the human service councils will be expanded to include research and recommendations on a limited number, priority issues identified by the County Board. 5. Effective January 1, 1994, the composition of each human service council shall be reflective of the demographics of the communities they serve with regard to age, sex and racial composition. Each council should submit a demographic profile of the community and council board to qualify for continued funding. 6. The Ways and Means 'Committee of the County Board should establish a special budget hearing for the purpose of receiving testimony, funding recommendations and comments regarding any priority issues identified by the County Board (see #4) from the human service councils.