The URL can be used to link to this page

1990-05-22 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET -- 5/22/90 ��l RMMQUMs REAR YARD LAUSHORS SETBACK VARIANCE. Pg. 1445 -1456 6. 9W 690 -9_141 LAWRENCE PILLAR, 2157 GRAMGOVIEW BLVD., PARTS OF LOTS 6, 7 i 8, M60EHLERIS SEOOND ADDITION, PID #14- 117 -24 42 0012. REQVMi MINOR SUBDIVISION i RECOGNISE EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK. Pg. 1457 -1468 7. S Mi 690 -9171 DAVID HOLM 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOT I FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, PID 419- 117 -23 13 0003. RMMQOSSTt REAR YARD, LAIMSHORE SETBACK VARIANCE. Pg. 1469 -1482 PAGE 1409 PAGE 1410 & -Oita RICHARD NC CARM, 4877 HARMIM ROAD, LO" 9, 10 i PART OF 8, BLOCK 16, DEVON, PID #25 -117w � 24 11 0148.` 92M Ms FENCE HEIGHT h SETBACK VARIANCE. 9. OB•"96-9192 KENNETH CARLSON, 5324 THREE POINTS BLVD., PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13 -117- 24 21 0044. R1pOpl2 VARIANCE. Pq. 1494-3A" 10. cmlgm TB i SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. -: 11. h0-62st JERRY RUST (FOR W. i SHARON HIM), :E 2731 DOGWOOD LANE, LOT 8, BLOCK 2, BATDORF'S F: in ADDITION, PID #23- 117 -24 24 0036. njggs l FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE. (THIS TV E WILL U HEFOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NAY 21, 1990 AND AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT) Pg. 1510 -1516 12. QAJI W -6622 BRIAN i MARIA JOHNSON, 4945 GUM ELYN BAAD, PART OF LOTS 17 is 18, SHADYWOOD POINT, A PID #13- 117 -24 11 0094. p f1QOE8'!2 ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 87 -179. Pg. 1517 -1526 13. REQUEST FOR CWWONS DOCK SITE FROM GARY DRUM", 5420 BREEZY ROAD. Pg. 1527 - 1534 14. REQUEST FOR RENEWAL OF A DOCK PERMIT DUE TO LATE APPLICATION FOR 1990 - ED FREIDLUND, 4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, ABUT!'ING DOCK HOLDER. Pg. 1535 15. PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AMENDMENT RESOLUTION AS RECOHN END ED BY PARKS i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION. Pg. 1536 -1538 16. COMMENTS ON DNR APPLICATIONS #90 -6264 AND #90 -6282 (SAND BLUMT PROJECTS), 5361 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE AND 5371 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE. Pg. 1539 -1552 17. WESTEDGE BLVD. PETITION FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS. Pg. 1553 -1575 18. STATUS OF SHORELINE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION FUNDING REQUEST. Pg. 1576 -1578 19. APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER #1 - CITY HALL ADDITION AND REMODELING PROJECT. Pg. 1579 20. APPROVAL OF "ENTRANCE TO HOUND" SIGN AT EAST ENTRANCE TO CITY, AS RECOMMMED BY THE CITY MANAGER. . 21. RESOLUTION THANKING MOUND POLICE RESERVES FOR THEIR WORK AND ASSISTANCE TO THE MOUND POLICE DEPT. Pg. 1580 PAGE 1410 h _ _� LAM ON SLi1D t r P 01! !!E IBM lDD VOILV R FIRE DEPT. RELIEIF �pS� TO ZMCREi18E lErBItaM BENEFITS. Pg. 15S1 -1696 , 24. hPlOWU Of piSMi't8 s MR n D 1lOLUNUM FIRE DEPT. 11 *11 8T Tom LIMB CLUB MO010 CITY DAYS Pg. 1597 25. PAS OF BXLLS. pg. 1598 -1615 29. A. Financial bgwrt for April 1990, as prepared by John Doreen, Finance Director. Pg. 1616 -1617 S planning Commission Minutes of May 7, 1990. Pg. 1618 -1624 C. Latter of April 27, 1990 that I sent to Jim Glasoe, C+ommAUSity Services re: your questions on coots related to parks iVogran i Lifeguard hgre =onto and his response dated May 8, 1990. Pg. 1625 -1630 D. parrs E Open Space Commission Minutes of May 10, 1190. pg. 1631 -1638 E. L.M.C.D. mailings. Pg. 1639 -1649 F. You had previously requested the results of "after the fact" permits on sand blanket applications submitted to the MM. Attached are letters dated May 4, 1990 and May 8, 1990 regarding two recent applications. Pg. 1650 -1653 G. City of hound Police Department has received an Outstanding Achievement Avard through the Governors Safety Program, Minnesota Safety Council for Traffic Safety during 1989. Pg. 1654 -1655 H. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 15, 1990. Pg. 1656 • PAGE 1411 7 _ R ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 -0213 May 22, 1990 Local Board of Review City of Mound Dear Board Members: As you requested, we have reviewed the 1990 Estimated Market Values on several properties in Mound. Those properties are listed below with their original 1990 EMV and a recommendation based on our review appraisal. $j Original Local Board 1990 EMV Recommendation Action Leo Wallis (� 1668 Canary Lane �� q, 1 -3- 117 -24 -12 -0217 100,000 93,000 ,-'James A. Miller g-yn 4781 Island View Drive 30-117-23-22-0063 160 S h Zn g�e Vernon Snodgrass P� _3 5990 Ridgewood Road C 23- 117 -24 -34 -0097 63,000 No Change 23- 117 -24 -34 -0096 12,000 No Change Guy Johnson 6347 Bayridge Road 23- 117 -24 -33 -0007 130,000 No Change Harold Kutzner x,4563 Carlow Road 19- 117 -23 -23 -0145 145,000 No Change John Shackleford ( 2940 Highland Court > 23- 117 -24 -41 -0030 285,000 No Change HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer I 6 16 Local Board of Review May 22, 1990 Page 2 Original 1990 EMV Builders Finance Co., Inc. Mail: 1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 (Property: 4363 Wilshire Blvd.) Unit A -308 19- 117 -23 -13 -0047 )04,300 Thomas Hintz $Mail: 1433 46th Avenue Columbia Htights, MN 55421 (Property: Unassigned- Lynwood Blvd.) 14- 117 -24 -43 -0005 16,000 g Roger Beckel 1 4961 Bartlett Blvd. 13- 117 -24 -44 -0006 1 i f, Turnacliff 60 Avon y 24- 117- 24 -11- 0002 /d w James Frieswick 2848 Highland Blvd. 23- 117 -24 -41 -0006 Al Schwingler 1 ,, 5301 Bartlett 24- 117 -24 -24 -0002 Crane J. Bodine ,,Mail: 7313 Glouchester 'Edina, MN 55435 (Property: 5025 Wren Rd) 13- 117 -24 -13 -0022 James Baer Mail: 9324 40 112 Ave. N New Hope, MN (Property: 1665 Canary) 13- 117 -24 -12 -0051 ernard Gaudette 1605 Bluebird Lane 13 - 11 -24 -12 -0227 w 90,000 142,80C 15,000 235,400 128,800 170,900 Recommendation 149,100 93,900 9,500 75,000 No Change No Change 166,500 125,000 No Change [126,6 00 d, "y 5 n? Local Board Action Local Board of Review May 22, 1990 Page 3 Original 1990 EMV Ralph Turnquist Icv Mail: P.O. Bcx 100 Minneapolis, MN 55440 (Property: 4451 Wilshire Blvd) 19- 117 -23 -31 -0021 255,000 ✓Ruth Gray 2640 Lakewood Lane (124- 117 -24 -24 -0029 168,900 Herman Hasselbring Mail: 3825 Edgewood Ave. S (y Minneapolis, MN 55426 (Property: 5211 Eden Road) 13- 117 -24 -43 -0015 63,600 13- 117 -24 -43 -0016 81,000 Terrance Hughes /`16641 Halstead Ave. 22- 117 -24 -43 -0025 151,700 Sincerely, Keith Rennerfeldt Principal Appraiser KR:jb Local Board Recommendation Action 160,000 No Change No Change No Change No Change Yr°Qi M may 15: 1990 Mrs.. Stith D.. Gray 2640 Lakewood Lane Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mrs. Gray; This is a summary of my inspection of your property. Evaluations are based on t 1. Cost, 2. Replacement and 3. Market Comparisons. In the case of cost it doesn't apply because of obsolete construct- ion that would not'*be permitted with todays building requirements. Replacement would not be desirable without substantial redesign and specification change of floor plans and building material Improve- ment. Your building was formerly a lumber yard office in Spring and was mowed to this site sometime in the 40 It was not built to be a residence and the resulting disfunctional floor plan would br difficult to change without very mayor eonstruotion changes. Market comparisons are also difficult when so matey factors effect buyer acceptance and final price. Let me identify for you the negatives that would increase buyer resistance in the present soft real estate market. 1. Inconsistancy of lake levels results in reduced values In shore property sales. Specifically on this particular property, the shore rip -rap has deteriorated. The soil has eroded on the embankment, exposing tree roots and it needs to be shored up with rocks eta. 2. Comute time and distance to the cities restrict those buyers that have this as a mayor priority. Mound school district, although improving, is not'presently competitive with higher demand locations. 3. Drive is not hard surface and hazardous to cars in our climate. 4. Exterior of the house has either been painted with the wrong or inferior paint. The extreme deterioration would require removal or replacement or a total paint removal by chemical or burn off and would probably not be very satisfactory because of cedar shake shingles. 5. The roof needs repair. The bottom layer is cedar xhingle with a layer of asphalt shingle above. To remove all shingles and repair the roof will be very costly. NL49 Member — National Associated Board of Realtors & Greater Minneapolis Area Board of Realtors* 6.. Floor plan obsolescence. (a) Access door to main "public rooms" inaecessable from public approach to building. (b) Kitchen cabinets applianoes flooring, lighting and work space reflect 1930 or older facilities. (c) lot floor half bath is poorly located off kitchen and not accepsable to "public rooms ". 2nd floor is totally unacceptable by todays standards. Half bath is a long distance from main sleeping bedroom and the tub is in a *operate area in a room with nothing adequate for shower- ing. (d) i bedroom 1 bedroom up plus 1 small room on each floor with no closets, make it a practical hose for only 2 or possibily 3 people. Basically it would not'. be acceptable to families without very major redesign of sleeping quarters. 7. Quality of building materials is substandard on entire 2nd floor and in kitchen and bath facilities. Fiberboard used for the walls does not provide insulation or ease of maintenance or change of decor. Flbor is sub flooring with carpet of poor quality or asphalt tile In and kitohen areas. Electrical is below current standards for the number of plugs in bath and kits on areas but the service has been modified to safely _�rvice major appli- ances. Collings on the lot floor and small room off the living room are interior fiberboard tiles. Stairwell that combines lot floor planter with 2nd floor fiberboard In not dons well and is an eyesore._ Now leV ue derail the acceptable features. 1. Lakeshore 2. Attached garage 3. Nature trees - that are also a mixed blessing because so many need costly triming. The loss of 5 major mature trees on the shoreline, that died of Dutch Elm disease materially make heat in the house intense in the summer and also diminish privacy severly. 4.. Foundation and furnanee are adequate but the remaining oil tank will be costly to remove if this is wanted. 5.. Seclusion has been diminished by new construction It is my opinion that marketing this property would be long and difficult at this time. The expense of required improvements in the kitchen and bath will still leave a floor plan that is not acceptable. The exterior replacement world certainly provide sore curb appeal but choice would have to be very careful because the exterior appearance In part of the high motivation in appealing to a buyers pride of ownership. I feel your most likely purchaser would removs the exist- ing house for different construction. While the foundation shows some shaling it is very sound which along with the oil tank would present higher than usual cost for removal versus a vacant lot. .a, From the MI, sales I have reviewed, even well maintained, main stream demand properties are experiencing a drop In Oedy exceptional property is selling without long market periods, Property such as yours, with poor construction and such differed maintenance, has been sold at very severe discounts, Which would not be in your best interests. In y opinion, the value of your land has not increased by the sale of the lot next door. This lot differs substantially from yours. It has 15 sore feet of well maintained shoreline and regular lot lines. It had been readied for oonstruetion by removal of prior structures. The sale of this prepared lot still took several years. I feel it is unlikely we could obtain even the $ 151,300-00, (the estimated 1989 market value) in tmays market without substanlal investment for improvemnts. If I oan be of further service to you, please advise. Sincerely yours. 01 4 Beth Jones to IL f N N N N r a \ . \ G ig •" \� I r_ '0 - o --4 • - - - T _ j TAY -- - - - -- - - — now IWO- ir } \ \I o "� o� c \ L1 _ 11 a — - - Al - \ L -L11 L e - - Val� -4 c �o o j G pP IF f ! !; is ray s, 1910 r n = - r0 =TV D00>«:IL - 3 O OM/ 20win Jay •, 1990 • Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of the City of round, Hein County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on lay B 1990, at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Acting Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilu tubers Andrea Ahrens, Lis Jensen, Phyllis Jsssen. Mayor Smite arrived at 7:10 P.M. Also present Mere: City Manager Bdward J. Sbukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Renierfeldt and Hennepin County Appraiser Bill Efferta. Acting Mayor Johnson opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1990. Be explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene %enday, May 22, 1990, at 7:00 P.M. and bring back their final decision on each property. Hennepin County Assessor, Keith Rennerfeldt, explained that 5.20 of all properties in Mound did sell. 5.11 off lake properties sold and 5.2% on lake properties sold. The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. ?bey all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 1. PID #13- 117 -24 12 0217 - LEO WALLIS, 1668 CANARY LANE. 2. PID #30- 117 -23 22 0063 - JAMES MILLER, 4781 ISLAND VIEW DR. 3. PID #23- 117 -24 34 0096 - VERNON SNODGRASS, 0097 5990 RIDGEN00D RD. 4. PID #23- 117 -24 33 0007 - GUY JOHNSON, 6347 BAYRIDGE RD. 5. PID #19- 117 -23 23 0145 - HAROLD KUTZNER, 4653 CARLOW RD. 6. PID #23- 117 -24 41 0030 - JOHN SHACKLEFORD, 2940 HIGHLAND CT. 7. PID #19- 117 -23 13 0047 - BUILDERS FINANCE CO., INC., 1055 E. WAYZATA BLVD. (4363 WILSHIRE BLVD. - A -308) 111z. s K �`' May •, 1!!0 8. PID #14- 117 -24 43 0005 - THOMAS HIMTZ 0 1433 46TH AVE. M.E. COLUMBIA 8EIGHTB, W. 55421 !. PID #13- 117 -24 44 0006 - ROOM ORML, 4961 BARTLETT BLVD. 10. PID #24- 117 -24 11 0002 - J. TURRACLIFF, 2560 AVON DRIVE 11. PID #23- 117 -24 41 0006 -JAMES PRIESVICE, 2848 HIGHLAND BLVD. 12. PID #24- 117 -24 24 0002 - AL SCHiiINGLER, 5301 BARTLETT BLVD. 13. PID #130117024 13 0022 - CRANE BODINE, 7313 GLUUCNESTER, EDIWA, RX. 55435 (5025 VREM RD.) 14. PID #13- 117 -24 12 0051 - JAMES SAM, 9324 - 40 1/2 AVE. M., MEN HOPE, MM. (1665 CANARY LAME) 15. PID #13- 117 -24 12 0227 - BERNARD GAUDETTE, 1605 BLUEBIRD 16. PID #24- 117 -24 24 0029 - RUTH GRAY, 2640 LAKENOOD LANE 17. PID #22- 117 -24 43 0025 - TERRANCE HUGHES, 6641 HALSTEAD KV2. 18. PID #19 117 - 23 31 0021 - TURNQUIST PROPERTIES, INC., • 4451 WILSHIRE BLVD. 1.0 MOTIOM made by Johasca, secoaded by Jensen to reconvene the Local Soard of Review on Tuesday, May 22, 1990, at 7 :o0 P.Y. is the City Council Chambers at $341 Maywood Road. Tee vote was uaaalmously is favor. notion carried. MIM M - MOOMD CITY COUNCIL - 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 8, 1990, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said city. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Lis Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner Mark Roegler, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Reed Beckler, John Nelson, Phyllis Johnson, Leanne i Terry flood, Doug i Gloria Bryce, Tom Casey, Michael Mueller, Bart i Sandy Roeglin, Rick and Barb Roberts. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. C I N 13 The Pledge of Allegiance vas recited. 1.1 � 67 May a 1990 >f0lI III >f made by Jensen seconded by Johnson to approv'o the miamtes of the April 24, 1990, Regular Neetimg as sahnitted and the Minutes of the Committee of the dole loeting of May 1, 1990 with the following corrections Oft also imdioeted that the sanitary as & - 1Mmn eewer systems we not flowing Late the lakes . the vote was unanimously in favor. lotion carried. 1.2 t W. 90 -9111 EMMA . !« � Balm BLLVD., A •12- 117 -24 22 0266. Z[VA The City Planner explained the request. He reported that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with conditions as outlined in the proposed resolution. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: R1aOL0lIOr 190 -54 RSDOLUTIO• TO &PPROV! a Nix aOBDIROIOn OF LOT 1, BLOCK i MADAMez P=K PID #13- 117 -24 22 0266, P i f CUM #90 -911 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager explained the revised date for a public hearing should be June 12, 1990. MIO"lIOlt made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to set June 12, 1990, for a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to allow temporary seasonal outdoor retail sales at 2281 commerce Blvd., P 0 s case 190 -915. Th vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carries. • ,yr . r . / .Y l t• Park Commissioner, Tom Casey was present and stated that he sees 4 issues: • 1. Do private persons have a right to apply chemicals? )4)4 z t f d � 190 _. pons the ooiounity have a right to know what chemicals are beiiq used? (He stated he would like to have a wtowunity right -to -know ordinance) . 9. ' lire the chemicals used sale? 4. Are the chemicals used necessary? He further stated he would like to see the Council put a moratorim on chemical use so that it can I%* studied So council discussed the Park Director** report and his survey of surroa &iny cities. Excelsior is the only city in the area that has an ordinance whiab states: "Prior to any application of pp licat t ion shall be- erevi property, and approved city lo�ger and City Public Works Director". The Council then discussed who should review any applications. The City Attorney stated that there are State and Federal approved chemicals and that there should be Material Safety Data sheets on all chemicals used. The Park Director was discussed as a possible approving authority. The Council asked that the Park Director provide Material Safety • Data Sheets on all chemicals used by the City on City -owned property. smog made by Jessem, seconded by Johnson to direct the City Ittorney to prepare a draft ordinance similar to Esoelsior•s using only State or Federal approved chemicals. The Tot- was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. � i ��i i (•t �► 4 I L +: 4 The City Engineer reported that he has updated the report from 1986 and added a 25% inflation factor to reflect 1990 prices, which results in a total estisated cost of approximately $112,000 for the street improvements as described in the original report. He further reported that another item that needs to be considered is the need to extend the existing 10" watermain. The Alvin and Homola properties are the only Mound properties that would benefit from the main extension. If those two properties were assessed, the charge would be approximately $22.00 per front foot. The Engineer recommended waiting to make a decision on the watermain until the water distribution and quality report is finished. • 14 K N May 8, 1990 A petition, signed by five home owners was submitted. The two home owners with the most front footage, Alwin and Sage, have not signed the petition. The Council discussed the fact that the Alwin property is considered Green Acres and his assessment would be deferred until the property is off Groan Acres, thus the City would have to pay the up front assessment and wait for its money. The Engineer also reported that Minnetrista has not discussed the street improvement at this time. He suggested continuing this item until Minnetrista indicates if they would be interested in this joint project. Union made by Johnson, s000aded by Jensen to have the City Engineer oomtaot Kiaaetrista to see if they are interested in improving Wostedge Blvd. The vote was unanimously is favor. Notion carried. There wore none. This item was continued to the May 22, 1990, Regular Meeting. 1.6 Zing= =0 RESIDEr'P0 of E . RE t sync rTRDLE CORES in M VZZD POR DRIV=X APRONS - TERRT WOOD, 2875 Mr. Wood was present and read the following petition: "We, the undersigned, hereby respectfully petition the City of Mound, Minnesota, to recognize and to act on the following requests: 1. That the curbing on the entire length and on both sides of Halstead Lane, City of Mound, MM., is higher than need be, that the present curbing is unsafe to vehicles entering and exiting the driveways, and that the present curbing is lacking in properly built driveway aprons. 2. That the City of Mound replace every driveway curb area with a properly installed concrete driveway apron, as described by the City of Mound Building Ir.spector's office. G7 I y 40 70 Hey 8, 1990 . 3. That the City of hound bear the anti= total cost of the above curbing /apron replacement for each resident driveway on Halstead Lane as designated (See Amendment A below) . AMENDMENT A: The above words "Halstead Lane" shall be understood to mean the entire area on or encompassing Halstead Lane in the area commonly known as the Woodcrest Division of Mound, Minnesota." The City Engineer explained that these streets in the Woodcrest Addition were done around 1975 by the Developer of the subdivision. The surmountable curbs were done to acceptable engineering standards at that time. There were no homes in the subdivision so no aprons were installed. He further explained that there are a number of other areas in Mound with the same type of surmountable curbs. The City Attorney explained to Mr. Wood that the City would not pay the cost to install the driveway aprons. He suggested that if the residents wished to have this done they sign a petition requesting the project be done and then assessed under Chapter 429 of the State Statutes. Several residents in the audience agreed that they would sign a petition to have the project done • and assessed against their property because it would be cheaper. The City Engineer suggested that the Public Works Dept. do a count of how many of these surmountable curbs there are in Mound and he could then give a cost estimate for the installation of aprons. This estimate could be done in about one month. The Council agreed and this item will be brought back to the Council in June. The City Manager stated that he sent his memo and the letter from the City Attorney to all the property owners in the CBD district. He has received communications from 4 of the property owners in the district, Mike Mueller, Dale Sherburne, Phyllis Johnson and Roger Dolliff. Mr. Mueller "s letter was read to the Council. Tt•s City Manager explained that he and the City Attorney have tried to negotiate a fair price for the parking areas with the new owner of the railroad, but that the new owner still wants approximately $4.00 per square foot for the land or $250,000. The County Aseessor has indicated that $2.00 to $2'.25 per square foot would be a fair market value for the land. The City Attorney stated there are several issues that need to be • 1Yi1 71 May 8, 1990 • determined. 1. Is it desirous to acquire land for parking in the Central Business District? 2. Who should pay the cost of acquiring said land? 3. Would it be to the property owners' advantage to acquire the lands in their own naive and to have fee title to the property? 4. Are the property owners in the CBD who need parking willing to pay the costs of acquiring land? He suggested that the property owners need to petition the City Council for a public improvement under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429 and 459. After receipt of the petition, he would recommend that a professional engineer and /or planner be retained to prepare a feasibility report. This will require that some instruction be given as to how the City and benefited property owners propose to pay for the improvements. NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens directing the Staff to let the owner of Dakota Rail know that the City is not interested in the property for ;250,000. Also directing that a petition requesting a public improvement (under Section 429 i 459 of the Minnesota statutes) be given to the owners of property in the CBD District for their signature. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. • 1.8 APPROVAL OF 1990 DOCK REFUNDS The City Manager reported that there is one more refund not listed on the sheet in the packet for Leland Lundgren, 6000 Evergreen for $133.00. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the 1990 dock refunds as submitted with the addition mentioned above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorise the payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount of $199,701.59 when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. 1.10 nymsUT REQUEST NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve Shingobeels Payment Request 01 for work completed through April 27, 1990, on the City Hall Addition and Remodeling s 1419 72 May A, 1990 Project in the amount of $27,423.21. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to have the Planning Commission and the Staff review this eztension request and give their recommendation before Council action Is takes. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION /90 -55 RESOLUTION PROCL&IMIN0 NAY 14 -22, 1990, HICTCLE will IN THE CITY Or MOVED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. jNVO$XRTX ONAUSCELLMMOUB A. Department Head Monthly Reports for April, 1990. B. IMCD Representative's Monthly Report for April, 1990. C. Minnehahr Creek Watershed District materials from May 1, 1990 C.O.W. Meeting. 1.13 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to direct the Staff to send letters to the Hennepin County Commissioners, the Minnebaha Creek watershed District, the L.M.C.D., and the Department of Natural Resources indicating the City of Mound's opposition to pumping water from wells or diverting water from rivers to increase the lake level of Lake Minnetonka. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. D. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/23/90. E. Economic Development Commission Minutes of April 19, 1990. F. Notice of Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (ANN) 1990 Annual Meeting, Wednesday, May 16, 1990, at McGuires Inn in Arden Hills, MN., 5:30 P.M. G. Letter from Tad Jude re: Budget Meetings Hennepin County Board. • • • 11\1l 73 May 8 1990 H. Councilmembber Jessen received a phone call (5/2/90) frost Hennepin County Commissioner, Tad Jude. Jude indicated that a study is currently underway by the City of Minneapolis and six suburban communities looking at the vulnerability of their water supply in relationship to diverting Mississippi River water to Lake Minnetonka, in terns of drinking water needs. A hydrological model is being worked on over the next 1 1/2 months by the City of Minneapolis in this regard. The DNR is pushing these cities to do this study. The entire study is supposed to take 1 1/2 years. I. Letter from.the people who attended the Westonka Town Meeting on the Environment as part of the Earth Week activities held April 22 -28, 1990. The letter is being sent to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, L.M.C.D., Senator Gen Olson, etc. J. Meeting summary of Earth Week Town Meeting held April 25, 1990. R. L.M.C.D. mailings. NOTION suds by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10 :50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. notion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk • /4 as MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE THOLE - HAT 15, 1990 The meeting was called to order at approximately 6:45 PM. Members present: Mayor Smith, Councilmembers Ahrens, Johnson, Jensen. Absent and excused: Councilmember Jensen. Also present: City Engineer, John Cameron; Lori Hamm, The Laker; Tom Casey, Park and Open Space Commission Member and Ed Shukle, City Manager. City Manager, Ed Shukle, introduced the item of the storage of public works materials. He indicated that City Engineer, John Cameron, and himself were directed to investigate the possibility of the Meisel property for an alternative site for public liorks materials. This matter was directed to be investigated at the April Committee of the Whole. John Cameron then reviewed the site, presenting aerial photographs indicating the areas involved. There is approximately 2.25 acres of land available, owned by Meisels, Gu?branson, Chase and the City of Mound. Concerns were expressed with regard to the area being heavily wooded and abutting Lake Langdon. Consensus was to continue the study of this property and to contact Meisels with regard to the Possible sale of it. In addition, Ed Shukle informed the Council that the Economic Development Commission had met earlier on May 15th and recommended that the Anthony Floral site on the north end of Commerce Boulevard be investigated as a possible site for storage of material. The City Manager asked if he should contact Meisels and Anthony's regarding the possible sale. The Council said that this would appropriate. The Westedge Boulevard petition was discussed. John Cameron updated the Council on the feasibility of doing an improvement as had been discussed at the May 8th regular meeting. This it =m will appear on the May 22nd Council agenda. Cameron also reviewed the petition on the issue of surmountable curbs. He presented some information on the history of the type of curbs that were located in the Woodcrest area of Mound and in other areas of the City. This item will be coming bac Lo the Council at its June 12th regular meeting. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented the latest information on the Mound Bay Park Depot improvement. He indicated that the architect is uncertain as to whether there are frost footings under some of the concrete pillars beneath the deck. City Engineer, Jonn Cameron, explained it in further detail. There was concern expressed regarding the Mound City Days event and whether the deck would be usable. Cameron was asked to check with the architect on a possible temporary support. Also to be checked were footings for the building. • NZ • The Council then took up the issue of the "No Smoki.ng" policy. City Manager, Ed Shukle, presented additional information which the Council spent a few minutes reading, relating to designated smoking areas, a cessation program and the ventilation of the interview room in the new Police Department. Following the reading of the memorandum and the supplementary material, Councilmember Johnson said that the City should offer a cessation program immediately. Also the issue of smoking in vehicles came up. This was added for consideration on page two of the May 15th memorandum, dealing with designated areas and the issue of whether employees be allowed to smoke in vehicles. After further discussion with regard to cessation programs, and how much money in worker's comp programs would be saved within the po)ice and fire departments annually (estimated $3000), Councilmember Johnson indicated that he was in support of the original policy as presented which would eliminate smoking in municipal facilities. Councilmember Jensen reiterated her support for the smoke free policy. After the discussion, it was agreed that the item would be continued until the June 12, 1990, regular meeting since Councilmember Jessen was absent. Council indicated that they did not need any further information with regard to this issue. Council then reviewed the LMCD Lake Management Plan and asked the City Manager to make notations on items to question or comment on to the LMCD. This matter will go back to the Council on May 22nd and the Council may schedule a special meeting prior to the June 6th public hearing at the City of Minnetonka. Ed Shukle, City Manager, presented the sign issue on the entrance to the City of Mound, at the Seton Lake Bridge. He held up the new cemetery sign that will be mounted at the Mound Union Cemetery. He suggested that the City of Mound sign could be similar to this sign. After discussion, it was the consensus to go ahead with the sign similar to the cemetery's and to have shrubbery conforming to the Beaut ication Plan of County Road 15 with no planter. Club emblems fur local service clubs would be invited to be mounted with lettering like the cemetery sign using the logo of the City of Mound. Council will take official action on this matter at the May 22nd meeting. Mayor Smith asked that a resolution be prepared indicating appreciation to the Mound Police Reserves for their hard work in assisting the police department. That will be presented at the May 22nd meeting. .7 2 /y22 • The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole will be Tuesday, June 19, 1990, 6:30 PM. There will be no Committee of the Whole meeting in July. Upon motion by Johnson, seconded by Jensen, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 PM. Res ectfully submitted, Ed S ukl e City Manager ES:ls �7 • / 0 3 1 I, CITY of NKWND May 22, 1990 To: Ed Shukle, City Manager From: John Norman, Finance Director jLt' Re: Delinquent Utility Bill David Clarke 5054 Brighten Boulevard Mr. Clarke appeared at the April 24th council meeting reo_ardinq his delinquent utility bill of $221.23. He requested and was granted a 30 day extension by the City Council to determine who is the owner of the property he lives in. We have not heard from Mr. Clarke and want some direction on how to proceed on this matter. The 30 day extension expires Thursday, May 24th. I recommend, if he does not contact us by Friday, May 25th, that his service should be disconnected for non - payment on Tuesday, May 29th. We have had a number of dealings with Mr. Clarke and would like council approval before taking any action. Delinquent Water and Sewer 5/15/90 11 1030 123 $139.32 6 1 0130 303 0840 511 85.43 214.94 11 0220 182 96.17 11 0250 633 115.26 11 0280 061 96.92 11 0280 123 175.87 11 0310 603 79.66 11 0520 302 114.53 11 0550 061 143.90 11 0550 301 226.33 11 0580 211 127.22 11 0670 332 143.90 11 0672 211 143.90 o 1 0850 483 89.34 11 0840 511 85.43 11 0850 731 127.40 11 0850 062 66.38 11 0880 152 140.59 li 0880 571 132.14 11 1000 091 170.33 11 100 693 117.95 11 1120 061 123.54 11 1120 301 125.54 11 1240 391 298.07 11 1390 032 99.11 11 1690 751 90.94 e ll 1692 571 102.50 11 1692 755 108.66 Iy� y 2. 11 1692 843 11 1750 181 11 1750 393 11 1900 067 11 1900 662 11 1990 241 11 2020 213 11 2050 121 11 2140 487 11 2200 241 Delinquent Mater and Sewer $108.66 111.42 118.46 123.34 200.03 118.03 86.60 114.54 145.97 14n_gfi $4963.85 • is MRS" 5/15/190 11 0130 123 tid S 13 32 ir71 Aj Ln. 11 01:0 3 f I . - - , �I' Lr 11 0220 132 ull en L Pa. >c. 1 :cve Ln. 11 0250 633 Ccirielio,s 1 15.26 16:.3 Eagle Ln. 11 0280 C J. Von!- so- Pd. �2 7: Fir Ln. 11 0280 123 i s Ln 11 0310 603 Phil I Pd. 17 0: mull Ln 1 1 0520 302 Durigarvin 11 3 5CCI C r e s t v i e w R 11 05 e f f Pd. —d 11 0550 301 Marie 3 gl k c 11 0580 211 H. Harnarian . _.. Z2 Rd. 1 1 06 332 Bruce j :" Sr.-:)r ten. 11 0672 211 ewvuoa Ln 11 0850 483 �il 1 lett, Pd. 34 'Tree Pts. Blvd. 11 0840 511 Toni harti Pd. 13 "C T 'ir•ee Pts. Blvd. Pts. 31va. 11 0850 062 &;Oq Sh,1..% -,c4 Tnree P-S. Blvd. 11 0880 152 ,.atherire -ldview Blvd. ii 0 5 a v 1 1 10J0 091 1 1030 693 P d S b) 0 11 1 120 061 .l. 1�4j 11 1390 032 Ca 11 1C 2 77 5/15/190 * made arrangements Uelinyuent Water and Sewer Pd. �+- Steve 6 i lar!u li 1750 181 uarbara byingtori 11 1750 393 Ed Olson 1." 061 Lisa Martin Pd. 660- jcot: LaSterclal 11 1990 241 J. I'li tte i steadt 11 20-20 213 l +a rry Na sset 1 20-- 11 1 ;•:r,n Anderson 11 2140 4<i7 Lisa - t:'lr 11 2200 241 ,:erald Garvais * made arrangements Uelinyuent Water and Sewer Pd. $108.66 5969 Lynwood Blvd. 111.42 5504 Spruce Rd. Pd. 118.46 5556 Spru ^e Rd. Pd. 123.34 2101 "+uble Ln. 200.03 2223 'Joble Ln. 118.03 2149 Belmont Ln. 66.60 2212 Fern Ln. liy.D 5513 Church Rd. Pd 145.91 2201 Centerview Ln. Pd. 140.96 2180 Cardinal Ln. .)4963.35 $3030.90 r le mAIKTi- , - A.:Ci Far1I For .ontinuing the Present Use of 4 .i4ruet:.rc or Improvement on Public Lands or Commons "min- S3 _qqS3 "Ts.a,n 1�;0,., l��ewf .PHONE y7� S S �• S" Do you hove an improvement or structure on Public Lands or Commons? If vea list them: A E 0 001 - alONS /PUBLIC LAID ARUTTING L)T#_ BLOC' K# / C/ SUBDIV & PAMP l oan a permit issued to authorize the construction of this improve - )enc or structure? yFS'. If yes, month and year : _� t "1 xrPLICA *4T hUST FURNISE THE FOLLOWIVG: 1. Copy of permit issued to authorize construction. L. One plot plan drawn to scale showing dimensions of tint structure /improvement and location of same. 3. One Cat of plans and specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to indicate the nature and extent of the structure or improverent. Show foundation plan, floor plan, front and side elevation, well and roof section detail. !�. Photographs of existing structure /improvement. OaRlt CO V13SYN R CO ., r :Tine-. __r - - -- DA ,L )AT (. /Yu 4w 1 . p I w Y J I 4 w Y • ♦A x ROXB LANE yr W J I N I ' 0000ro �� r � V rn cP+ DEXTER ,• 1 + ` *10 t ,,, - ' "- bT<os CD It c b I M: 040 0 i ter ; en.a t+ K.t Pet. Iwo r.•!i - a .r / N • � ■ � KI . VIE(• � 1 b • 2A f LA•aE 1XOE• ESE LANE o t • o • ♦A x ROXB LANE yr W J I N I ' 0000ro �� r � V rn cP+ DEXTER ,• 1 + ` *10 t ,,, - ' "- bT<os CD It c b I M: 040 0 i ter ; en.a t+ K.t Pet. Iwo r.•!i - a .r / N • � ■ � KI . VIE(• � 1 b • 2A f LA•aE 1XOE• T0: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Per our April 11. conversation, I would like to review a grievance I have with the Mound Planning Commission and would very much appreciate your intervention towards amicably solving this dispute. Following is a chronology of the situation. • In March 1989 the Planning Commission approved variances allowing me to remodel my house. They also voted to have me move my boathouse from the Mound commons onto my property. At that time they were unaware of a sewer easement running through my backyard. • In late March '89 the city council approved the resolution. • In early April 180, shortly after gutting my house for the remodeling, the city inspector determined that the footings weren't sound and recommended that the house be demolished and rebuilt in its entirety. • At the next commission meeting, upon hearing the inspector's recommendation, the commission decided to alter the variances granted three weeks earlier. Their justification was that they were aware of L law that stated that if there were less than 50% of a house's value remaining, the variances were no longer valid. Mr. Steve Smith Mark Goldberg RECD APR 17 IM April 14, 1990 4853 ISLAND VIEW DQIVE BOAT'HWSE • In mid -April I retained the city attorneys from Robbinsdale and Loretto. At a cost of $850 they prepared a letter clarifying the "501" law as applying only in the case of natural disaster. • At the next planning commission meeting no reference was made to the letter, no reference was made regarding their mistake and there was a very strong (and not imagined) disdain towards me. They simply dropped their efforts to alter the variances. • In the Spring of 1990 I turned my attention from the house construction to the boathouse. 01 I discovered that the boathouse was 5 feet longer than was initially believed, raising practical problems for moving the structure. a2 I sat down again with my attorneys to explore the commission's right to insist that I mGve the boathouse. After researching the issue, a letter was prepared stating that moving the boathouse cannot be made a condition of granting the particular variances for my property. • • • ly7,q RECEIVED MAR 3 0 1990 C7 Mark & Stacey Goldberg 4853 Island View Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 March 23, 1990 Dear Commissioners and Council Persons: 1 On April 25, 1989 the City Council passed l resolution 89 -41 containing a condition that raquired us to move our boathouse from the city commons area bordering the lake back onto our property (Exhibit 1). The council granted us variances so that we could move the boathouse directly back onto our property. The resolution was based on the boathouse being 14.5 ft in length since there is only 13.7 ft. between the property line and a sewer easement running through our ba =k yard. (See Exhibit 2) After the resolution was passed we discovered that the boathouse is in fact 19.5 ft. long and 10.6 ft. wide. This would cause the boathouse to encroach 5.8 ft. onto the easement. A possible solution would be to turn the boathouse side ways between the • property line and easement. HoweXer, since the property is only 40 ft. accross and there is a large tree t3 ft. diameter) on the lot line we would have to place the boathouse such that it would be cutting the lot into two pieces. This solution is even more daunting given the slope of the property in the area. (See Exhibit 3) We would very much appreciate your deleting the condition requiring us to move the boathouse. In addition to the above practical considerations, Mr. David Kennedy and Ms. Corrine Heine (both city attorneys for Minneapolis area suburbs) have researched the issue and preparP the attached document (Exhibit 4) questioning the city's right to impose this condition. If possible, we would appreciate the opportunity to appear before you so that we can resolve this issue. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, 7 - Stacey Go berg Mark Goldberg M -2- e On April 9, 1990 I appeared before the planning commission. Enclosed is a copy of the materials that the city gave them to • prepare for that meeting. Their opening remarks were that the Mound city attorney had not read my attorneys' letter. They then dismissed the contents of that letter as •comparing apples to oranges ". Next they dismissed the practical problem of fitting a 19.5 foot boathouse onto a 13.7 foot slice Lf land. Finally they stated that a deal's a deal and voted that I should move the boathouse. I an upset on two issues: 1. The commission's lack of legal knowledge and failure to consult the city attorney has caused them to overstep their ability to make accurate decisions. As a result my wallet is lighter by $2000 in legal fees, thus far. 2. I don't feel that they adequately assessed the practical difficulty of moving my boathouse. Instead they focused on their feeling of betrayal that I was violating my end of the original "agreement" by seekigg to keel, the boathouse in its current location. / If I sound a little frantic, well, I am. I'm writing to you in the hope that your input will result in a greater amount of consideration being put forth on this issue before it swings out of control. 10 Thank you very much for your consideration. Hark Goldberg • 1�31 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MIND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION April 9, 1990 a. The BuIdIIng Official explained that the applicant, Mr. Goldberg has requested that the following condition. as stated in Resolu- tion #89-41. be deleted+ "Relocate boathouse onto applicants Property and grant a 3 foot side yard variance and 4 foot rear yard variance." The Building Official Informed the commission that Mr. Goldberg has had a new survey drawn and it shows the boat house being 19.5' long= when the original application was made, it was thought that the boat house was only 14.5' long. The additional 5' In length makes it Impossible to fit the boat house on the lot between the easement and the lot line as originally proposed. Mr. Goldberg Is requesting permission to leave the boat house where it is. Bertrand confirmed that the boat house was constructed after Devon Commons was platted. Bertrand also suggested that this Item be referred to the Park Commission for their comments. The attorney's letter from Corrine Melne was discussed. The Building Official commented that this letter Is Ilk@ comparing apples to oranges since the attorney referred to an encroachment on private property, not public property. She stated that public property /perks and street right -of -ways cannot be obtained through adverse possession as private property can. The City Planner also commented on the attorney's opinion letter and stated, "It does not speak to the merits of this case." MOTION mode by Welland, seconded by Voss to recommend to the City Counc I 1 that the boat house be r&Wved from public property. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on April 24, 1990. • t y3z 66 April 25, 1989 RESOLUTION 89 -41 RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION #89 -33 AND ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND GRANT VARIANCES FOR THE POSITIONING OF THE BOATHOUSE OFF OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND ONTO THE APPLICANTOS PROPERTY, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON; PID #25- 117 -24 -11 -0037 (4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE); P i E CASE #89 -804. WHEREAS, Resolution #89 -33, adopted on March 28, 1989, granted several variances to allow additions and remodeling to the above described property; and WHEREAS, the applicant began removing walls, etc., without a permit; and 0 WHEREAS, while demolishing some walls, the house caved in and it was discovered. that the house did not have proper frost footings and the garage walls did not have any footings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby amend Resolution #89 -33 to read as follows: WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming front and side yard set- backs and allow new construction of a structure in the same footprint as the old structure to include garage storage space, living space on three different levels and decks on two levels, collectively requiring the following variances: 1. A variance from the requirements of Section 23.,404 (8) to allow new construction of the first floor level (basement) northward a distance of approximately 20 feet. This expansion will not change the old exterior dimensions of the structure. 2. On the west side of the structure, new construction of the garage, living space on levels two and three, and a deck on level two, all within an approximate .5 foot setback requiring a 5.5 foot variance. 3. New construction of the third level of the structure to the north within 18.4 feet of the property line requir- ing a 1.6 foot variance and the addition of a deck with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet on the southwest corner of the structure. 1\-\33 r� �J 67 April 25, 1989 4. Recognition of the existing front yard setback (attached garage with doors perpendicular to street) of 1.11 feet resulting in a 18.99 foot variance; and, WHEREAS, the property received a variance in 1979 (Resolution #79 -484) to allow expansion of the garage on the property; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict applica- tion of the Mound Zoning Code would present practical dif- ficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City does hereby authorize the variances as noted in items 1 through 3 above at 4853 Island View Drive; PID #25- 117 -24 -11 -0037. 2. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation identified in item 4 above and authorizes the new construction of the structure pur- suant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provi- sions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following new construction to a nonconforming use property due to the narrowness and total size of the lot: Replacement of the first level (basement) to the north within the footprint shown on Exhibit 1 & 2. Replacement of the second level garage within the footprint shown on Exhibit 1 & 2. - Replacement of second level living area and a deck on the south nd of the new construction with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet within the footprint shown on Exhibit 1 & 2. - Replacement of the third level living areas within • an envelope generally defined as being 18.4 feet from the north property line, .5 feet from the west property line extending approximately 44 feet from the north property line and over the existing ) 43 y 68 April 28, 1989 second level of the home with approximate dimen- sions of 20.4 feet by 36.5 feet. Additionally, a deck will be constructed at the southwest corner of level 3 with an approximate dimension of 8 feet by 8 feet as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. Relocate boathouse onto applicants property and grant a 3 foot side yard variance and 4 foot rear yard variance. Upon further condition that the Registered Land Survey included by updated to include the staking of the utility easement. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 4, Block 14, Devon PID #25- 117 -24 -11 -0037 • This variance shall be recorded with the county re- corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on the use of this property. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The Certificate of Oc- cupancy shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Mayor Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Ma or 1y35 Attest: City Clerk • ' • V 91~04 • 1 a- VIEW DR. . • ;. MM , to = ` � ' � , ttt• •.. sAm" o cc T � es• .. kovsr • •� '' � _ • DEVOW COMMOMS �.� �.,� ^� � •.r .. ` .�, .� «r•.y • .. /+ '��" �� .. sue" �� • �•�.r�� ' r L A�<E N-0i 7iF3 (ROU M QT 5 EA :x 1 S L AIVD VIEW DR. k w: w. UN DER DEMO LtTIo^/ 1 sto4r �` MOUu O Ss.a� •� 0 1 � se ew 7 V i�Oc . "3. _� _ V! 7 72.37 e 1 � r �, w M � It.fl h 1 is 1 ! 2: DEVON 1 °�' COMMONS LAKE M1wjETONKA O DENOTES IRON MONUMENTS We hereby certity that this Is a true and correct representation o' • survey of the boundaries of: Lot 4, Block 14, DEVON, Hennepin County. And of the location of all buildings, If any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, R any, from oron =aid land. As surveyed by me or under my direct supervision this 12 - . - t1 day of — Ma y t g �o MCCDPtbj Frank Ro s Associates, Inc. By: PAUL A. JO Land Sury eyor, Minn. Lk. No. OJAI McComb@ Frank Room Aeeoclat Inc. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SU RVE' I y3 18080 zee Ave N. E„ o n."M Now for Pw4m MN sw? Plefow� L!L 76 m,y.ro,c :�,,,o„ a MARK GOLDBERG ssis 0 - I w a ti 7A m dw so or do ON 00 r I bv-w- C I • w I AL E Xmml r ff CCOUNE A. HaNE MeM a Uw D"M DW can won? March 20, 1990 Mark and Stacey Goldberg 48S3 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Re: Boathouse Dear Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg: You asked our office to advise you regarding a requirement that the City of mound imposed as a condition to granting a variance for expansion of the house on your property. The requirement was that you move your boathouse (which now encroaches onto property that is owned by the City) so that it is entirely on your proper - ty. State statutes specifically authorize city. councils- to impose conditions in granting variances. Minn. Stat. S 462.357, subd. 6(2) (1988). :t is generally accepted that cities have broad discretion in setting conditions. However, that discretion is not unlimited. Variance conditions must be reasonable and must be directly related to the proposed use of the property. We could not locate any Minnesota cases that describe how 'di- rect" the relationship must be between the condition and the variance that is being sought. We did locate, however, an Illinois case with facts remarkably similar to yours. Allender V. City of Chicago Zoning Board of Appeals 381 N.E.2d 44 (I. App. 1978). A copy of the Allende decision is enclosed. In Allender the property owner sought a variance from the city's rear yard setback requirements. The city granted the variance on the condition that the owner set back its development from the front yard. she court held that the change to the front of the proposed development did not relate to the variance from the rear yard setback, and therefore the condition was invalid. • If Minnesota courts adopt the same position as the Allender court, then the condition that you move your boathouse would be invalid. The variance that the City granted allows your house to • intrude further on the front and side -yard setbacks. Moving the boathouse, which is located at the rear of the lot, does not 1 `t31 Mark Goldberg March 20, 1990 Page 2 0q -604 is alleviate the impact of that variance. Under this analysis, the City, for example, could have required you to screen the front of your house from neighboring properties with a fence or hedge, but it could not require you to make changes to the rear of your property. • is In conclusion, although there are no Minnesota cases on this point, there is case law in other jurisdictions to support your position that the condition is invalid. We understand that, aside from the legal issue about the validity of the condition, there may be practical difficulties in moving the boathouse to your property. For example, you mentioned that the boathouse would possibly interfere with a sewer easement on the property. We recommend that you attempt to resolve these issues by discussing both your practical and legal concerns with the City Council. We have not attempted to address all the legal issues raised by the location of the boathouse, but only the validity of the variance condition. Please let me know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Corrine A. Heine a:g1175101.002 cc: Dave Kennedy MO MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 24, 1989 a. Case No. 89 -804: Mark and Stacey Goldberg. 4853 Island View Drive, Lot 4. Block 14, Devon, PID 825 - 117 -24 -11 -0037. yAR1ANCE. Building Official. Jan Bertrand, updated the Commission on the status of Mr. Goldberg's request. A sewer easement has been dis- covered on the property since the last Planning Commission meet- ing which limits the buildable area on this lot. Therefore staff recommends that a variance be granted allowing the house to be rebuilt In the same footprint as approved In Resolution 89 -33 conditioned upon the boathouse being relocated onto applicp -'- property. The Building Official also recommended a setb. varience.be granted for the boathouse die to limited land space. The boathouse was discussed. Weiland suggested turning the boathouse sideways so it could be placed on his property with the 4 foot required setback. Mark Goldberg reviewed the history of his request. He commented that he would like to rebuild the home In the same footprint. however _h wosil d 1 1 k_t_t keep the boathouse where tt _i s. due to 4 josh of fu ` s The Comm I ss o e or 191 na 1 vsr 1 once was granted upon the condition that the boathouse be moved within 4 feet of the property line or be removed. MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Clapsaddle, to amend Resolution #89-33 including the variances listed on page one, Items 1, 2, 3, t 4, Including a l l of Item 3 l i steel on page two, and replacing the description of "expansion/ expand" to "new construction /construct." Motion carried with five In favor, three opposed (those in favors Andersen, Welland, Thai, Clapsaddle, H:chaeli those opposed: Smith, Meyer, Jensen). Smith and Jensen noted that their reason for opposing was the boathouse, they feel he should not have to move it within 4 of the property line, but it should be moved off the commons. Meyer opposed because he feels the home could be redesigned to be u less infringing. 1 This case will be heard by the City Council on April 25. 1989. is • Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Pape Three C. Case No. 89 -804t Mark and Stacey Gol dberg, 4853 Island Vi Drive. Lot 4. Block 14. Devon, PID #25- 117 -24 -11 -0037. YARIANCE Nonconforming lot, side yard setback, and front ri -rr�r�a� City Planner. Mark Koegler, explained the the applicants request. Mr. Goldberg is seeking variances to expand an existing noncon- forming residential structure. At the present time, the house site 1.11 feet from Island View Drive, has a side yard setback along the west side of .4 feet and has a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 20 foot front yard setback for the attached garage and 6,000 square feet of lot area. The proposed modifications include expansion of the existing garage and Living spece.on three different ieve Exhibits 1 and 2 were assembled by staff to outline the applicants proposal. The variances being applied for are: • 1) 5.6' west side yard variance: including a 3.4' x 8.5' ex- psnsion of the garage to "square up" the garage space, a 7' extens on the first 1 eve 1 to the west to accommodate a kitchen expansion, a second level cantilever, and a second level deck. 2) 1.6' second level front yard setback variance. 3) Recognize existing 1.11' front yard setback for the garage. 4) 2,000 square foot lot size variance. 5) Construct a conforming lakeside deck on second level. 6) Expand the basement,level northward approximately 12 feet. Staff recommends approval of these variances conditioned upon the following 1) The shall secure all required building permits. 2) - The garage doors will continue to face in an easterly direc- tion. .� �) The existing boathouse is to be removed from the commons. Qlscussion The Commission examined each variance individually. They deter- mined the proposed plan for the garage was the most feasibly pos- sible arrangement considering the space available. The garage was reviewed positively s!nce it allows storage and will eliminate vehicles being stored outside. 1442 Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page Four The applicant, Mark Goldberg, spoke on his behalf. Mr. Goldberg submitted a letter signed by three abutting neighbors which states they have reviewed, and approve of his plans for construc- tion which include the second story addition, and garage and kit- chen extension. The Commission clarified that the neighbor's garage, on the west s l de, I s s' from the property l I no and the home sits towards the west side of the lot. Sohns expressed a concern considering the existing nonconform- ities and expanding outside the existing footprint of the build- ing. Expanding outside the footprint would Intensify the noncon- formity. Possible options were discussed and it was determined that the 'applicant has already researched his alternatives. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Jensen to IMrove,thL assf -- tlon. Motlnn carried with seven In favor (Andersen. ns, Meyer, Jensen, Clapseddle, Smith, and Michael), one opposed (Thal). • Thal opposed because he did not feel the deck on the west side was necessary, and did not feel a variance should be granted . to allow Its construction. This case will be heard by the City Council on March 28, 1989. • 443 t I, N tl il' 21 W M tl !1 of M tl tl I� o�v � Z I N Lan it a 11 • ONf10M1 !0 AA19 "V* - _— I •_ r l� 1 1 1 j 2 sZ L�'IL�O• 61 O OIt _ SIP I :ri ►i_J__•_�_ - _J_J_ 9121 M el 1 O 1 1 T) x FR /l rill -. -1- -, o s i1 I 1 1• Z t. r 9 I P12 �9Z�� MOSUNI V ref � 9 • L Y !► o il i I 91 1 01 1s • e (i f - l tilr 1 - B f t 1 t a i r$ 192 at OZ 61 90 M PS IS: 1 I'z i t l r s 9 �1 r rl to 11 Y VWN 1 - •• 1 1Z � 9Z, � , 1. IOf =/� r'f!1 12 Ps�sid 6 , , t - - L - - _� _ t R 't' 1 s t 9 • a�� 5� Orf i too i` PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 90 -914 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW 0 REAR YARD, LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 6, BLOCK 2, HIGHLAND SHORES; PID #F23- 17 -24 -34 -0080 (3165 PRIEST LANE); P &t CASE N90 -914 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 13 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow a screened porch to be constructed within 37 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka for Lot 6, Block 2, Highland Shores; PID #E23- 17 -24 -34 -0080; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -1, Single - Family Residential zoning district which, according to the Mound Code of Ordinances requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, in constructing the proposed improvement, the applicant will remove an existing deck which encroaches two feet closer to the lake than wi " the completed screened porch; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict application of the Mound Code of Ordinances would oresent practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby authorize the 13 foot lakeshore / setback variance for Lot 6, Block 2, Highland Shores, PID #E23- 17 -24- 34 -0080. 2. The City Council authorizes the structural setback violatio'l and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the residential unit will be improved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property by authorizing the construction of a screened porch measuring 12 by 18 feet. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6, Block 2, Highland Shores; PID #23- 17- 24 -34- 0080. LJ Iygl!5 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 90 -914 • This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until procf of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. • )44L MINUTES OF A METING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANKING COMMISSION May 7, 1990 • a. Case No. 90 -914: UUUU . VAR I A1� I 1 aKesnOre seCOdh^ . City Planner, Mark KoegIor, reviewed the applicant's request to replace an existing 14' x 14' deck with a 12' x 18' screened porch. The existing deck is setback 35 feet from the lakeshore. The proposed porch w111 be setback 37 feet from the Lakeshore, and therefore, will encroach 2 feet less then the existing deck. Staff recommended approval of the 13 foot Lakeshore setback variance to construct a 12' x 18' screened porch at the rear of the home due to the size and configuration of the existing lot. Meyer commented that he talked to the applicant, Mr. Tomelka, and he was unable to attend the meeting. MOTION made by Welland to deny the variance request be- cause the proposed porch will encroach 2 feet more into the setback than the existing deck. Due to lack of a second the motion failed. • The Commission clarified that the encroachment into the setback Is 2 feet less not more. NOT I ON made by Tha 1, seconded by Mw 11 or to reconwmend approval of the City Planner's recawmendstion for ap- proval. Voss questioned, "What would prevent the homeowner from convert- I ng the porch Into a future room ?" Koeg 1 er commented that ap- proval can be made to specify construction of a "screened porch" only. Thal and Mueller accepted an amendment to the motion to clarify that approval Is for a "screened" porch. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. 0 1141 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff.1i�/ FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Robert F. and Marion N. Tomalka CASE NUMBER: 90 -914 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- Al2 -ZO LOCATION: 3165 Priest Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single - Family Residential (R -1) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing 14' by 14' deck with a 12' by 18' screened porch. The existing deck has a 35 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka. The ordinance requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation. The proposed porch will extend 12 feet out from the rear of the structure resulting in the requested 13 foot lakeshore setback variance. RECOMMENDATION: Removal of the existing deck and replacement with a new porch will actually increase the existing lakeshore setback by two feet. Due to the size and configuration of the existing lot, staff recommends approval of the 13'lakeshore setback variance to construct a porch at the rear of the home. is 14yd 3030 Harbor Lane North Sldq.11, Suits 104 Minneapolis, MN. 66447 -2176 612/663 -1960 AP'R - 91990 CITY OF MOUND PART 11 Case No. Date Filed Fee $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING IL ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property .��li 9 f'gfEJi r 4,4 , , dig t(A1J?. 0414 Lot Block Z Addition dlid AAQ X&02G PID No. .2 ewk Owner's Name dT 1J. 1�X O�y Phone !!t 7 Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Existing Use of Property: Zoning Distric Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? MM / no . If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) 1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authoriz official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of post maintaining and removing such noti i may be required by law. , 1` 1� 96 Applicant's Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date Council Action: Resolution No. _ Date 1441 &LANCE APPLICATION Case No. "t0 'q (U 1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (K. No ( ). If no, specify each non- conforming use: 2. Do the existing structures comply with al area, height, bulk, and man -made If yes, setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (�Q. No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use: 3. 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 ( ) sub- surface ( c ) too shallow ( ) shanP (,K) other: specify Trs Je $G Q F Elul F ,D ,�o a ct,l 4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No 9 if yes, explain 5. Was the hardship created relocation of a road? Yes by ( any other ), No (?Q. man -made If yes, change, such as the explain 1 yso C1 . VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. _'111'_9 1`t 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a ver i peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes } ' No 0O. If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? 7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk. and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten ex[p,,l, anat i r/ on . V0 a- 0, c4 4 oy 8. PART III J. SITE PLAN INFORMATIONS All supporting documents such as sketch plans, attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8- 1 /2 "xil" size. If lard drawings are submitted, one must be 8 -1 /2"x11", and 15 larder size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show- ing the following information: 1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off - street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. 5. indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. • 1161 Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 9o-q Plat of Survey for William E. Lovkvist of Lot 6, Block 2, Highland Shores Hennepin County, Minnesota 04% p Et • t Vz' 1<101�-� Certificate of Survey: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boun0aries of Lot 6 Block 2, Highland Shores. It does not purport to show improvements or encroachments. I-gzft Scale: 1" = 40' Gordon R. coffin R e Vr)-(, F,4 • Late s 6 Land Survevor And Planner 0 Iron marker Long Lake, Minnesota • IVIZ s5h I 0 • m' -4 L r e v6 Z ' , g vf6o fr?CrfflT?► , 3i x , Zi • : ,' ?14 oZ� 04 S/ r86 arw 0 ' (Yb/ � )t / r/ �� -Lrvpa► "v WWI J T • 09.�•0� 4rcyp a/ (rffrr3sv7t/r ki 4.5.�� • �L /r�F��l T/ 1 St Y70op fm fl - - - - - -- --- /Ysy D. Charles Feigh Fe' q 0 1 3153 Priest Lane • Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-7458 March 12, 1990 W wife and 1 are next -door neighbors to Bob and Marion Toaalka. Bob has told us about their plans to convert their deck to a screened -in porn, and the fact that it will require a variance to local building codes. He have no objecticos to their plans for a porch and are, therefore, in favor of issuing the required variance. If you have any qusaticns, we can be reached at 472 -7458. • ely. les Fei4h 0 1455 onQlll (9t) " �► - `� (£) � .p - �� • 91 opt •g ft V 2 �_ Stan , -, - "i - -- a Ike � M , _ l�� Z a r C L tz of s I' °s os \ ! /,• ; f 01 n CI tMl QI , 1 ol y Ot 4 l k 1 6 Ica f. OIL M' - (� �•�S Oti rI � f K 12� � �� j o uo 1 a �1 !1 tl PI o4 ► 9 a • rl VGV • _ _ a s os -- as — • N Q � _ .Q7 01 .r - - � .-. - lle - �• M ... r ( w 71f.r � s �(oZl �' � • r l ai I Proposed Resolution Case No. 90 -916 RESOLUTION #90- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 6, 7 AND 8, PARTS LYING SOUTH OF THE NORTH 460 FEET THEREOF AND WEST OF GRANDVIEW, KOEHLERS SECOND ADDITION TO MOUND; PID #14- 117 -24 -42 -0012 AND RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON - CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK. WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of Lot 6, 7 and 8, Parts Lying South of the North 460 Feet Thereof and West of Grandview, Koehlers Second Addition to Mound, PID #14- 117 -24 -42 -0012, has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Code of Ordinances, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested recognition of an existing 5.6 foot front yard setback variance for proposed parcel A; and WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements • contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as follows: Lot 6, 7 and 8, Parts Lying South of the North 460 feet Thereof and West of Grandview 11 I `1 S 7 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 90-916 • A. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision as per the following descriptions as shown on "Exhibit A" (survey) and as per the conditions identified in item B below, and to recognize an existing 5.6 foot front yard setback variance for proposed Parcel A: Parcel A: The south 80.00 feet of the north 540.CO feet of that part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, "Koeh1er's Second Addition to Mound ", which lie west of Grandview Drive. Parcel B: That part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, lying south of e north 540.00 feet thereof and west of Grandview Drive, "Koehler's Second Addition to Mound ". B. The following conditions shall apply to this subdivision: 1. At the time of building permit issuance, Parcel B shall be charged one residential park fee in accordance with the fees in effect at that time. 2. Prior to the time of recording with Hennepin County, payment of a one -half unit street assessment in the amount of $914.08 shall be made. 3 The applicant shall provide a guarantee covering e utility services either through actual installation, escrow funds, a bond or other measure acceptable to the City Engi ;leer, gran ee s d to Mound prior to the time that the lot split is recorded at Hennepin County. C. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. D. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. E. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 1458 91 Certify -ate of survey Exhibit A May 22, 1990 Proposed Lot Division for Larry Pillar in Lots 6, 7, a 6, "KOEHLSR'S SECOND AL. ON ".'O MOULD' Hennepin County, Minnesota aa' I aNv f tr 24 0 1 Is �, y 1 , W ... '" A Z a ! asr ` gar ` v (fAFf1 J w � I - i Fi 3 W Z , mo w o f R 1 2 Z ir -.e s w t ( Ou,VTY ROAD - - -- w Thls drawing shove the houndarios of said property and the location of a propoaeu di vidinI line and [he location of an exi stirg house tho reon. It door not purport to show any other improvements or encruachmcnte. Legal Desorption: That part of Lots 6, 7, a B, lying south of the Nortt, 'c0 feet thereof and vest of Grandview Drive, KOCHLLR's SUCON1 ADDITION TO MOUND. Scala 1 inch . 30 feet COFFIN 6 GRONDERG, 1W, Data 1 - - e Iron marker found Afto�� o Iron marker set Mark S. GronDery, Mn. No. 11755 Datum N.G. v. D. Cnginecrs, Land -lulu . - end Planners ,r, 11 EAlstiny Luny Lake, Mint , c —to ❑ate: Dr arir.ys :: h,-n arc Ea.:• 1 un an as sumcd datur. rF,� ✓ii;EG F'.'t �ESkiGTIGN; A. The ;putt H-'.00 feet ;f the north 540.00 feet of thdt Dart of Lot', E. ! dnJ 6, "KOEHLER'S SECOND ADUI'ION TO MOUND ", whlCh lie west of Grandview Drive, B. That part of Lots 6, 7 and B, lying south of the north 54O.00 feet thereof and west Of Grandview , Drive, "KOEHLER'$ SECOND ADDITION TO MOUND ". 1451 NINIMS OF A NUMB Of THE NOISO ADVISORY PLANING 00 ISSIOI Nay T 1990 • C. City Planner. Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a minor subdivision. Both percale wl I I meet the lot area require- ments. Parcel A. which contains the existing structures will require a variance. The structure Is setback 24.4 feet from the east property line an Longdon Lane. therefore a 5.6 foot front yard setback variance will need to be granted. The proposed Par- cel 8 will easily accommodate a new structure with a net building envelope of approximately 42' x 82 Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision and recogni- tion of the existing front yard setback of 24.4 feet to the east property line upon the following conaltlonse 1. At the time of building permit issuance. Parcel 8 shall be charged one residential park fee in accordance with the fees In effect at that time. 2. The division of the property shell be contingent upon the payment of a one -half unit street assessment In the amomxmt of 0914.08. The City Engineer's recowmmendstlon was reviewed. His recawends- tlon Included the following comments and condltlonsm 1. According to City records. there are no existing sanitary *war or water services for Parcel 8. 2. The City shou I d have a guarantee that the utility services will be provided before the lot split Is recorded at Hen- . nepin County by either actually doing the Installation. sub- mitting escrow money. a bond. etc. The applicant should submit either an estimated cost or a bonsflds bid so the amount of surety can be determined. Mueller questioned If there would be any drainage problems due to the elevation of the lot. It was determined that this should not be a problem. Mueller also commented that when the property Is developed. they try to save as many trees as possible. The location of the driveway being off of Grandview or Langdon was dmscussed. The applicant commented that he does not have any plans for a home to be bunt at this time. and the derision of driveway placement would be up to the person who purchases the lot and proposes to build. The applicant. Mr. Pillar. questioned the process for paying the park dedication fee and the street assessment. Koegler Info,med the applicant that Use street assessment must be paid prior to filing the subdivision at the County, and the ,nark dedication fee Is due at the time of building permit Issuance. The app 1 I cant stated that he would prefer that the assessment also be due at time of building permit Issuance. Mr. Pillar also commented on the City Engineer's recommendation to supply a guarantee that the sewer and water services will be Installed. He feels this should be the builder's responsibility and would prefer to delete the requirement. Mueller commented on a previous case off of Rambler where this requirement was deleted. MOTION made by Mel land. seconded by Michael. to approve the City Planner and the City Engineer's recomsendatlans for approval with the oondttlon that house numbers wt I I be assigned to both parce 1 s . Not 1 on carr 1 ed unanim- ously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22. 1990. 1140 • PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner OX -_01- DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision APPLICANT: Lawrence Pillar CASE NUMBER: 90 -916 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A14 -ZO LOCATION: 2157 Grandview Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single - Family Residential (R -1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential • BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a minor subdivision to allow the division of a parcel of land totalling 23,099 square feet. The proposal will establish two parcels; A which has an area of 11,420 square feet and B which has an area of 11,679 square feet. Both exceed the minimum size requirement of 10,000 square feet for land in the R -1 zone. Parcel A contains an existing structure. The existing structure lies 24.4 feet east of the property line on Langdon Lane. Under the provisions of the R -1 code, a 30 foot setback is required in this area resulting in a 5.6 foot setback variance. Under the Mound Code of Ordinances, proposed Parcel A is classified as a "Through Lot ". Proposed Parcel B is a corner lot which in accordance with the code is required to observe a 30 foot setback from Langdon Lane, Lynwood Boulevard and Grandvi w Boulevard. A 10 foot setback is required along the north side of proposed Parcel B. Application of the requires' setbacks results in a net building envelope measuring approximately 42 by 82 feet which will easily accommodate a new structure. 0 140 3030 Harbor Lane North Sidq.11, Suits 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 612/653 -1950 Pillar Planning Report April 30, 1990 Page 2 RECONNENOATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision establishing Parcels A and B and recognition of the existing front yard setback variance for Parcel A contingent upon the following: 1. At the time of building permit issuance, Parcel B shall be charged one residential park fee in accordance with the fees in effect at that time. 2. The division of the property shall be contingent upon the payment of a one -half unit street assessment in the amount of $914.08. 3� 0 Cf • • )V(,z McCombs Fran Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 May 3. 1990 Ms. Peggy James Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Lot Subdivision P.I.D. 14- 117 -24 42 0012 Parts of Lots 6, 7 & 8 Koehler's Second Addition to Mound Dear Peggy: Telephone Engineers 612/476 -6010 Planners 612/476 -8532 FAX Surveyors As requested, we have reviewed the proposal to split said parcel into two separate tax parcels and have the following comments and recommendations: US. According to the records at Public Works, there are no existing sanitary sewer or water services for Parcel B. It appears the sanitary sewer main in Lynwood Boulevard is accessible without disturbing the bituminous paving. The water connection could be made to the main in either Grandview or Langdon; however, it will involve street excavation In either case. Public Works will have the final decision as to which main is used for the new service tap. The City should have a guarantee that the utility services will be provided before the lot split is recorded at Hennepin County. This can be accomplished in a number of ways such as actual installation, escrow money, bond, etc. The applicant should submit either an estimated cost or a bonafide bid so the amount of surety can be determined. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. 0"z ". John Cameron JC:jmj • • 0 M3 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF MOUND ! MR 16 1990 ,. Case No. _ �lJ .; Date Filed APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND FEESs Minor Subdivision Application $50 Park Ded. Other Delinquent Taxes? ;des / Q Major Subdivisions Preliminary Plat 5150 Final Plat $100 Escrow Deposit $1,000 Park Dedication 1gOc 0 S+ Irr9- V, un dui 39141.016. Other (Please type or print the folio g nformat16n.) / Applicant's Name Day Phone �22 3 6 2 �w Appl icant's Address b 3 ol U qK Dip-0 - Oof jJ h •L'& , )j(1l� rj Fee Owner (s) Law ff r C e PI a print name print name • mailing address Signature of Fee Owner mailing address Signature of Fee Owner This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Property to be divideds Address /Location I A, 4 V S) iv0 V i E" �Vd . A�pO of proposed subdivisions Existing Use of Property: Zoning Districts � Block PID # 1 y- /17 �aK Y� - c�o�.2 Plat LIU ce . KoegVr 4 0.4 )yby Application for Subdivision Pa a Two Case No. _.1LL --l.t 9 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance tion 1 9 a use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes no If yes . list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resol on number(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.)' I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation • Date �5_ ( ) - 9 0 Council Action: Resolution No. Date 5.ZZ-90 • IL" We•nv.cpin County, Minneaota • - vV ✓ �o 40 ,t _ N s� •te' E (lip' � � ; - �,. f • , . ; . ' �K W ° Z M �o Q V J I 8 z) • Z O O O n ,w O Z h Q J 40' M1 N B7 ° 48'E V ' i l.J PC * v I 0 e h� i 1 (qf1 0 N' • J H W UC 1 2 a &I I , a I L , N /4.7.40 C O Ro" de S d r�u S L. OD- -BOULEVARD ( w c 0u , vey ROAO t /rr. r fsl.tt This drawing shows the boundaries < >f said property and the location of a propos( dividing lino and the location of an existing house thereon. It does not purDor show any other improvements or encroachments. 14 LL Legal Description: That part of Lots 6, 7. & A. lyi ^^ (10 N.-rr ia./ 8 z) • Z O O O n ,w O Z h Q J 40' M1 N B7 ° 48'E V ' i l.J PC * v I 0 e h� i 1 (qf1 0 N' • J H W UC 1 2 a &I I , a I L , N /4.7.40 C O Ro" de S d r�u S L. OD- -BOULEVARD ( w c 0u , vey ROAO t /rr. r fsl.tt This drawing shows the boundaries < >f said property and the location of a propos( dividing lino and the location of an existing house thereon. It does not purDor show any other improvements or encroachments. 14 LL Legal Description: That part of Lots 6, 7. & A. lyi ^^ (10 F v - - -- -LYN OOD - -- ( w C oewA/Ty - BAULVARD ROAD /Vo. is ) w c This drawing shows tho boundaries of said property and the location of a proposed dividing line and the location of an existing house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. Legal Description: That part of Lots 6, 7, & 8, lying south of the North 460 feet thereof and west of Grandview Drive, KOEHLER'S SECOND ADDITION TO MOUND. Scale 1 inch = 30 feet COFFIN & GRONBFRG, INC. Date 4 -12 -90 • Iron marker found o Iron marker set Mark S. Gronberg, Datum N.G.V.D. Engineers, Land surveyclr: (Tjj Existing elevation Long Lake, Minnesota Note: Bearings shown are based on an assumed datum PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS No. 12755 and Planners A. The south 80.00 feet of the north 540.00 feet of that part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, "KOEHLER'S SECOND ADD:TION TO MOUND ", which lie west of Grandview Drive, B. That part of Lots 6, 7 and 8, lying south of the north 540.00 feet thereof and west of Grandview Drive, "KOEHLER'S SECOND ADDITION TO MOUND ". ' -f we. 10 9 • so 3 ' It 1 , ' 41 42 43 V 47 5 tl RD do I �• � SUNSET RD - � C �� "� t• I , t rt Y. sd s3' � - a C69) 43 M5 O _ • 37 ] • A� lgc - -- '� 40 41 42 N 33 34 35 3s 7 3! ` ' Z N 33 » 32 x - I 4� 56 . ( 0) >a' Qw s); s m 31 'ELM RD :1 • - - - - .°. Q a so !! S4 57 �qoj ss S4 S3 x sl 49 ` ' - - -- 2 to 1 ) 30 1 � C � !f 96 OR E 54 Zt ' NILLCREST RD 2 t 107 _ 104 1� 1I0 111 at � = 7 j ! � 70 . 71 - ill 6069 - - z pict d 1 . o a GUMW( R -- AC to 19 s li a 13' 92 o s s 4 . E 1 ( two) Cal 1 LQ 1 �� < 3 s 0730) �yl � � I I �, �� ' � tl le'► rs 28 27 is is 24 its to h M 1 l "��1�' � .I) ,. l t t 1 I � ��1 I Itl`(. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 90 -917 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW A REAR YARD, LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOT ONE, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK; PID #19- 117 -23 -13 -0003, (4321 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD); P&Z CASE 190-917 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 32 foot lakes hore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence and attached deck within 18 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka for Part of Lot 1, First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park; PID 119- 117 -23 -13 -0003; and WHEREAS, Che subject property is located in the R -2, Single - Family Residential zoning district which, according to the Mound Code of Ordinances requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval due to the shape and depth of the lot and the fact that the proposal is generally consistent with other residential properties in the immediate vicinity. • NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby authorize the 32 foot lakeshore setback variance for the following legally described parcel: That nart of Lot One (1) of the First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park, First Division, and the adjoining private streets, if any, described as follows, to -wit: Commencing at a point on the shore line of Lake Minnetonka where the same is intercepted by a line parallel with and Sixty (60, feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of Lot A of said Rearrangement, measured a right angles thereto, taken as and for the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly alr,ng said shore line a distance of ninety -five (95) feet; thence Northerly in a straight line to a point in the Southerly line of the county road which said last named point is ninety -f:ve (95) feet Southwesterly measured along the Southerly line of said County Road from the point of intersection of the southerly line of said County road and a line drawn parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of said Lot A measured at right angles thereto; thence Northeasterly along the southerly line of said county road a distance of ninety -five (95) feet to a point where the • 14LI PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 90 -911 . southerly line of County Road is intersected by a line parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of said Lot A of said Rearrangement measured at right angles thereto; thence Southeasterly along said last described line to the point of beginning, PIO #19- 111 -23 -13 -0003. 2. The City Council authorizes the structural setback violation and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the residential unit will be improved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property by authorizing the construction of a of a new residence and deck with an 18 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation as shown on attached Exhibit A, upon the following condition: At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. • 4. This variance is granted for the property legally described in item 1 above. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. • y 70 � y LA E 1 4t. t;' < t' � q11 U E , %� 5 d 7 y � aN� F•� 1 �. E �, s y,�•i \{ � � Exhibit A ,4 •T A A1 q A u 1� 93r 4 �tu �Iw ^ o � O V" f� . YY 431. s �`>A all y, o 0 N 0 VivY 's' \ ilia 4t \ ap . }Q ti k.\2 \ rt�•1 \L )411 Legal Descriptlon That part of Ld C`,* (1) of the Ftsl RearrangemerM ol Phelps Island Park, First Division, and Ilse adjoining private streets, Y any. descrlbed as follows. to wt Comnw�nckng at a pons on IM trine tine of lake Minnetonka where the same is intersected by a line parallel with and Slaty (60) feet Scwllnveslerfy it xn the Southwesterly 1i;w al Lot A of said Reananyem„ni . measured at right anglas thereto. taken as and for Ilse point d hegk,nk,g, thence SOUtleve clerly along said shore Iew a distance of ninety - live (95) feel, Iherx;e 'otherly in a Slr86914 fare to a pOMt In the Soullsedy Ilene of the courtly road wlw h said last mined pout n n nety live (95) feet Southwesterly measured dag tine Southerly knit of said Courtly Road horn Ilne poknl d unlersechon d the so lAherly line of said Co my Road and a pine drawn parallel with arid sixty (60) feel Sottllarealsdy from the &wlhwesterly Ilene of said Lot A measured at rgll angles Ilnereto. [hence Northeasterly along the swilefly fine d said county road a distance of ninety five (95) feel to a point where llw southerly few of County Road is etlersocletf by a low parallel will' and sI-IY (60) feel SOUlhwersierly from the Southwesterly line ,A sad Lot A W said Rearrangement measued at right angles Iherelo, lhence Suulheaslerly alog said last desallxed Ilene to Ilse poled d begeuneg. U •SNOOD STAKE PLACED O • IRON MON. SET e • IRON MON, INPLACE B.M. - BEARINGS ON I'ROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM _ Ist FLOOR EI,EV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. _ TOP BLOCK ELEV. --► • DRAINAGE 000.0 • EXIST. ELEV (OOC 0) oROPOSED ELEV. 00a p . EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I rl"eoy certify that Ines plan, survey or report ws3 JOB e SCHOBO N D SURVEYING pre Paw oymeor under myd�reclaupervsorar ,d Ira: Iam ao u'r Re g's t eredLandSwve orundertnaiewsoftheSi OfM -0so /^ _ PREPARED FOR _ INC. BGOk page y ;cc sz DAVID HOLMS m 7m e„ a °. na on.�o w. asna Date A J��. - / YYu Rep ;slratio 7N ado atc � Scale I - �I� 0 r� • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MnUNO ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION May 7. 1990 The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a Lakeshore setback variance. The applicant is proposing to build a new home on the alto with an 18 foot setback from the lake. The existing home will be occupied wh!le the new structure Is being built. The existing home will then be demolished to al- low construction of the attached garage. Due to the depth of the parcel, staff recommended approval of a 32 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence contingent upon the following conditions • 1. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. The Commission determined that the proposed lakeshore setback Is somewhat consistent with the neighboring properties as they are setback 31 feet and 21 feet. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by That to recommend ap- proval of staff recommendation for approval of the variance. Moltion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. • Y7z. • PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff,'� // FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Lakeshore Setback Variance APPLICANT: David Holm CASE NUMBER: 90 -917 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A15 -Z0 LOCATION: 4321 Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single - Family Residential (R 2) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and construct a new residence at 4321 Wilshire Boulevard. The existing home is located where the attached garage portion of the new structure will be constructed. The existing home will be I x ' occupied while the new structure is being built. After the existing home is demolished, the attached garage will be added to the new home. The site plan submit'ed by the applicant identifies a deck setback of - feet and a structural setback of 18 feet from the ordinary hi, ater elevation of Lake Minnetonk4. Lakeshore setbacks for the djoining properties are 21 feet and 31. feet. After initially reviewing this request, my reaction was that the proposed structure encroached excessively on the ordinary high water elevation. The proposed encroachment is inconsistent with the adjacent properties which currently vary from the minimum zoning standards by 29 and 19 feet respectively. In discussing this situation with Mr. Holn, he indicated that he is considering a plan which reduces the depth of the house by 2 feet and adds only a 3 foot deck on the rear of the home. This situation results in a lakeshore setback of approximately 18.5 feet (about at the rear wall line of the house as shown on the survey • dated April 12, 1990). This setback is more consistent with the neighboring properties. 143 3030 Harbor Lane North Sidq.11, Suits 104 Minneapolis, MN, 55447 -2175 612/653 -1950 Holm Planning Report April 30, 1990 Page 3 COMMENT: The depth of this parcel makes construction of a new home difficult without the issuance of a varianc: -. In variance situations, the ordinance seeks the minimum variation from established setbacks to allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. Since the house observes all required front and side setbacks, the revised footprint of the house is more representative of a minimum variance situation. The applicant indicated that a revised copy of the survey will be .vailable for the meeting on May >, 1990. 3� RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 2-2 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence at 4321 Wilshire Boulevard contingent upon the following condition: - At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. 0 U (477y APR 19 IS, h &r CITY OF MOUND PART 11 Case No. et, Date F11ed Fee $50 VARIANCE APPLICATION P ANNING 3 ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or s print the following information.) Address of Subject Property `i 3a � IJ d Sti 1 r e. u Lot C3 't 13 lock .. 4 + l Re a-M a IL 15 f, e Owner's Name P3AJUtf 7 L IE. IIt k)!E, r. Day Phone Owrer's Address '74 70 SWOL 4L-X. 7 Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address )l 00 S. S4 1005 MOLD �IS Day Phone 37/ - 0-??3 fJf - 1/1 Existing Use of Property: Zoning District R - Z Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? If yes, list date s) of application, action taken, and provide resoIu on number s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) 1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. 1 consent to the entry In or upon the premises d:�scribed to this appllcat.lon 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 i Date / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /// ///// /// //////// / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /////////////// FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date Council Action: !� Resolution No. Date his, • VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. 6 10 - 112- - 1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district In which it is located? Yes ( /V, No t ). If no specify each non- conforming use: 2. DcOthe Om3 structures caap with a1) area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ). No A). If no, specify each non - conforming use: np E[.i11L� norm hI'A h_. to dt(K -! o 6,._ s N . N . ul 3. 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 0K) too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub- surface ()Pf.) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) others specify 4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property Interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No (X). If yes, explain 5. Was the hardshin created by any other man -made change, such as the - telocation of a road? Yes ( ), No 00. if yes, explain v IV 74 VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. ` 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ). No 00 If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?„_ - � 7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. S. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? [) . - 4 0 PART III J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: Ali suaoortino documents such as sketch plans. attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8- 1/2"x11" size. If larger drawings are submitted, one must be 8- 1 /2 "xll". and 15 larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show- ing the following informations 1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off - street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by tha city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1411 93Z7 .LL71. Nom• 3Z' Z iv v 'r a �a 7 2 • M� . .J l ow 5 It 9 }2 tt 3. ocau°o 053 I wM'"O v IVA 4.'s 1 I ;0 I I I X925.73 }trs Ed�c ry ►+H, } er 4wd it, /990 4-1 2-90 t " TONK +It 9� 3 ' N W �► }j fR s W. Aftv vo I - I f� J Legal Description That part of Lot One (1) of the First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park, First Division, and the adjoining private streets, if any, described as follows, to -wit: Commencing at a point on the shore line of Lake Minnetonka where the same Is IMersected by a line parallel with and Sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of Lot A of said Rearrangement, measured at right angles thereto, taken as and for the point of begkxtittg; thence Southwesterly along said shore line a distance of ninety-five (95) feet; thence Northerly in a straight line to a point In the Southerly Ike of the county road which said last named point is ninety -five (95) feet Southwesterly measured akxtg the Southerly line of said County Road from the point of intersection of the southerly line of said County Road and a line drawn parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of said Lot A measured at right angles thereto; thence Northeasterly along the southerly line of said county road a distance of ninety -five (95) feet to a point where the southerly line of County Road is intersected by a line parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwe derly line of said Lot A of said Rearrangement measured at right angles thereto; thence Southeasterly along said last described line to the point of beginning; U ■ WOOD STAKE PLACED o ■ IRON MON. SET • ■ IRON MON. INPLACE B.M.- . BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. --► ■ DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. 000.0:1= PROPOSED ELEV. 0u0.0 ■ EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was JOB a SCHOB ORG prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surve or under the laws of the State PREPARED FOR N D SURVEYIN INC of Minn Mies tai /" 19ook •Pape / il40 -sZ DAVID Scale nc.t.eN, s 53. s Date: -- fhr %� '�_Z�' HOLMS 01 11. 1 w o sai • - /2 + /990 Rey' stration No. 14700 Yr • i r (� S Q 0 • NO ,�,t M ao S;. 11V �I1 ■ 1 11V �t CD . � J• 1 Sows" fft ta JAL dew. at n lb i Lo a ~ �� l �� o r D P -s r .+ �3• r f i 7 -D 0 • PROPOSED RESOLUTION e Case No. 90 -918 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW A FENCE HEIGHT AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 9, 10 AND THE WESTERN 3 FEET OF LOT 8, BLOCK 16, DEVON; PID 025- 117 -24 -11 -0148; (4877 HANOVER ROAD) P&Z CASE NO. 90 -918. WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a one foot fence height variance and a 10 foot fence setback variance to construct a privacy fence on Lot 9, 10 and the Western 3 Feet of Lot 8, Block 16, Devon, PID 025- 117 -24 -11 -0148; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R - ?, Single - Family Residential zoning district which, according to the Mound Code of Ordinances requires a 20 foot fence setback along the north side of the property abutting Hanover Road and Section 23.415 of the Mound Code of Ordinances limits residential fences to 6 feet in height; and WHEREAS, application of the Mound Code of Ordinances results in the request for a one foot height variance and a 10 foot fence setback variance; and i WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval of the height variance and d 5 foot setback variance in lieu of the requested 10 foot setback variance after finding that strict application of the Mound Code of Ordinances would present practical difficulties to the topography of the lot and the surrounding area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby authorize the one foo' fence height variance and a five foot fence setback variance allowing the fence to be placed 15 feet from the property line which approximates the location of an existing corner of the principal structure. 2. The City Council authorizes the structural setback violation and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivisio (8) with the clear and express understcnding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. • 14225 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case No. 90 -918 © 3. It is determined that the residential unit will be improved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property by authorizing the construction of the privacy fence as outlined above. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally descriued property: Lot 9, 10 and the Western 3 Feet of Lot 8, Block 16, Devon, PID 025- 117 -24 -11 -0148. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota Sate Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. • 1991 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • MOU1OD ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 1990 e. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a fence height and setback variance. The applicant is proposing to install a 7 foot high privacy fence along the east property line within 10 feet from the front property line, Hanover Road. Koegler commented that given the grade differen- tial of the surrounding properties, a 7 foot high fence in lieu of the standard 6 foot high fence would prov[de reasonable privacy along the eastern and southern yard areas of the home. However, if the 7 foot high fence was extended within 10 feet of the Hanover Road property line, it would Impede the site distance from vehicles exiting the garage. Staff recommended approval of the one foot high fence variance to • allow construction of a 7 foot high fence. However, staff recom- mended denial of the 10 foot fence setback variance from Hanover Road. A fence observing a 20 foot setback in this area will im- prove the sl+te distance from the garage and result in a safer situation. The commission determined that the houses set on each side of the subject garage are setback approximately 15 feet from Hanover Road. They discussed the feasibility of allowing the fence to be constructed up to the house line, approximately 15 feet from Hanover. MOTION made by Mueller seconded by Wetland to approve the 1 foot fence height variance to allow a 7 foot high fence= and to approve a fence setback to allow the fence to be ronstructed within the rewired setback, but , A exceeding the closest distance that the adjoining str .c- tures are setback from Hanover. Motion carried unar.la- ously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. I J 1495e PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Fence Height and Setback Variances APPLICANT: Richard McCarthy CASE NUMBER: 90 -918 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A16 -ZO LOCATION: 4877 Hanover Road • EXISTING ZONING: Single - Family Residential (R -2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to install a privacy fence along the eastern boundary of the property. As proposed, the fence will involve two variances; a one foot height variance to install a 7 foot high fence and a 10 fnot setback variance to allow the fence to terminate 10 feet from ne northern lot line along Hanover Road. The applicant purchased the property after the previous owner had split off the parcel (B) to the east which now contains a new structure. The new structure (since 1983) is at a higher elevation than the existing "ome owned by the applicant which is on Parcel A. Due to the r roximity of the two homes, the applicant is requesting a,. _val to install a 7 foot high privacy fence. The applicant would also like to build the fence up to a point within :0 feet of the property line on the north side. The intent in this portion of the variance is to provide privacy to the entrance and patio area of the home. COMMENT: Given the grade differential of the sir properties, a seven foot high fence in lieu of the standar six foot high fence would provide reasonable privacy along the eastern • and southarn yard areas of the home. Parcel B contains an existing garage which provides some screening of the entrance area. The existing garage accesses Hanover Road to the nor`. If the seven foot high fence was extended within 10 feet of the Hanover property line, it would impede the sight distance from vehicles exiting the iu s� garage. to 3030 Harbor Lane North 61419.11. Suite 1104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 412/563 -1060 McCarthy Planning Report April 30, 1990 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the one foot high fence variance to allow construction of a seven foot high fence. Furthermore, staff recommends denial of the 10 foot fence setback variance from Hanover Road. A fence observing a 20 foot setback in this area will improve the sight distance from the garage and result in a safer situation. i • • 14SI F mu TY OF HOUND A / PART 11 Case No. to ' � W �q p Date Filed qZ (°l -2'D Fee $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION P ANNING i ZONING OOMMISSION (Please type or print the following Information.) Address of Subject Property Lot q ,I C) 0 Block l io Addition Dooynn / PID No. Owner's Name 9%%3�AQJ'�o ��`k'►� Y Day Phone H 1 ` " 514 9 Owner's Address w n :l pt1JDV�'�� Ro. Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone. O xIsting Use of Property: f4b4mt S Zoning District 1`a Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, coWitional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? yes If yes, list date (s) of application, action taken, and provide reso I utTRn numbers) (Copies of previous resolutions must 9ccompany this application.) I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained In any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this app IIcat•Ion 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 �� `� "h'' �" ' 1 p` Date 0 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Dat c ouncil Actions Resolution No. Date f 5 9 Q 1199 s .? VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. I + S A 1. Does the present use of the property conform to a',I regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (x), No ( ). If not specify each non - conforming use: 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes v(), No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use: 3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ( ) too narrow ) too small (X) ( ) topography ( ) soil • drainage ( ) sub- surface ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify ��S AQ.E jt lu y L rin . dUJ� Is Lwg PC..Q,05S 'CA 5 ��"� LM ko . 0 fx. c�� a n^ Q r L _ W d' OUP P t_'V�T Z�00 2 NE t(rh 8o IZ, 4. Was the hardship escr be s o rea y MA t of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes. No (). If yes, explain z �,t-50 - -i l iS V EesY C�.oSE `Co cyv�Z Ptzo�Ev�� war, A�i�D O'�lV��in r S. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No e)Q. if yes, explain :7 1 491 r Q ARJANCE APPLICATION 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variaq peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes, No (y) . If no, how many other propert 1 es are similarly affeetWI. M., 7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. S. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in • the sums zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO PART Ill J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch Plans, attachments, etc., must be submitted In 8 -1/2 "x11" size. If harper drawings are submitted, one must be 8 -1/2 10 x11", and 15 larger size copies must be Provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show- ing the following information: 1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: Mot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off - street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot linesi principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. • o. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1g10 F 7 Cast i -I Cott of rUv - - *t for Contir; ?.1 wind�►r� ►vas :: sr. in !4tp 7 -: : ?lock 1' :Fvrf! t Hunnepir. Count;•, � 1 t sown CN, pr o IL I - . ........ �� :noon � A • � - � noon �� M sf/wrJas � . i .II✓.� � -�. .. ids n •' '.• < MHO �� ' �, • � I fie' itr i • tiny. • .t.� �a!�f ; :'"'.' t f .; � t :! p ;: t,; .. '; '.. ,• v� .. �c • ".• "• . . ,�'' - ��.'r. *ti•. •�.:, :r..r , ;�.. if it .. �2�'ry!f. •�•. noon _ . , . ; ;.I • •jft•' i - - ;•1 il�:. ..1:!tir noon .l /,�il:f •vrf• . 14q I ca. Mo. 83 -112 m R q Certifteate, of Survey ~ '- • for Ce tury 21' ' uindward Properties + `' r , ...► } e ... in Lots 7 -10 Block 16 .Devon Hennepin County, Minnesnta f '~ t "' } �. . 6 t °n Hanover lts.1 'U low+ *ftw* (e- I✓i+1r. Jewdee� - bdW tn Reewft1(/ 0 ....r...)1f=.... s : ,t s, AWye I lb M .. - -• - -•• 54.2'-........ ProW-fed Dili b Uee Lo. tr•a ot►er I he certify that this is a truo and rorr , :ct representation of a survey. of a arbo6h6d'difidinC'11 no in• Lot E, ?lor4.16, Devon, for tho sole purpose Of lot-sting two adlaront buil.'inCs it rf ' r•. pronor•o= 11re. GORDON R. CO�FFPI.* CC:., INC. Scslo: 1" = 30kR'r I' I ot• �` cr u ,. �y : rin bite : P. -7 -83 Mhrk E. - ronbe•rg Reg. No.12755 :,)nd Sun••r.vrrs and Pj:.nners ::: r1. , ' i n. n —c to Prnmeed desrrintinn-:: A. Lots 9 and 10, end the b:cst 3 .°(- of of Lcat ?, ail in Flock. 16, Lcvon. P. Lot 7, and that mrt,.oT Lot. 8 lying Ernst o^ the iKest ,� feet the 'ep; 1 Plork 16, Devon. ) 412. ,, S% • PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 90 -919 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE FOR PART OF LOT 22, LAFAYETTE PARK, (5324 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD), PID /13- 117 -24 -21 -0044; P&Z CASE NO.90 -919. WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for an additional 2 foot rear lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a second story with a two foot rear cantilever within 48 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka for Part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, PID #13- 117 -24- 21-0044; and WHEREAS, the property currently coitains the following setbacks: Front - 29.4 foot setback Rear - 40 foot deck setback East Side - 7.1 foot setback West Side - 2 foot deck setback WHEREAS, the applicant has stated that the deck on the west side of the residence will be removed resulting in the re- establishment of a conforming side yard setback on the east; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning district which, according to the Mound Code of Ordinances requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka, a 30 foot front yard setback from the street, a 10 foot side yard setback on the east and a 6 foot side yard setback on the west; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict application of the Mound Code of Ordinances would present practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the land due to the depth of the lot. NOW, THEREFuRE, BE IT PESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: I. The City does hereby authorize the following variances: A. Front yard - recognize the existing .6 foot variance B. Rear yard - recognize the existing 10 foot deck setback variance and allow a 2 foot structural setback variance for the second flour living space. 40 1411 PROPOSED RESOLUTION Page Two Case ; C. East side y %.rd - recognize the existing 2.9 foot Ito 2. The City Council authorizes the structural setback violis a and authorizes the alterations set forth below • pvrsuio� Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and. d'ap"4►9 understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonronformi use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions o Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the residential unit will be improved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property by recognizing the existing variances and authorizing the variances noted above to allow construction of the second story living space, subject to the following condition: The approval of the variances is contingent on the removal of the existing deck on the west side of the home. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The westerly 62.50 feet of the Easteriy 437.5 feet of that part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, lying north of Town Road (Wenonah Road of Three Points Boulevard). This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). ,F This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. • W5 CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 5/22/90 #2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • MOUND ADV 1 SORY PLAINT I NG COIIM I SS I ON May 7, 1990 f Case No. 90-919: Kenneth Carlson, JU4 Three Pblrvts Blvd., part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, PID *13-117-24-21 1 The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to allow a can- tilevered second story addition. The requested variances are as followss Fronts 29.4 foot setback, .6 foot variance Rear /Lake: 40 foot deck setback, 10 foot variance West Side: 7.1 foot setback, 2.9 foot variance West Side: 2 foot deck setback, 2 foot variance Koegler explained that the applicant is planning to remove the deck on the west side which will bring the west side setback into compliance. Staff recommended recognition of the variances identified above and approval of the variances on the north and south sides of the • structure to add a 2 foot cantilever to the second floor addl- tion. Approval of the cantilever will allow the applicant reasonable use of the property and allow more design flexibility In making the structure more compatible with some of the new homes in the Three Points area. The approval of the variances Is contingent on the removal of the existing deck on the west side of the home. The commission discussed the cantilevers and determined that the setbacks should be measured from the cantilevers, not the founda- tion wall. fhe cantilever towards the south /front was discussed, and it was determined that the existing wal' already encroaches into the front yard setback more than the neighboring properties. MOTION wtade by Mueller, seconded by Thal to approve the setback variances, allow the 2 f000t cantilever to the north, however, the proposed 2 foot cantilever tc the south is to be eliminated. Approval is upon the condi- tlon that the deck on the west side of the structure be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. Welland informed the commission that he received a request from Mr. Gerald Kust to review a variance request at tonights meeting. There was some discussion abou- the application, and it was determined that It was not submitted until after the due date. The commission agreed that they would like to hear staff's recom- mendatlon and visit the site before they make a decision on the request. 494 • PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM- Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Kenneth Carlson CASE NUMBER: 90 -919 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A17 -ZO LOCATION: 5324 Three Points Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single- Family Residential IR -1) • COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to add a second story to the existing home at 5324 Three Points Boulevard. At the present tine, the home has the following setbacks and corresponding variances: Front - 29.4 foot setback, .6 foot variance Rear - 40 foot deck setback, 10 foot variance East Side - 7.1 foot setback, 2.9 foot variance West Side - 2 foot deck setback, 2 foot variance The applicant is proposing to remove the deck along the west side of the home and construct a second story addition over the existing first floor living space. Under this proposal, the second story walls will not encroach into the required setbacks beyond the current encroachment of the existing first floor walls. The applicant also inquired about another potential change in the application to allow a two foot cantilever of the second floor living space along the north anu south sides of the property. This change if opproved woulo encroach on add itionol two feet from the existing ground floor situation. COMMENT: The expdnsion of the home by adding a second floor • consistent with the first floor is a reasonable use of the property. As a part of the proposd1, the applicant is proposing to remove the non - conforming deck that is a "grandfathered" site improvement. Since this encrodchment is being removed, the 1417 Planning Commission may wont to consider the applicants request to 3030 Harbor Lane Nortn Bldg ii. Suite 104 Minneapohs. MN. 55447 -2175 612/553 -1950 • Carlson Planning Report April 30, 1990 Page 2 add a two foot cantilever to the north and south sides of the second floor. The encroachment on both of these sides would be marginal and may result in a finished product that is more architecturally compatible with some of the newer homes in the , ,Three Points area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends recognition of the variances identified above and approval of the variances on the north and south sides of the structure to add a 2 foot cantilever to the second floor addition. Approval of the cantilever will allow the applicant reasonable use of the property and allow more design flexibility in making the structure more compatible with some of the newer homes in the Three Points area. The approval of the variances is contingent on the removal of the existing deck on the -- wtst side of the home. 0 I4q i 9 ao s. _Y CITY OF MOUND q PART 11 Case Md. Date F led Fee $50.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING s ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following Information.) Address of Subject Property Lot 4'! Z Z- B 1 ock hyh Addition PID No. /3 / /,y * - Owner's Name f b i ga y 42,1 JZLSrP D "7� -- Day Phone L aSa 1 _ -- Owner's Address--5 7 T/I gE L P C/4Z 7 .' 5 yJ - Applicant's Name (if other than owner) '.5.4/N)45 Address Day Phone Existing Use of Property: Zoning District Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, con tional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? es . If yes, list date(5) of application, action taken, and provide resolu..(onnumber(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. App I I cant's S i gnature 141 r a � 0 1 021 - 1 - Date_ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: P l a n n i n g Commission Recommendation Date Counc i 1 Ac:, i on: _. -- - -- --- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - — _------------ ---- -� Resolution No.__ Date )LM 1 �RIANCE APPLICATION Case No. 10 1 9 1. Does the present use of the property conform to 1 regulations. for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ). No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use: 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 A^ ). if no, specify each non - conforming use: 3. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? , • iJ) too narrow () ( ) too small ( ) ( ) too shallow ( ) t drainage shape ( ) sc i I ( ) sub - surface other: specify 4. Was the hardship described above created having property lnterest�s In the land after adopted? Yes ( ), No . If yes, explain by the action of anyone the zoning ordinance was 5. Was the hardship created by relocation of a road? Yes ( any other man -made change, such as the ), No �(). If yes, exolain • 1 500 VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. gd -q 1 • 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes Oef, No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected PART 111 J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans. attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8 - / 2"x11" size. If larger drawings are submitted, one must be _8- 1 /2 "xll ", and 15 larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity, show- ing the following information: I. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off- street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: t,igns, easPmEnts, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by th� city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1501 74 What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. We request permission to expand the existing house by adding a second story. We will build only over the existing exterior walls, maintaining the existing setbacks. This will not intensify any of the existing setback violations. In conjunction with this expansion we plan to remove the deck on the West side of the house, which will bring that sett:ack into compliance. Abutting property owners have no objections to the proposed action. The house is currently 728 sq ft with one bedroom, which if inadequate for our family of four. 8. Will granting of the variance be materiaiiy aetrimentai t roperty In the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? fl PART 111 J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans. attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8 - / 2"x11" size. If larger drawings are submitted, one must be _8- 1 /2 "xll ", and 15 larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity, show- ing the following information: I. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off- street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: t,igns, easPmEnts, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by th� city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1501 ertlfltate of Survey for enneth H. Car lson n lot 22. Lafayette Park ennepin County, Minnesota • 1 V a F d. �• ,moo s Loke Mingeton�Q ��>n S40 -c4;76 b� s. g s 7030; t 0 �1pus N 2g 3 0 .*, N ni ZO 7 �P vr� LEGAL. DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: the Westerly 62.50 feet of the [ast(:r ly rri /.`_) fe('I (;I th,rt ;),irl of Lot ','2, 1 afayette PXV.., lytno north of Town Rood (Vlenonrih Itnrirt of I Boulevard). I hereby certify that this survey wr(s wet�,irerl Iry mo or under my direct suoervislon, and that I .rm a (tuiy registered Land Surveyor un(jer the lags of the Sate nnesota. IN 8 6RONBERG, INC. Plark S. Gronberg MN. Lic. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners I nn Lake, Minnesota Seale: 1 Inch = 20 feet Date .January 22, 19TI • Iron marker found Iron marker set I» �' Snot el rtunr: Mound City P(!, r w s shown are based upon (Iattim 1YO4 CA Ll 12 tlgq os/ —.. I r d 1. t .�.• � i � � h') yj�lkll K . 1. 01 Ll F.L61 t6 T % 1 +'21• A Pot'l 1 4 - • �� X,� � 1 N� �, ,es r �� oo�. Pc ,�,✓ 12& te MVER ')1 .144 Ab qw A ll, i� !: � I I � ! I� I i I' II ii It i �' � � � - -- ({ � ! '�. .. - I '' .I. it -� - -- ! . N • • I Ir a�sodo '8 4:: 9 9 II i' � I I I ii �� i � •� I J � N t �-�. S 1 �c �. .. . .......... ....... j j I �I�- __ �� i t j1L _- _._L_.- _ _ 11 .�, . II I II !, �� 11 .�...- '- - .._.. ... I� - -.. _ � .. ._ . -- - ___.._ .._.. __. �II I 0 0 0 C7 II N i � I i _� rl � �; 1� j; ' j ; j,TF i! I I 11 1111 L-71-7— T'�1�. - _ _ :L.T "� I I� - . . ��_ r �I I - �� 1 ► �i '� �� ' II 1 � II I . j �' 1 ' - +I -�- �!Ji � ! -ir�.i ��il.a j:� i'j I I. _ii � '� �j i ,, ' - -- _ -' II D LI 77 I ji ' i of I I II �� ; ! i � I � I i � ►i �; ! i - - -- To Whom it May Concern; In the matter of the Variance Application for 5324 Three Points Blvd for a second story addition. have no objections regarding the proposed action. - - -I object to the proposed action for the following reasons; • To Whom it May Concern; k JO LI/ i�� Signature Address h ov wQ H i•� w �z A fer - Date In the matter of the Vatiance Application for 5326 Three Points Blvd for a second story addition. X- - - - -I have no objections regarding the proposed action. - -I object to the proposed action for the following reasons' • Signature tea -e AS";: ec6 9� --_.. -Date - -- -- M ^ -� 'too F_ v.12,T. I I Ri _....... A ffa A!N' d \ COTV or � '� ` WEST ARM` z. aP °"' "• � L A KE .� . (24 • 8! Port of Lot 25 ry " if Lot 24 SEAno I'� 11 �1 Cl9/ 7 f 1 L 1U k, �• S� y'v ~, _ -/b� 23 ' 9 >). A p} i r ... ( ,� �'� �.r;'� ' w+ is a t ao 4 1 P o �) Sb ` 001 h EATr Int 3 File WPLAI OF cr� '' ,mss;, 's�- l� • fµµ' r~, � 4 j V PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner r"k& DATE: May 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT: Jerry Kust CASE NUMBER: 90 -920 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A18 -ZO LOCATION: 2731 Rosewood Lane • EXISTING ZONING: R -1, Single- Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to construct a 12 X 26 foot screened porch at the rear of the home. The proposed porch will comply with all setback requirements. The existing home sits 23.4 feet from the right -of -way line of Rosewood Lane. The provisions of the Mound Code of Ore nances require a setback of 30 feet in this area. Therefore, .,e applicant is seeking recognition of a 6.6 foot front yard setback variance in order to obtain a building permit to build the conforming deck. COMMENT: The existing home which fronts on Rosewood Lane was built prior to adoption of the existing zoning code. The 23.4 foot setback is consistent with the structure immediately nor`h of the Kust residence. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance request to recognize the existing non - conforming front setback for the purposes of constructing a conforming screened porch, • 1510 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg 11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447 -2175 6121553 -1950 Am %7 Lr CITY OF MOUND PART I I Case No. an -q2i�� Date Filed_ Fee J 0.00 VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING a ZONING COM MISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property Block Z-_ Lot — Addition PID No. J r Owner's Name Day Phone f�� " �� "�'�"'""'" Owner's Address 2? - / �05 E D - & Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Addres E � ---- Existing Use of Property: Zoning Distric Day Phone Has an application ever beer made for zoning, variance c n0 tlonal use ves p ermit. or other zoning Procedure for this property? list date(s) of application. action taken, and provide resolut on number(s) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) 1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and &C curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. XA 1 +1pli can s Signature Gate FoR OFFICE USE ONLY: •annIng Commission Recommendation____ Date Council Action: Resolution No. _ Date 1511 cc . K0,Lge( - Z-Vq O W ARIANCE APPLICATION 1. Case No. , q6 "9Zc� Does the present use of the property conform to the zoning district in which it is located? Yes specify each non - conforming use: 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: 3. Which unique physical characteristics of the sur ect property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permuted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( > soil ( 1 too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub - surface ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify D X �S/ iNl' o u �o S N��7 fi r i f 4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes (.Q. No ( ). If yes, explain .) I L r __ ,-9 r' A,. 7 /,*- J At 5. Was t e hardship created by any other man -made change. such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ). No 04. If yes. explain • all regulations for ()<) , No ( ) . I f no, 1s)z VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. 90 _ O AD 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? VOW-4-V-1 No (V%. If no. how many other properties are similarly affected? Z � o 0 0 o S ?E6 7. What is the "minimum" setback regulations your land? (Specify, ten explanation. _ 1�1 F_ 1= -t S. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? N d • PART iII J. "E PLAN iWORMATi : All supporting documents s uch as sketch Plans. �ti - achments. etc ., must be submitted In 8 -1 /2 "x 1 1" size. I f 1 araer q rawinas are submitted. one must be 8- 1 /2 "xil ". and 15 larger size eol. must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a !site plan must be attached at a sc5le large enough for clarity show - ing the following information: I. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveways) /street access, off - street parking, and utilities. 2. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building a ^c+ front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities. etc. 5. indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. • modification (variance) from the area. bulk, and that will permit you to make reasonable use of using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- IS 13 • 0 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Prepared for: HINDE RES10MCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 6, Block 2, BATDORF'S FIRST ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I/ 1 W • en i � 0 e•� A . mill W 4 J o f 1 3 W ri• I sst••� � I EVER GREEN R OAD GENERAL NOTES o Denotes iron tranurtKnt Proposed top of foundation elevation = Denotes ape• chiseled in concrete Proposed bodement floor elevation s it 939.7 Denotes existing spot elevation Proposed garage floor elevation = ® Denotes proposed spot elevation 4 Denotes surface drainage BENCHMARK: Dashed contour lines denotes proposed features Solid contour lines denotes existing features ALL -METRO LAND lu mby I ■ $ pro otod , er me tun un der my , 11.• « rs "rt .. p►•►•rN ww « end wr d rest •q•rwwe end that I •w • duly 1114 S•req•r n f SURVEYORS tale o f Y�noes under tM I of tee �eneonHOf•. S 2340 Daniels Str Long Lake Minnesota 55356 h / Ulf. i = 20, ZZ 1 43 Ph; 475-1433 DATE 4 _ -s o fro. L filom A 2 - 7 31 1 W 656 - 200 ) 4 L 11. -F o I 0-.O,e r. d— -1 or 7 • % h v • v N4.5 3 N P ow OXBOARD SHEATHING WHEN USED N ON ROOFS, CLIPS MUST BE , �- USED OR SPACING REQUIRED PROVIDE ATTIC VENTILATION EQUAL TO 1 /1507H ATTIC AREA. IF 50% OR MORE IS PROVIDED IN UPPER PpRTXM OF ROOF AM IN SOFRT VVENTs� rs � ; f M TO 11500TH ATTIC AREA. F: ' FRA2t I NSP6MON 15 lb. Mopp Id 2 Lapis I Solid WgfthK��` U The Roof From Wag ,_ �• / / Alternate Material May Used With hWe W-4 IS I OF Af APPR D UB'MITTEO ` C014RECTIOWAS NOT • CORRECT i EMIT . IOryw li mrrl�oa A/woAt NaI �.OVIIo�eLerAalpa stow -- P�rcv�' N `' rw�ttt o�� ►nereM F os Fo* 41O ' I STEDGE Ab W1 03 of 41 1 m AS _ ( 13K l�.I 13T. V) s �r IK r! ao ' .(4) 1; S $ i(s) t soo (L) I we 110 h` v� s v. Ci) � Gs) .". ♦,•Jo..fi1,, � �y a � w r S A /I� / • .` l . 1.3 ':. i s 1►f1r f f!�[' t w TIl� Z 114 1 lot o ,n �z . }„ ,i (J1 f�. . (.. al �ip « 11 3� ��Q ti r _ 2 t (IJTIOT A ?� `o��l X N :: (4 0 3 ( 1 ) �1) �A�i . (n off s !SI !1 ICI RD WAS 1l 033 J � �,`�' 1 fir � ,,. � w ��,• J '' ♦ ��r� 1 ` �' ` `3 0A �3u r3) a ��1 •' �� ` = �) % r• t (� (=S ` ♦7 ) 3 s '6 too r tA'lf'ss i. dl 1.1 ��r� (9) ( !7): (s!) (01) (!O) . A 1 074O' ' "� M.• $:J �. '.' rs.. .11I11r L O A E.f1 EVERGM i o s i• (ff (ff) (S7) (fd) 18: (111 CIA t 3 o S • Ao a ter' � �J � r " ( ISO &A rt.. 44 69 2 Res P ' n24 • PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner MK— DATE: May 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Extension of Resolution 87 -179 APPLICANT: Brian and Maria Johnson LOCATION: 4945 Glen Elyn Road EXISTING ZONING: R -1, Single- Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: On September 22, 1981, the City of Mound approved a • variance to recognize an existing non - conforming 6 foot front yard setback to allow construction of an addition of 18.2 feet by 52 feet and a 22 by 36 foot garage. Construction of the improvements did not occur. On May 8, 1990, the Mound City Council reviewed an extension of the resolution approved in 1987 and decided that due to the lapse of time from the original approval date, the request should be examined again by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The request and the facts pertinent to this case remain the same today as they did in 1987. Staff recommends approval of a one year extension of Resolution 87 -179. • 151? 3030 Marbor Lane North Bldg n. Suitn 104 M�nnaapoi a, MN. 55447 -2175 6121553 -1050 72 May 0, 1990 • Project in the amount of $29,423.23. �imously in favor. Motion carried. The vote was 1.11 UQUas? POL 2I sIOM OF =mLUTIOM 007 -179 MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to have the Planning Commission and the staff review this eztession request and give their recommendation before Council action is taken. The vote was unanimously Is favor. Motion carried. 1.12 PiQC ANWOM FOR RICYCLi Iri Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RisOLU'TIOM #90 - AasOLUTIOM PAOCIMMINO MAY 10 -22, 1990, DIC?CLi wilt IM Tai CITT OF MOUND • U The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for April, 1990. B. LMCD Representatives Monthly Report for April, 1990. C. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District materials from May 1, 1990, C.O.W. Meeting. 1.13 XMION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to direct the staff to send letters to the lennepin County Commissioners, the Kinnehaha Creek watershed District, the L.M.C.D., and the Department of Natural Resources indicating the City of Mound ,1 9 opposition to pumping water from wells or diverting rater from rivers to increase the lake level of Lake Minnetonka. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. D. Planning Commission Minutes of 4/23/90. E. Economic Development Commission Minutes of April 19, 1990. F. Notice of Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (ANN) 1990 Annual Meeting, Wednesday, May 16, 1990, at McGuires Inn in Arden Hills, MN., 5:30 P.M. G. Letter from Tad Jude re: Budget Meetings Hennepin County Board. 1S 18 - h n- c AJ May 2, 1990 To: Mound City Council c/o Ms.°eggy James Mound, MN 55364 From: Mr. and Mrs. Brian R_ Johnson 4945 Glen Blyn Road !found, MN 55364 Bear Sirs... Enclosed, please find copies of Summation, Comments and Recom- mendation by Jan Bertrand dated September 14, 1987 regarding the request for Setback Variance of Existing Structure (Case 87 -663). Also enclosed, is the Council Resolution 87 -179 confirming the pro- posed Variance with no dissenting opinion. 0 It was assumed that we would be proceeding with remodeling and construction at the time of the original variance. However, due to • weather and financial implications, we were unable to proceed until this spring. Therefore, per conversation with Peggy James, we would like to apply for an extension of the original variance so that we can submit drawings and specifications for permits at this time. A --suming that the original variance can be extended, we will be proceeding with construction/remodel ing per original proposals to Council as quickly as possible. PRJ:bri Enclosure Thank You Sincerely, Brian and Maria Johnsen 1511 L)v September 22. 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87 -179 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO • ALLOY AN ADDITION FOR PARTS OF LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 24. SHADYWOOD POINT; PID NO. 13- '.17 -24 11 0094 (4945 GLEN ELYN ROAD) P b Z CASE NO. 87 - 663 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize an existing non - conforming 6 foot front yard setback to 31low an addition of 18.2 feet by 52 feet and a 22 by 36 foot 3 stall 1 story garage for part of Lots 17 and 18, Block 24. Shadywood Point; PID No. 13- 117 -24 11 0094; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R -1 Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code, requires a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot sideyards, and 15 foot rear yard and a minimum dwelling size of 840 square feet; and WHEREAS, Section 23.404 Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building coptaining a lawful non - conforming residential unit when the alter- ation will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration does not increase the number of units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming principal structure at 4945 Glen Elyn Road; PID N 13-117-24 11 0094. 2. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alterations setforth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Sub- division (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all the provisions and restric- tions of Section 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to the non - conforming use property: The addition of an 18.2 by 52 foot one story addition to the living space with a 22 by 36 foot 3 stall one story - garage to the existing 18.2 by 28.3 foot one story dwelling as a slab on grade as shown on the site plan identified as Exhibit "A ". Upon the further condition that the existing dwelling be brought to current bui -lding code, correct the drainage on the site to divert water from the existing and new addition, and removal of the front 4.6 by 6.2 ft. entryway. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Abel and seconded by Mayor Smith. The following Councilmembers Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Joh • The fallowing Councilmembers none. e:t� Clerk voted in the affirmative: nson and Smith. voted in the negative: M yor 1 S�� Ukbt We T0: Planning Commission. Applicant and Staffj, FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Ag, -nda of September 14, 1987 CASE NO. 87 -563 APPLICANT: Mr. Brian R. Johnson LOCATION: 4945 Glen Elyn Road LEGAL DESC.: Parts of Lots 17 and 18. Shadywood Point all in block 24; PID 013- 117 -24 11 0094 SUBJECT: SETBACK VARIANCE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING ZONING: R -1 single family '1 PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to add a 18.2 by 52 foot one story addition to the living space with a 22 by 36 foot three stall one story Y garage to an existing 18.2 by 28.3 foot one story dwelling with a slab on- grade. The floor area is 504 sq. ft. the required is 840 sq. ft. minimum. The property was subdivided in July to have a conforming side yard for lots of record of 6 feet and to bring the lot area to within 10% of the required 10,000 sq. ft. in the R -1 zoning district; lot area 9,187 sq. ft. The front yard setback however. is 6 feet t; the required setback is 30 feet to the existing structure. COMMENTS: The dwelling is 17 feet from the curb line as the boulevard is 11 feet. The structure is currently valued at$16,200. The applicant has a slab on -grade home, with a cesspool in the yard which must be filleJ, a wall heater to heat the home, etc. The applicant does plan to correct ail of the deficiencies in the structure, such as, but not limited to, central heating, correct yard grading, fill cesspool, additional outlets for electrical and bring to current code, size water piping to code with waste and venting of plumbing, plumbing accessibility, new water heater, change all windows, etc. RECOMMENDATION: The addition portion of the structure will have conforming seEbacks to the property lines for lots of record, the floor area will bring the structure to the minimum floor area. Staff recommends granting the variance upon the condition that corrections be made to the existing dwelling to bring i4 into conformance with current building code and correct the drainage on the site.to divert water away from the existing and new addition with removal of the front 4.6 by 6.2 foot entry. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on September 22, 1987. • ISCIZI Planning Commission Minutes September 14. 1987 • Page 2 as It goes around curve and not down to the lake; topography is very steep • there. Staff Is recommending approval of the one story 2 stall 22 by 24 foot garage due to the shape and topography of the lot; but that the 10 by 10 foot storage area be located elsewhere on the lot. The setback for the garage could be used as part of the terrace to retain the hill on the East. The garage doors would be on the West. The Commission discussed the request at length. Applicant advised that corner of his proposed garage will actually be 8 feet from the curb and, in response to a question on garage width, he noted that 4 feet of it is entry and garage will be only 20 feet wide. Several Commissioners stated there is no sight pro- blem on the road. It was thought there is a hardship for the garage; but not for the storage area and it could be relocated. Meyer Selina moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approval with the Staff's recommendation (no storage area). The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the Council agenda of September 22, 1987. 3. Case No. 87-663 Variance setback of existing structure at 4945 Glen Elyn Road Part of Lots 17 and 18, Block 24, Shadywood Point. Applicant. Brian R. Johnson, was present The Building Official explained request is to add an 18.2 by 52 foot one story addition to living space with a 22 by 36 foot 3 stall garage. She noted that the existing home has a 6 foot setback to the front property line (Glen Elyn); • has been treating as a lot of record from the subdivision recently done; appli- cant removed an encroachment from east side of property and established a 6 foo, sideyard setback to existing house (18.2 By 28.3 feet in size). The lot size is within 10% of the required 10.000 square feet; required setbacks are 30 feet to Glen Elyn;. 10 feet to Paradise Lane; 6 feet to the side with a minimum house size of 840 square feet. The proposed addition will have conforming setbacks and bring house to minimum floor area. Staff recommends granting the variance upon condition existing house is brought up to current building code, drainage on site be corrected to divert water from the existing and new addi- tion and the front entryway be removed; also that septic tank in yard be filled. Applicant stated house has masonry fireplace and sewer and water service; he commented he will be upgrading the existing; also noted that it doesn't ob- struct traffic views. The Commission discussed the setback from Glen Elyn. Neighbor, Ernie Strong overlooks this site and believes what is proposed will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Jensen moved and Meyer moved to accept staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the Council agenda of September 22, 1987. 4. Case No. 87 -664 Structural repairs to a nonconforming structure at 5124 Tuxedc • Boulevard; Lot 14, Whipple Shores; PIG 24- 117 -24 43 0062 Owner Robert Huffman and Applicant Richard Rucinski were present. The Building Official explained Mr. Rucinski was in to obtain a building permit to do repair after some storm damage; part of the foundation was washed away. /sa02 CERTIFICATE 0W sys" , Prq.q/ fyr: Mat. f,AN� .--- ■�....M '¢ CE/y A'N v,¢ - -,.« ROAD v °jh° s Q Q � t f 1— �J M led i I ;r R ' z PA L. a 1� .W. CW ZSISTING LMG 0=911PTIONS- Let 17, SHADYYOOD POINT. occordilq to t11e recorded plat thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Lots 18 and 19, SNADYNOOD POINT, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. N r` • w�l .osw .•aol..,v_ Pao._ sorra�s, Thsee pert. of Leto 17 No 110, ffMOQR l nmr. aea.edt1=1 he "me"" Plat therwf, a CwMtI. alar"la IPiN " .1 won werun, t■rlr of the 1 114 � � aA Ilri MIMIng at • palest at el,n wertA 1 lw o/ sold let $&. diets" s.", fsot Sent of the waeeh■ant ewme of wad tat lag thee.. rNhrly /etattel 4 the not Ilwn of wad Lot 110 a Often" of 1310.» feet$ thew aweh.ne1.11 to • Pelst w the South Is" of Said tot It drnso■e 11.Se feet "Sanely of the swthnoot softer of will Mt 17 ad rid :tee there tewlnot FAmm of 1+t Is, arin.sam fOtar, aoesod le the 90=~ Plot teal"!, emlme.lw Ceewtl al■uenKa s■8 p flat pert N Salo Lot It slum "eterlT of a tJw MeerleM no Widest l at a let sow the north Ilno N sold Lot la distant e.er feet slat or fM usothwsot wrung of said IAt lei tlawee @@""gap parallel M the ~ IIw of said Ent It a distance 61 toots them" oath. eenteely to a Slot go the owth lame "t Mt 17, Said sommom Fain. dtoteat 21310 feet wwteelF of the Southeast .e/rer M sold W. 17 and "ad line there tewtratial. I GlN1CIUIL NOTES e Denotes iron monument Proposed top of foundation Slay. . �i Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Proposed basement floor elev. . x93.3 Denotes existing spot elevation Proposed garage floor elev. ■ ® Denotes proposed spot elevation +— Denotes surface drainage SENCIINARK: Dashed contour lines denote proposed features Solid contour lines denote existing features I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was watt ALL -METRO LAND prepared by "e or under my direct *UPS. 1. ton and that �•t�p' SIIRVI•±YORS I duly R a so degistered Land Surveyor under the lava of 1a.r MlK )5A3 the Ste a -of_I ; a. 2340 Oeaislo Simi Long looks, #Mmasolo $OM Fla. lla Ph: 179 -N33 DATE _ T'lY �� J REG. NUNDLR 17025 a11fi/• 26'-0 Existing House 52'-0 Additional Living Space ii! I�I 36• -0 Tonal' Garage . o t ) 1, ;Bath - II //- I� " loset 0 Entry _ _3lSllisy: Laundry Ba I 1 Garage t \ - T I T T I 1 .1 Schematic Desig Proposal fo Re - Johnson Residence 0 0 2 0 H A.1 24 ` N : 9 NKA 23 r 23 e 4 )V 22 .E M 2 ?ll • -z 1 �K I s r. TLr 413 9 1 � � ti S 3 �� Q • • I Of fVJ7 �• %. z t i ` 23 1 ' 1 , Y 1 ,. �, _ • W C'�fM = fC 1•/yx ,� 3 e �` I It 12 II •r i !4Q �` `? �I 3 = ��_� ti S \ 21, _y 22 �. 2 ^ , � 1 5 21�N 7'z f ''� 4� + 16 ie st ` s° : $�° :� 1��1 • # � s R � �p 1� it �s a ,, l a • ' 1-7 !I 1 9. I ' I 1 f �• 9 I , f . • 14 l 3 Y le • , �2, tl 10 .,ti ' 0 10 17 fq » , l e a fST� y Y• �, 1 Q� f_I�J '1 • p 7 fIY ° .12 a -23 z t IS`9.'Y 1 J r► 10 l c �l { ` a 3 (�� • `' �R ° zs'u p t� 22 a I i \ �1 17 12 y �4 11 � r : � j � (t ; 2 •� , •� `• • s. R c• \� , 12 by ' 1b i . 1 S 3� �t►1 g1� t t f6 4/ N � u uS • a'S ti , p �` �� 3 20 Z / ..: 11NN N R � ' � �. y =• 5 1 � .f4 . (1!� �; � .�t i9 e � • � � ?! nit} `s /I . '��, o �,n �•. � � e 3 2e 7 14) �Ct) / 1� ,;. f, y.Sl p1a , 1 • i 7 S le 13 • 1 •�.i ° t t • f c ,.� p 1 •�� 7 `k a {• -� 1) , t � �� 12 gyp• 1 tip. � " v �' � �. ti1 �26 � h ,, �, �� Z ° 8 3 a 's 2s �,f . ,. � , � , � ?I e 20 h p F •cl 2 � �, � 23 ` •11 ° - 11 14 / ` e 1 ► 1: S I�4 r 60 � / 1 Al to 13 { 7 \\' (C `A �1 � 2i 7r 1) � i 1p g 19 j � 22 t � r2 (4 � 9 0\ �fiJ �f ti° f=>DI 3 Q .c� u�. o �ti Q .t3 1� \ • y 21J Aso �! ' \ J M u�5 ItS1 �/ ��_♦ 7 ,A / ` 4 2WO �A, :n_ _ r '_ r '� �. Ml . , . Ig = 7 s oh) Is � ' yG� ,'t i " 9 \ ��j -� MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK t OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 10, 1990 Jim Fackler explained that Bruehan's property abuts both private and commons lakeshore. The private dock site which Bruehan has used In the past is not usable this year due to low water, there- fore, Bruehan, Is requesting a commons dock. Bruehan feels that since his property abuts commons property he should have first priority to a site, however. no sites are available in front of his property. Fackler referred to the City Attorney's Opinion Letter dated April 18, 1990, which states: "It would not appear to me that this would be sufficient cause for Mr. Bruehan to re -'hove some other person from the Commons. If the Park and Open Space Commission wishes to amend the dock location map and to find another location for the gentleman, that would be up to that Commission and the City Council. The ordinance ap- pears to have taken into account this type of situation, and it would appear that based on what you have told me, he does not have a first priority." The priorities, as listed in City Code Section 437.05, Subd. 7a were reviewed. First priority is basically given to abutting • commons property owners, and third priority is given to residents owning private Lakeshore which has lockable lake frontage. Fackler Informed the Commission that they did offer Bruehan a conw..ons dock site which Is down Waterside Lane a little ways from his property. Applicant, Bruehan, stated that he feels since the first priority states "abutting owner" to commons property and he maintains the commons, he should have first priority. It was determined that this Is a unique situation. Bruehan stated that he wants a guarantee that he cen get a commons dock site in front of his house every year. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Jessen to grant Mr. Bruehan the available commons dock site on Waterside Lane which was previously offered to him by the Park Director, due to the fact that he is a private Lakeshore owner. Casey suggested that maybe next year, or the following year, a site will open that abuts his property. it was determined that since Bruehan will then be a dock holder. he will have second priority the next year. Bruehan agreed that he could live with this decision, however, he would prefer to have a dock on the commons abutting his property. Motion carried unanimously. • This request will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. 1sa� May 22, 1990 T0: Mound City Council The Dock Commission has me listed as last priority which offers me a dock over a block away from my home, while others have docks on the property abutting mine. Mr. Fackler says that I am not "listed" as abutting, even though I have not found anything in the City Code, nor has he shown me anything, that talks about being "listed" as abutting. City Code Sec. 437:05, subd. 7a. states: Firs _Priorit�. An abutting owner has first priority for any location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Mr. Fackler points out third priority which he claims owning lakeshore negates my first priority. But once again he has failed to show me where a third negates a first priority. In fact, the City Code Sect. 437:05 subd. 7c. states in the third priority that: There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. My lakeshore which he refers to is actually a very narrow shallow channel which I cannot get my boat into and out of, nor is there adequate width for a boat lift without blocking the channel. I do not consider this dockable lakeshore. Mr. Fackler says that as an abutting owner, I am responsible for upkeep of the abutting commons property, which I have been happy to do for the past 5 years. But when it comes to dock usage, I'm not abutting, and therefore !:a-e no priority to use this over someone off the lake. It seems Mr. Fackler follows the Code only when lie desires. My feelings, as well as my counsel's, are that I am a first priority and also a third priority in the Mound City Code, and will not accept Mr. Fackler's partial interpretations of the City Code. Sincerely, Gary Br'euhan Mound City Code Section 437;05, S-- - bd. 4 a. That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be incluced on the license application; b. That each of the licensees retain priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occur, in the immediate subdivision shoreline, second only to a licensee previously displaced from said shoreline; C. That the fee for each licensee shall be one -half the fee as set by the Council in Section 510 :00. Subd. 4. Application Filing Applications for licenses shall be filed with th'. Dock Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended of authorized until the Duck,Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. Subd. 5. Dock Location No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map. Subd. 6. Denial of Application If the applicant has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and the applicant's priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. Subd. 7. License Priorities The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock locations: a. First Priority An abutting owner has first priority for any location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. b. Second Priority A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application fc, the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately pre- ceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a priority licensc is in effect. C. Third Priority A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenser will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. residents owning private lakesTiore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public, lands. d. Administration of Priority Th; Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. r Subd. 8. Application Deadlines Applications for dock licenses shall be made between January 1 and "larch 1 of each year. V TI ` ` , ( A `K / � ' ,N1 1 kW L)NC M`NNESSOTA -- �•.d .6+2. 472 1155 April 24, 1990 Mr. Cary Bruehan 5420 Breezy Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Bruehan: Per our telephone conversation of April 23, 1990, and earlier discussion regarding commons docks. I am enclosing a copy of a letter dated April 18, 1990, from Mr. Curt Pearson, City Attorney for the City of Mound. As I told you on the phone, Mr. Pearson reviewed your situation based upon my communication with him. As he states in his letter, the Parks and Open Space Commission has the responsibility to prepare the dock location map. The dock location map is usually approved late in the year for the upcoming season. The deadline for applications for commons docks is March 13t of each year. There is a late application fee for applications received after March 1. Mr. Pearson indicates in his letter that it appears for 1990 you would not have a priority for this season since you did not make application. Mr. Pearson also indicates that if there is any question about you having a dock for 1990, you would have to go to the Parks and Open Space Commission to get them to revise the dock location map so that additional space could be provided for on the commons. The City Council would then have to agree to the change if there was one to be made. I think the letter is quite clear as to the City's Position. If you would like to pursue this matter further, please contact me and I will have you placed on the May 10, 1990 Park and Open Space Commission Agenda. Sincerely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director Del Rudolph, Dock Inspector enc. ES :ls /5-27 LAW OFFICES WORST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD 6 MERTZ A IAATN[\GNIP INCIU01M6 P*01dLO HH ft AL ASSOC- A THOMAS WURST, P A CURTIS A. PEARSON. P JAMES D. LAMSON, P THOMAS F. UNC[RwOOo. P A. CRAIG M MERT2 ROGER J. FELLOWS 1100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 April 18, 1990 TELEPHONE . LSia 330-ASOO FAX NUM8E1111 Isla ]]0 -2025 RECD APR 19 190 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Dear Ed: Bruehan - 5420 Breezy Road - Docks This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 11, 1990, concerning Mr. Gary Breuhan. It is my understanding that he owns property that abuts on a channel and his property also abuts on the Waterside Commons. It is my further understanding that in the past he has put his dock on private lakeshore abutting the channel and has never applied for a Commons dock. The question which is raised is whether he has a right to put a dock on the Waterside Commons under the provisions of Section 437.05, is Subd. 7a, which reads as follows: "First Priority. Abutting owner has first priority for any location within his or her lot lines extended to the shore line. Docks to be located in accordance with the dock location map." Your attention is also called to Subsection c of Subd. 7 which reads as follows: "Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations available after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the fist and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lake shore within the City which has dockable lake front shall be the last priority each year for a dock on public lands." Reviewing the ordinance, the Park and Open Space Commission has the responsibility to prepare the dock location map. Based on that dock location map, applications are accepted for Commons dockage between January 1 and March 1 of each year. There is a late application fee . 1521 WURST, PEARSON. LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ • provision for applications received aft_r March 1. It appears to me that for the year 1990, the gentleman has not made an application for a dock on Waterside Commons, and he therefore has no priority for this season. It is also my understanding from talking to you on the phone that all of the existing dock locations have been assigned, and if there is to be any question about it for the year 1990, he would have to go back to the Park and Open Space Commission and get them to revise their dock location map to make provision for additional space on the Waterside Commons. It also appears that he is the owner of private lake shore and as such he would fit into the very last priority. It is my understanding that the only reason he wants to go to the Commons at this time is because of the low level of the lake and the fact he did not participate in a dredging operation with his neighbors. I am assuming that there are many people with Commons docks as well as owners of private lake shore who are having trouble getting their boats to the water because of the low water levels. It would not appear to me that this would be sufficient cause for Mr. Breuhan to remove some other person from the Commons. If the Park and Open Space Commission wishes to amend the dock location map and to find another location for the gentleman, that would be up to that Commission and the City Council. The ordinance appears to have taken into account this type of situation, and it would appear that based on what you have told me, he does not have a first priority. Ver truly yours, CAP:lh • Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney LOD 1.11 April 11, 1940 Mr. Curt Pearson 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 RE: Interpretation of Dock Ordinance - 5420 Breezy Road Dear Curt: I received a visit from Mr. Gary Breuhan, owner of property of 5420 Breezy Road, in Mound. Mr. Breuhan owns a house that &butts the Commons property and also private, lakeshore. The property has been there for a number of years. Mr. Breuhan has had a dock located on the inlet, which is denoted on one of the enclosures. The dock has been used by Mr. Breuhan for the past several years. He has now come to the City to ask why he has not been allowed to secure a Commons dock as an abutting owner since his property does abutt a portion of Commons property. He has come to the City because he is not able to use his dock due to low water and the fact that the private inlet (Peabody Avenue) was dredged one to two years ago and he did not participate in that dredge. The owners who did participate have let his know that he cannot park his boat alongside of his dock, that would block the inlet for the other users of that inlet. I have personally viewed the situation with Jim Fackler, Parks Director and Del Rudolph, Dock Inspector. Had Mr. Breuhan participated in the dredge, he would have plenty of area to keep his dock and boat. Now he is coming to the City to request the City allow him to place a dock on the Commons since his property abutts Commons. The real issue is whether or not Mr. Bruehan's property is considered to be abutting? In the past, the determination has been made that his dock was kept on the private inlet, therefore he had private lakeshore and there wasn't any reason for him to have a dock on the Commons. He is looking at expanding his property and wants to know what his options are with regard to dock rights. It's the interpretation of the Parks Director and the Dock Inspector that he does not have rights to the Commons i because of the private lakeshore. I can understand my staff's interpretation, however, I can also understand the abutting 631 0 Mr. Curt Pearson April 11, 1990 property issue. This is a very unique case and we probably would not be discussing this had the water level remained at its normal depth. Nevertheless, he has posed a question. He indicated to me that he has hired Mr. Roger Reed to serve as his attorney. I told him that I would consult with you on this and get back to his with a response. If the response was to continue as is, and treat it as private lakeshore, he could make his appeal to the Park and Open Space Commission and, subsequently, the City Council. I suggested that you would provide a response and I would get back to his within a reasonable time. Del has indicated that if pressed, there is enough area where he could place a dock on the Commons. However, if the water level rises to normal depth, and he desires to go back to using the private lakeshore, is the Commons dock to be removed? Is he or any future property owner then allowed to essentially have two docks, depending upon the water depth? Please review the dock ordinance and this question and get back • to me at your earliest convenience. Enclosures are meant to give you a better understanding of the area in question. If you have any questions please contact me. Sinc ely, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager enc. cc: Jim Fackler Del Rudolph ES:ls 0 2 I.V2 IN at s _�. o„t Of lot 19 w 1 L r �., � CrO.M.N! us _ t i / R. S.1222 w 77 ��rirt '� CO I r lk L . r • �,�1 �3 ' 10 , , 1' I • IF J7 3 INS �• � •` s. VMS UR • AmmtY "IDO E-1 1 IN T119JO NT AYCf Ir. k' f TM r�wN71oN f itio i r SOM ' GWJFAML Y ` hf`5'/ \ ll♦ AXIS W C%MOM MO \I L 10 h \Q C "Dial ♦\aoN►p / C& Fl • /s 1 � / a 00. •i 11: 9 S �.� L L- • • s " MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOtJMO ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 10, 1990 Mr. Ed Freldlund of 4909 Island View Drive, Site #73770 was present to request renewal of his dock permit for the 1990 season. Jim Fackler informed the Commission that his late fee would be $40.00. Mr. Freldlund stated that he did not submit his application for his dock on time because of the low water. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Casey to approve the late dock permit application for Ed Freldlund upon the condition that he pay the late fee of $40.00. Motion carried unanimously. This matter will be forwarded to the City Council on May 22, 1990 for their final approval. C7 E 1,53s- • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 10, 1990 Casey explained that the intent of this resolution is to be a plebiscite showing that the people really believe environmental rights are as important as any other right that the constitution guarantees, for examples freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The envlronment Is so Important, we need a constitu- tional guarantee. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Jessen to recommend adoption of this resolution by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This resolution will be reviewed by the City Council on May 22, 1990. • • 1534 L PROPOSED RESOLUTION ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AMENDMENT WHEREAS,the City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission believes that the right to breathe clean air, drink pure water and live in a healthy environment is as inalienable as the right to free speech and freedom of worst- But fundamental rights mean nothing without fundamental laws to protect them. That is why we are proposing an amendment to the United States Constitu- tion that will ensure a quality environment for current and fu- ture generations of Americans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAr: 1. Each person has the right to clean air, pure water, produc- tive soils and to the conservation of the n6tura1, scenic, historic, recreational, aesthetic and economic values of America's natural resources. There shall be no entitlement loo� public or private, competent to impair these rights. It is the responsibility of the United States and of the several • States as public trustees to !�afeguard them for the present and for the benefit of posterity. 2. We recommend that the Mound City Council adopts this resolu- tion and forwards a signed copy to the National Wildlife Federation. • 153 SIGN UPI Become a part of the nationwide campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution. RESOLUTION Environmental Qualit� Amendment �1RAS: City of Mound Park and Open Space mmissio n W In xNew K tfidtKbelieves that the right to breathe clean air, drink pure water Z live in o healthy environment is as inalienable as the right to free speech and freedom of worship. But fundamental rights mean nothing without fundamental laws to protect them. That is why *000-111 Oil proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that will ensure a quality envirlonment for current and future generations of Americans. Iftpmpl4XdltlNmdi aff ii�11 r 19ilfe Vtlte*ef Q - NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. "Each person has the right to clee. 1 pure water, productive soils and to the conservation of the natural, scenic, historic, recreational, aesthetic and economic values of America's natural resouruces.\There shall be no entitlement, public or private, competent to impair these rights. It is the responsibility of the United States and of the several States as public trustees to safeguard them for the present and for the benefit of posterity. "• 2. We recommend that the Mound City Council adopts this resolution and forwards a signed copy to the National Wildlife Federation. Passage of a constitutional amendment requires ratification by three - quarters of the state legislatures, and two- thirds of Congress-- enormous task that can only be accomplished with help volunteers who care. The Federation is asking for your help, so that protection of the land will be the law of the land To become involved, just print your name and address below. * am ammaillow Lnpgs abject to Cunha oowtituumal ad legal analyria Saw Signature City Street Nmne (PRUNM Street Signature Telephone City Telephone State ZIP State ZIP Signature City Telephone i State ZIP Pie= return forms to: Turn over for more NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 140016th Street, N-W, Washington, DC 2WV1 22F6 sign up blanks 5W 153 T MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK t OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MAY 10, 1990 DNR /laai_icationss 090 -6264 and !90-6282. The Park Commission had no comments on these applications. • 1,531 . / AL ( "JIT)' of NIOCNI) WVMnR A Nnl TM TO: City Council 5 -22 -90 Planning Commission 5 -21 -90 Park Commission 5 -10 -90 FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director RE: DWR Application 4190 -6264 VA ROAD N. M NNESU'A =.�3fa The affected area shown on DNR Application #90 -6264 is private property, and again is an "after th fact" application. The Project Sponsor, Roger Dahlin, is requesting to place an 80 by 30 foot, 6 inch deep sand blanket at Harrisons Bay, 5361 Baywood Shores Drive. City of Mound pronerty will not bE affected by this work unless the contractor plans to use city property, such as a road end, or a park to gain access to the site. Contractors should notify the City prior to crossing city property. Any damage to city property will be evaluated; the applicant will be required to restore any c'. -image. JF:pj C 15 Yo PHONE NO. t I STATE Of DEPARTMENT OF N. TURAL RESOURCES METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, ?lN 55106 FI NO 296 -7523 DNR PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER C tO- to 2� REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS 15`11 DATE: L 4 P'o' t O TO: Qk S CJ2)C - 7 `7 �A , C. (). FROM: CEIL STRAUSS, AREA HYDROLOGIST WATERS AFFECTED: ` l..- �l�- �^ "� """' �` , ( 1 -1- 1 - 3:3) IL Is PROJECT SPONSOR: NATURE OF WORK: • C7 to ��) '3 - dcLl COM!' DUE BY: 3 J000 AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER • 'ay. 10/89 -� PERMIT APPUCATIW - ONCE USE ONL JbIrpEPARTMENT OF TO MIM IN PROTEM WATUS OA r I A W MINS0 1*1*- IMIaRMINi Ilan WMI NATURAL RESOURCES P �r, . 1 ".+� 0StWM OCti Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application I A a s Name (Last. rst. M.I.► Authorized Agen. (it aPP t Telephone Numberaaae eaco i1Lt A R orrf t E (6 ss 1 trtset. x Number, City. State. tip Code) -1 q• w c. n SNeC:: OR rt\e aD m .:l II. LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BE SURE TO, INCLUDE SKE'- SHOWING HOW TO GET TO THE S:TE) Government Lots) Quarter Sectlon(s) Sectlon(s) No Township(si No 1 Ran - ge(s)Nc. Lot. Block. Subdivision I IL (. WwLCiuu NN"f Fre No.. Box No or Project Address County mac, woiaftect 0 LaKe ❑wenanccr ❑wate•cou �C- N a na^feaminter Krtpwn L 111. TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT (C ONE) Z3 excavate ❑ repair ❑ shoreline E: shore•orotectton ❑ obstruction ❑ dam e fill - remove ❑ channel ❑ harbor ❑ bridge ❑ other ❑ drain o abandon - sand blanket a oermanent dock ❑ culvert (specify) ❑ construct O other (specify) ❑ instal( ❑ rlprap wharf V. EMNATED FRONT CUT S VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET) � c VII. VOLUME )F MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS) 3 0 VIII. BRIEF EXPLANATION OF PROJECT: (EXPLAIN WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK WILL BE DO-NE) <_ ..� T A .+ p 1L v id- r, 1 A r SLO'w D �` F �` ` •� �� \ • 1 1,iK .. s s t ., T l e. 4 L o� b ra, �Sre, RFt: i Le o A.� S ww�P 3 r.LNf S 7 - L V. ►L►4E S I OF PROJECT: (Explain !!�y this project is needed) S +v 7 wr♦� laE tt tt ... r.l•`O r- r.rti iM M0 W�� rL It `T- c t f e p t T` o u, to t3 o i.) A s . ..:. r « ` vii c :1 fr R ► r S Z 1► 1 C M 6A t t J i r � T P O v � ,�� 4.0.•. "�- C «J L w .t .\y • A I L wide S rrtrT •_ •� n �� o c T � t :— sun r_r� r.i� �'1It,u��1� X. BNMOMMEIRAL MIPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources. Including unavoidable but detrimental eftects) XI. ALTRUT111Et (Other alternatives to the action proposed) IN. I hereby make amumn Pw uam to Mmnmis Statutes Chapter 105 !2 ant] all supporting ruts tpr a perm to work to or affect the above named protected wateris) in accordance wym all supporting maps, plans. and other information submitted with this appkabon The information submitted and sUternMes made COIICNMng me vo cum are fue and coat( to the best of my knowledge STATE OF COUNTY OF Subwri ed and Sworn to oebe me Vies OL day of 19 2- 0 COffe"lum Signature of Owner or Authorueo Agent Date Signature of Leasee Date of FL -waoa I t, .atn stL�te,I, E I6 Distribution White: DNR Blue: SWCD Green Watershed District Goldenrod City or County Pink: Army Corps of Engineers Canary Applicant / S llz fAbr CIPAITMINT OF 7L ' �/ / / 1.{ {o rrfJ / NA•VAM �,, W. Nt1SOVA NAT Ua At at fOYaCK LOCAL UNIT OF GOVERNMENT iCOMMENT8 PART Section I (To be competed by oppucanr) N ome o Applicant Address (Street, RFD. Box No. City, fate, Sip Code) zEft_ ANA. �. ��1 (�l�.. �.. ,�N,4;S �Gu (quarter Section(s) Saction(s) Township(s) Range(s1 PROJECT LOCATION l FN a Pr oject affect: (name number of lake, wetland, or watercourse) I hereby submit this application for permit to Signature of Applicant Date (mark proper box) appropriate water ® work in protected waters X lion 11 (To be cornp►efed by local unit o/ government) + The following local unit of government comments and /or recommendations are submitted for consideration by the Department of Natural Resources In the disposition of the referenced permit application. (YOUR RESPONSE MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAY S.) Water Appropriation Permit Applications and roteated Waters Permit Applications are to be sent to the DNR Regional Office SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT WAILING ADDRESSES). • Was the proposed project field Inspected by this local unit of gov ernment? CDNO [DYES (if Yes, give viewer name) Viewer's Name Title Authorized Signature Title Date Telephone No (Area Code) Name of responding Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed District, City or County the above named local unit of government) 15 (DNR — Division OF waters sooreaeea on oacm U 22 srai ra. 9.0 i?cs _. C ITY OF MINN ETRISTA Sf44 A(61• f MC CITY Of MOUND � �- - -Z�•- � __ _� ---- -- � \ ARM ) (WEST v I � I y i APT OWN I \ , I.AK ( Z,') 1 8 i F I 1 ; Port of Lot 25 (S�_Part of Lot 24 f �2 roo I Q j SEA00 �`Jt � --1 AF it 1 I I 1 � \\ a �- K.�� 1 yt}� � �,y.• �sV s: � ,o�zs •f r�l r�F1� °a•` � - - - - -� - V o, mac• , �� • Its1 ! ( 1 u r y ^ 9 7 `` Y 6 �� 1 • , If v�,t I • \_ 'S S • i lti : 1f, 1/ ° 11t,• 5�\ �S p r •,. �/ Par/ 4 ti LM23� Ib11� ( 9 s- mow( p •�— i 2` t �r/�O/ w •_ �� !_ .l /�l F, �� 'ry L L. l t 2 J Il S 7�� w i)3 I �. \ pUT 4 s �L� rIe tIl( 13 ��: s �. • [o/ Se c� O.' r L S OW 1J �� •1 � �/� � �1:'�. , - 4= 1 1� •• ° -/ S 3 � ,� !{t��i!.a1.2�_.�1HiS:.. p0 ' 4 Q! I\\lI W • i : T . • f � 1 �� + off' o a is laZIA ., toc ! 1'► a '�T) , r t ? o° �`` ( 6 k f_ �eT s ` (��Y , ? •f� �. • , �24 , I �� f l - / 1 • Z .f1 '�� ° � \1 r y► ^ o ljo \��V� " `bm (� � `J ao J (C 1 o L _.��• � • %�, rel' Ir . ��i r q ` �, ;' • ' � ,Q` � � +y� t i • i !'ti! .�. - .N 1{k �,� � ` 3 �j � 3 1 6 ILl i L • S r a �` �'` " w D r �:b • �• � 3 O4 •� ,• j ' -' - k p �� R y w •' f "r tL '1 `2: �1�►'��L) `• - , - IpTE DetNl of S S S \ rn�,� - M N[Plllf O F MARRISON �M .� .� _ 10 — 3w . - .«I! I `�' �� / \mo k °• .� 6 S r4a1�, w q 11 CITY of N 1()L':�'1) MEMORANDUM TO: City Council 5 -22 -90 Planning Commission 5 -21 -9u Park Commission 5 -10 -90 FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director RE: DNR Application 4190 -6282 The affected area shown on DNR Application 4190 -6282 is private property, and again is an "after the fact" application. The Project Sponsor, Michael Callinan, is requesting to place an 80 by 50 foot, 6 inch deep sand blanket at Narrisons Bay, 5371 Baywood ShorE� Drive. City of Mound property will not be affected by this work unless the contractor plans to use city property, such as a road end, or a park to gain access to the site. Contractors should notify the City prior to crossing city property. Any damage to city property will be evaluated; the applicant will be required to restore any damage. JF:pj 0 • 1545 „ �ao�E uo. NN SIATE Of DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ILt.TRO REGION UA'-RS - 200 VARA'ER ROAD, ST. PAL:., ?W 35106 RF so 29F -7523 DNR PROTECT S:A'M rr�. APPLICATION WMMER _q6 ` REQULS'T FOR RLTID AD CO KEhT5 DATE: 1, 1(790 / LeMV FRO!:: CELL SiRADSS , AF EY'DROLO.;:ST FBOJr:.'T SPO ALJ C CL /C•� f� KL7 OF ROM (" .Ma'n1 7 d LO 10117 G, 3G z y z' • ol / ♦� i J000 An OYFR 15 YL NATURAL RtSOU110Ef � LOCAL UNIT OF 4OVE11 NT OOM NTS ' 1 (To Os Completed by applicant) of icant Address Street. Pro. Box No.. City. state. zip coday S G SI h: c A< ALL NOp4 $ 3 7/ �vooJ . •/C..I► �✓1. l . 1 LOCATION N a) florae) Sec ► towns IhIP(S) Za Pr will affect : (name of ta ke, flan d. or watercourse ) w K .c / 1 hereby submit this application for permit to: Si n (mark proper box) gat a of Ap ant Date / , 0appropriets water work in protected waters X 7+� O .2 — J O Section II (To be completed by local unit o/ government) ` The following local unit of government Comments and /or recommendations are submitted for consideration by the Department of Natural Resources In the disposition of the referenced permit application. (YOUR RESPONSE M T BE SUBMITTED TO THE DNR WITHIN 30 DAY S.) Water Appropriation Permit Applications and Protected Waters Pwmit Applications are to be sent to the DNR Regional Office. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES V ti r S F Was the proposed project field inspected by this local unit of government? g []NO OYES (it Yes, give viewer's name) Viewers Name Title V Authorized Signature Tale Date Telephone No.(Area Co" Name of responding Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed District, City or County Address (of the above named local unit of government) 1 5 1 0 (DNR — Division of Waters addresses on bank) .'U" -- V4 0� - I UIT ADM I/AATIAY rlttlrt "Er ram Y A. DE PARTMENT OF TO WORK IN 11 WATER 011 WETLANDS _ r M INIATURAL lmmu IRi so SAFETT) RESOURCES Q$1NCD 0CX ► ► Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application. [:] W D OUSCOE icant's Name (Last, First. M.I.) Authorized Agent It applicable Telephone Number +areac lAddr (treet, RFD. Bo x Number, City. S tate. Z ip Code) LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BE SURE TO INCLUDE SKETCH SHOWING HOW TO GET TO THE SITE) Government Lot(s) Quarter Section(s) Section(s) No Township(s) No Range(s) No. Lot. Block. Subdivision { Fire No.. Box No. or Project Addr ss County Pro,ectwrllallect ❑Wettandor❑Watercourse - I V r. J r i J �/ // .: /, ;'i / / � ' I� 1 known) r n J i{ U N TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT (CHECK ONE) O excavate ❑ repair C shoreline ❑ shore - protection O obstruction O dam O fill ❑ remove O channel ❑ harbor O bridge ❑ other drain . O abandon sand blanket ❑ permanent dock C culvert (specify) construct O other (specify) 1 PV install C nprap C wharf ESTIMATED PROJECT COST S `�S °.+ VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET) P--' VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS) (, ) C: L,, Yz= S BRIEF EXPLANATION OF PROJECT: (EXPLAIN WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK WILL E GONE) NA i Z 4 r—' r ` 4 R Lip / f+� / A N I O y it -� .I I"9 N l� D V / r � 7 � H -r : C -f /t /`- l r /9 ✓ �; :, � - C'.�I i L r � �1 W /7 -f J /- rC /A V / ,v ( � c� %-^-7 N � e1 f' N �J r � * �* fi t/ � l .v7 L-N-j A L"A PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explain !Lhy this project is needed) EIMNONMENTAL IMPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources including unavoidable but detrimental effects) Al CA) e ALTERATIVES (Other alternatives to the action proposed) 4 tf VII. Will, F L IX X. I1. Ill. ��, ^o ^� wv•�euun pulauoa ru ranm 3wai75 l,napfer ivy a[ ano all SupDoling rules for a permit 10 work m or artect the above named protected wattr(S) m accordance with all supporting maps plans and other mformal.or submitted with 1h ,5 applicat The information submitted and Statements made concerning this apphCation are true and correct to the best or my knowledge STATE OF S '1argre Of Ow�e� r Autho�lel Ag t " , � f1w MTV OF I S of Leasee Subscribed and sworn to before me this r 1 day of _ 19 ! " Commrssion expires 5.gnature of Notary Distribution White DNA 1 0 my LOFIRA P B RU Blue: SWCD NOTARY PUBLI" NN.4 Green Watershed District CARVER COUNTY denrod City or County Oomaslorl Exores Aug J. 1995 Pink: Army Corps of Engineers Canary Applicant /5 Y9 ISEs � 7.(vw) a o OS X I 1 2 !2JV f 1� E cr,, rY o f >- r4 s )1 0 ys � fjo V C, ,�� S yv � 0 4/22/90 State Of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Mn. 55106 Dear Mr. Stine, J Re: Unauthorized fill V90 -6204, Lake Minnetonka (27 -133) Harrisons Bay /15, city of Mound, Hennepin County. We would like to offer our explanation of why a sand blanket was placed on our shoreline, why we feel we need it, and how we were mislead into believing that a permit was not required. For the past two summers, now going on the third, we've experienced extreme low water levels on Lake Minnetonka. We have found ourselves faced with a horrible situation as _ore "muck" eras exposed. Unsightly yard weeds flourished, smells that at times make you feel ill, and severe hazards to playing children such as; broken glass, nails, and cans hidden in the "muck." We have lived here for seventeen years and have nev,r had an experience like this until now. Property values have 18 also diminished due to this. We are very fortunate we are not in a position of having to sell our house right now. We had talked amoung ourselves about putting in sand as a temporary solution realizing we might be wasting our money if and when the water level came back. We knew there was a possibility the sand would solidify with the "muck" and disap- pear. We were also under the impression we would need to apply for a permit. Before we had a chance to apply for a permit Christine of the Land Men Company called me on February 8, 1990 and asked if we would be interested in some sand for our shore- line. She said they were completing sand blankets for five of our neighbors and they could do ours when they were finished with theirs. I specifically asked her about permit requirements and maximum a Towable area of application. She said NO PERMITS WERE REQUIRED for up to five loads of sand, 60 yards. As for the area and depth she told us to mark off the areas where the sand was to be spread or talk to their driver Duane Valek when I saw him. I talked to Duane that evening while he was applying sand next door and he reaffirmed what Christine had told me, 3o Permits Required. He told me this even though he knew as I learned later, there was a problem because your office had al- ready been out the previous Monday and talked with him. This is a blatant example of a "scam" perpetrated by an unethical con- tractor on unsuspecting homeowners who have always supported programs for the betterment of the Lake. Yes, we were foolish to believe him but seeing the sand he had already placed along our Harrison Bay North Shore we naturally took hi. word for it. 1 Ss0 The rules for dock lengths had changed why not the sand blanket rules? It all just seemed to fit together. Needless to say we are very angry with the Land Men Company for their deception. We strongly suggest your office or the State Attorney General's office look into the practices of- company for possible charges or at least revocation of licenses for awhile. My wife and I would be more than happy to testify realtive to being duped. Attached is a signed statement from Mr. Valek of the Land Men Company indicating his responsibilities to us after the fact. This is a clear admission- of deception on*their.part. We would hate to see this permit denied but if it is.the sand will have to be removed during the winter when the ice is frozen. Due to trees and our neighbors underground sprinkling system it would be impossible to bring in heavy equipment from the street side to the shoreline during the summer or fall. In conclusion we are sorry for the inconvenience of not applying for a permit before the fact but now respectfully request the approval of our permit as stated on the attached application. Sincerel , • chael and amela Callinan • 1551 0 Al A' r -e C -� v *D yo �•� y J 1 o N ya LA. d e,rra -��, P V4 / 0000,0 d . s N 3 L47r o `'' � < < C{ �-�-� w � {� � .� g w -� y �!M � r fe - McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth. Minnesota 55447 May 17, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: West Edge Boulevard MFRA #7827 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Telephone Engineers 612/476 -6010 Planners 612/476 -8532 FAX Surveyors As it does not appear that the City of Minnetrista would be willing to participate in a joint street improvement project for West Edge Boulevard, we have re- evaluated the project cost and possible assessments to the Mound properties. The project could be scaled down to include improvements only to the first 700 feet south of County Road 15, with concrete curb and gutter on the east side and a ditch on the west side. This would still require substantial grading to remove the hill to the south and the use of this material to improve the steep grade at County Road 15. The estimated cost for this alternate is approximately $87,000. We have also increased our estimated cost to $138,000.00 for a tot al projeL-t from County Road 15 to Wood Edge Road. This was necessary after a better evaluation of the existing site conditions. Enclosed are two possible assessment spreads using the two different cost estimates and assessing the total cost :,f the project to the Mound properties. If some other financing could be worked out, such as Minnetrista paying half of the project cost, then the proposed assessments to the Mound properties would be one -half those shown. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. k- ee - 1V.L CO -- John Cameron JC:jmj Enclosures /S,5 3 • • • Arr f 'j" 11 q,t x,rtundr f r"p). ,,, POSSIBLE ASSESSMENT TO MOUND PROPERTIES 4 • FOR ENTIRE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS COUNTY ROAD 15 TO WOOD EDGE ROAD OWNER P.I.D. FRONT FOOTAGE UNITS FRONT FOOT CHARGE UNIT CHARGE TOTAL Sage 14- 117-24 33 0007 210 L.F 112 $ 10,710.00 $ 2,875.00 $ 13,585.00 Sells 14- 117 -24 33 0016 94 L.F. 1 4,794.00 5,750.00 10,544.00 'llen 14- 117 -24 33 0017 95 L.F. 1 4,845.00 5,750.00 10,595.00 Roeglin 14- 117 -24 33 0018 96 L.F. 1 4,896.00 5,750.00 10,646.00 Roberts 14- 117 -24 33 0019 125 L.F. 1 6,375.00 5,750.00 12,125.00 Alwin 14- 1'7 -24 33 0001 672 L.F. 6 -1/2 34,272.00 37,375.00 71,647.00 Homola 23- 117 -24 22 0005 60 L.F. 1 3,060.00 5,750.00 8,81o.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 138,000.00 UNIT CHARGE = $69,000.00 : 12 = $ 5,750.00 /Unit FRONT FOOT CHARGE = $69,000.00 t 1352 = $ 51.00 /L.F. POSSIBLE ASSESSMENT TO MOUND PROPERTIES FOR ENTIRE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS ALTERNATE A COUNTY ROAD 15 TO 700 FEET SOUTH FRONT FRONT FOOT UNIT OWNER P.I.D. FOOTAGE UNITS CHARGE CHARGE TOTAL Sage 14- 117 -24 33 0007 210 L.F 112 $ 12,600.00 $ 3,955.00 $ 1 6,555.00 Sells 14- 117 -24 33 0016 94 L.F. 1 5,640.00 7,910.00 13,550.00 Allen 14- 117 -24 33 0017 95 L.F. 1 5,700.00 7,910.00 13,610.00 Roeglin 14- 117 -24 33 0018 96 L.F. 1 5,760.00 7,910.00 13,670.00 Roberts 14- 117 -24 33 0019 125 L.F. 1 7,500.00 7,910.00 15,410.00 Alwin 14- 117 -24 33 0001 100 L.F. 1 6,000.00 7,910.00 13,910.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 87,000.00 UNIT CHARGE = $43,500.00 : 5-1/2 = $ 7,910.00 /Unit FRONT FOOT CHARGE = $43,500.00 i 720 = $ 60.00 /L.F. 0 • 05/17/90 MFRA #7827 r, /SS y i �s t �S d 4.. 4 + a INS At f. ♦ A � ! s I- 4.I= II/'♦i LkCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers 612/476 -6010 Planners 612/476 -8532 FAX Surveyors Vay 3, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: PER West Edge Boulevard CSAH 15 to Woodedge Place MFRA #7827 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested. we have reviewed the cost estimate contained in the Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in 1986 for the above mentioned project. Enclosed is a copy of said report. We have added an inflation factor of 25% to reflect 1990 prices, which results in a total estimated cost of approximately $112,000.00 for the street improvements as described in the original report. If the proposed assessments were computed in the same manner as in the original report with half of the total cost assessed to the Mound side of the street. the unit charge would be approximately $2,450.00 per unit, with a frontage charge of approximately $21.00 per front foot. Enclosed is a breakdown of the proposed assessments for the properties in Mound, using the revised cost estimates. Another item which needs to be addressed if this street is upgraded is the need to extend the existing 10" watermain. Enclosed is a copy of our report from 1986 with estimated costs. As with the street costs. the figures quoted for the watermain will also need to be increased by 25%, resulting in a revised estimated cost of $37,000.00 for Part A. A portion of this cost should be assessed and the remainder picked up by the City of Mound because of the oversizing of the main from 6" to 10 ". The Alwin and Homola properties are the only Mound properties that would benefit from the main extension. If they were to be assessed by the lineal foot, the charge would be approximately $22.00 per front feet. We feel this watermain extension is a necessity if the street is improved. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmi Enclosures fSSS An Equal Opportunity Employer /15 PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS TO MOUND PROPERTIES FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS UNIT FRONT FOOT OWNER P.I.D. CHARGE CHARGE TOTAL Alwin 14- 117 -24 33 0001 E 15.925.00 $ 14,116.00 E 30,041.00 Sage 14- 117 -24 33 0007 1,225.00 4,200.00 5,425.00 Sells 14- 117 -24 33 oo16 2,450.00 1,974.00 4,424.00 Allen 14- 117 -24 33 0017 2,450.00 1,995.00 4,445.00 Roeglin 14- 117 -24 33 0018 2,450.00 2,016.00 4,466.00 Roberts 14- 117 -24 33 0019 2,450.00 1,995.00 4,445.00 Homola 23- 117 -24 22 0005 2,450.00 1,260.00 3,710.00 Revised 05/03/90 MFRA #7827 /15 McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. 'S CONSULTING EN;INEERS II LAND SURVEYORS 8 PLANNERS June 5, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SLBJECT: Proposed 10" Watermain Extension West Edge Boulevard WA File 17953 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Reov To 12M00 IndwarmO hrk dour vad MYnquM, MinnMOU SWI I612) SW3700 As directed by the Council at their last meeting, we have prepared a M detailed cost estimate and proposed assessment roll for connecting the 10" watermains in West Edge Boulevard. Enclosed are these estimates and the proposed assessment. The 10" watermain extension (Part A) necessary to serve the proposed 22 lot subdivision adjacent to West Edge Boulevard between County Road 15 and Wood Edge Road is estimated to cost $29,600.00. We are su-Wsting that this 680 foot extension be paid for by the Developer in Minnetrista, except for the cost of oversizing the main from 6" to 10 ". The oversizing cost of approximately $4 9 760.00 (680 L.F. It $7.00 /LF) would be paid by the City of Mound. This portion of the 10" watermain extension should be constructed in conjunction with the proposed street improvements of West Edge Boulevard between County Road 15 and Wood Edge Road. The remaining 10" watermain extension (Part 8) necessary to loop the system back to the highlands water tower is estimated to cost $79,000. The oversizing cost for this project is estimated at $10,850.00 which we are suggestiog be the City of Mound's responsibility. The remaining estimated project cost of $68,150.00 is proposed to be assessed to the benefitting properties. Due to the fact that this watermain project is located within the City limits of Minnetrista, the City of Mound can not access these costs directly. C7 /SS? Jura 5 1985 Pape Two If the parcels responsible for paying for the project do not wish to have these costs assessed to their property by Minnetrista, then Mound would need to defer the assessments and charge the individual parcels at such time water service is requested. this charge should not only include the original assessee<'it but also interest charges. The problem with this method of financing the project is that Mound would need to provide the project money up front and then be reimbursed as the assessments are paid or the connection charges are collected. I will be present at the Council meeting, Tuesday evening, to answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, MCCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, DC. John Cameron JC:cah • i • • PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 10" WATERMAIN EXTENSION PART A - WEST EDGE BOULEVARD WOOD EDGE ROAD NORTH TO EXISTING 10" MAIN ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 10" D.I.P. Watermain 680 L.F. 6" D.I.P. Watermain 50 L.F. Fittings 1,000 LBS 10" Gate Valves 1 EACH 6" Gate Valves 4 EACH Hydrants 2 EACH 1" Water Service 1 Groups 3 EACH 1" Copper Water 240.00 Service 100 L.F. Granular Material 50 TON • Contingencies 2,160.00 9 = 20.00 /L.F. $ 13,600.00 a 16.00/L.F. 800.00 a 1.50 /LBS 1 a 700.00 /EACH 700.00 a 400.00/EACH 1 a 1000.00 /EACH 2,000.00 a 80.00 /EACH 240.00 a 7.00 /L.F. 700.00 a' 8.00 /TON 400.00 2,160.00 *Total Estimated Construction Cost b 23,700.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs $ 5,900.00 Total Estimated Cost $ 29,600.00 *NOTE: Estimate based on construction in conjunction with Street Improvement Project. • EXHIBIT A FILE 07953 /ss9 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 10" WATERMAIN EXTENSION (PART B) - WEST EDGE BOULEVARD HALSTEAD LAPS TO (MOOD EDGE ROAD ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 10" D.I.P. Watermain 1,500 L.F. a s 20.00 /L.F. 30,000.00 8" D.I.P. Watermain 30 L.F. 0 18.00/L.F. 540.00 6" D.I.P. Watermain 50 L.F. B 16.00 /L.F. 800.00 Jacking 10" W.M. 50 L.F. 0 150.00/L.F. 7 9 500.00 Fittings 2,000 LBS 0 1.75 /LBS 3 9 500.00 10" Gate Valves 2 EACH 6 700.00 /EACH 1 9 400.00 8" Gate Valves 1 EACH 0 550.OD/EACH 550.00 6" Gate Valves 2 EACH l 400.00 /EACH 800.00 Hydrants 2 EACH 6 1000.00/EACH 2,000.00 Granular Material 150 TON 6 8.00/TON 1,200.00 Street Restoration 6" -Class 2 1,000 TON 6 7.50 /TON 7,500.00 Roadside Seeding 3/4 ACRE 0 2000.00 /ACRE 1 9 500.00 Contingencies 5,710.00 Total Estimated Construction Cost $ 63 9 000.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs $ 16,000.00 Total Estimated Cost b 79,000.00 EXHIBIT S FILE /7953 • 1540 • Total Estimated Project Cost (Parts A & B) Less Mound's Share for Oversizing Main (2,230 LF 6 $7.00 /LF) Less Developers Share (Proposed 22 Lot Slbdivision) Total to be Assessed $68,150.00 = 22 acres Parcel A (22- 117 -24 11 0002) Parcel B (22- 117 -24 1? 0003) Parcel C (22- 117 -24 11 0004) *Parcel D (23- 117 -24 22 000:) $ 108,600.00 15,610-00 24 840.00 68 $ 3,097.72/Acre 115E $ 3,100.00 /Acre 16 Acres 6 $3,100.00 /AC = $49,600 1 Acre 6 $3,100.00 /AC = 3,100 2 Acres it $3,100.00 /AC = 6,200 3 Acres 6 $3,100.00 /AC = 9,300 22 Acres $68,200 TOTALS • *This property is presently owned by the City of Mound • EXHIBIT C FILE #7953 /56/ rt. may ... t ��lur • �• t F M111 t•Y ►t � �� RFr , NO. 15 L/0 CIO 940 I • ,( - in +�. �R.o�oSL� ZZ �oT 4 v olr �o�oS1E'D 10� Wh `, t�l S :I 1 • I , �� t i 3600 (J-) 100 - :10 "iD'°•fx EXl11BIT 't:) F�1.��1gS3 ' I (3) .,• M4. or E low 1 M � .'' 0 PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE MAPLE HILLS ESTATES SANITARY SEWER Original Unit Assessment 9 Units 0 $292.00 /Unit S 2,628.00 Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) 540 L.F. 0 S 9.04/L.F. $ 4,881.60 Mound's Sewer Availability Charge 9 Units 6 $125.00 /unit $ 1 Proposed Total for Sanitary Sewer $ 9,634.60 WATERMAIN Original Unit Assessment 9 Units 0 S 65.61/Unit $ 590.49 Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) 540 L.F. 6 S 4.87/L.F. $ 2,G).80 Mound's Water Availability Charge 9 Units 6 $125.00 /Unit S 1, 125.00 Proposed Total for Watermain $ 4,345.29 Proposed Total Utility Cr a $1.2,979.89 OBIT E /574,3 PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE PROPOSED 22 LOT SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER Original Unit Assessment 22 Units 0 $292.00 /Unit Original Footage Assessment 1320 L.F. 0 $ 9.04/L.F. (60' Minimum) Mound's Sewer $ 6,424.00 $ 11,932.80 Availability Charge 22 Units 0 $125.00 /Unit $ 2,7.0.00 Proposed Total. for Sanitary Sewer $ 21,106.80 tATERMAIN Original Unit Assessment 22 Units 0 $ 65.61/Unit $ 1,443.42 Original Footage Assessment 1.320 L.F. 6 $ 4.87/L.F. $ 6,428.40 (60' Minimum) Mound's Water Availability Charge 22 lhits 0 $125.00 /Unit $ 2,750.00 Proposed Total for Watermain $ 10,621.82 Proposed Total Utility Charge $ 31,728.62 EXHIBIT F Is 4y • • • • MAPLE HILL EST ATES Sanitary Sewer $8,634.60 Watermsin 4 345.29 Total - Maple Hills Estates ................................ E 2� 979.89 22 LOT SUBDIVISION Sanitary Sewer $21,106.80 Watermain 10,621,82 Total - 22 Lot Subdivision ...... ...........................$s1, b.62 TOTAL INCOME FROM PROPOSED PLATS IN MINNETRISTA ............ $44,708.51 a EXHIBIT G )s6s • • McCOA�Z KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUL NO ENOINEERS 9 LAND SURVEYORS • PLANNERS Raply To: 12!00 Industrial P" b AIRIN `lynauth, Minnuoa 66"1 16121 569.3700 January 21, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are herein submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report for proposed street improvements on lest Edge boulevard from County Road 15 south to woodedge Road. If you have any questions or need additional information on anything in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. e Cameron JC:jmj • 1 7 D' ' � 7n t r•c r � •' U tti.,r C� PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT STREET IMPROVEMENTS NEST EDGE BOIIEVARD FROM (AUNTY ROAD 15 SOUTH TO MOODEDGE ROAD CITY OF MOUND I� I_ • January, 1986 I . I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of State of Minnesota. 1- 21- 86.... . ...............Minn. Reg. No. 10206 I oos is 1549 The Mourn City Council has ordered this Preliminary Engineering Report an the improvement of West Edge Boulevard after receiving a notice from the City of Minnetrista of a pending development adjacent to west Edge Boulevard. Utility connections to Mound's sanitary sewer and watermain has been requested to serve the proposed residential subdivision. West Edge Boulevard, which would receive the traffic generated from this proposed development, is presently a nQal type gravel road running from County Roao '5 south to the northeast corner of Woodcrest of Mound. From that point it becomes a paved Mound City Street. Most of the traffic accessing from the proposed subdivision onto West Edge Boulevard will travel north to County Road 15. To travel in a southerly direction, vehicles must pass through an old, dangerous Burlington Northern railroad underpass. This railroad line is now operated by Dakota Railroad, but has not been improved. For these reasons, this report covers only the portion of West Edge Boulevard adjacent to the proposed plat. • DESIGN Width: The width proposed is a 24 foot bituminous met with concrete curb and gutter. These dimensions are consistent with the portion of west Edge Boulevard already upgraded further to the south. Presently, this street has approximately a 22 foot wide gravel surface. Typical Section based on Minnesota road design standards it is proposed to construct the roadway with a 6" gravel base and surfacing consisting of 2" f. of bituminous base and 1 -1/2" of bituminous wearing course. This is approximately a 7 ton design which is greater than the design used on a standard Mound residential street. The reason for the extra strength is that this street has the potential to become a collector street should the railroad bridge be rebuilt and additional development be realized in Minnetrista. The _ design also allows for a future upgrading to a full 9 ton collector road should future traffic volumes warrant the work. • 1SL 1 Concrete Curb & Gutter: 6618 curb and gutter is suggested for this street, i since all but 3 of the proposed lots will take access from internal streets within the proposed development. Where are no existing entrances on the Mound side of the proposed street. Stan Sewer: There presently exists a well prind within the proposed subdivision with an outlet through a culvert under west Edge Boulevard. The drainage then continues via a small ditch through private property to the railroad ditches and eventually into Lace Longdon. we are proposing to replace the existing culvert under west Edge Boulevard with a 21" reinforced concrete pipe and construct 2 catch basins for street drainage in the proposed curb line. Additional drainage studies will be required to determine it the new pipe should be set at the same elevation as the old culvert, thus maintaining the pond at its historic level. This can be done at the time of final plans, if the project should advance to that stage. Grading The proposed grading has been held to a minimum, with the bulk of 1 the required till being provided by adjusting existing street grades. The • existing, steep approach from west Edge Boulevard onto County Road 15 is very undesirable and dangerous. It is proposed to improve it as much as possible and provide a flat approach that will have stacking space for at least one car. This design still uses a grade equal to the existing grade of approximately 13%. To improve this grade to a more desirable 8% to 10% would require additional till material from the proposed development. This is a possibility that will be pursued during final design should the project prodxed. 1_ SANITARY SEWER do WATERMAIN 1 There are no costs included in this report for city utilities except for L the adjustment of manholes, hydrants and gate valves prior to road construction. The existing 10 watermain in west Edge Boulevard will need to be extended by the developer in order to serve the proposed subdivision, however, that work and the associated costs should not be the responsibility of the City of Mound. Any stubs for main extensions or service extensions from • li Is ?o the existing mains could be included as part of the street improvement and assessed directly to the benefiting properties. The existing main does have one tee at about station 5+00 which would be extended to the easterly R/M line. COST The estimated cost of the street construction previously described is $89,740.00. This figure does not include any cost for easement acquisition, but it does include 10% contingencies and 20% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative cost. A detailed breakdown of the cost is attached to this report. ASSESSMENTS we would suggest that the property on the west side of the propose: improvement be assessed for the cost of the storm sewer. This would amount to $5,900 including contingencies engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative 1 • costs. This leaves $83,840.00 to be divided equally between the properties on each side of the proposed street construction. The cost to the developer of the proposed subdivision in Minnetrista would be $47,820.00. On the Mound side of the project we are suggesting using a modified form of the street improvement assessment policy used in the past. This policy assessed 30% of the cost by the front foot, 30% of the cost by the square foot and 40% of the cost as a unit charge. Because there is no storm sewer cost to be assessed to the Mound properties, we propose to assess 50% of the cost T ($20,960.00) by the front foot and 50% of the cost ($20,960.00) on a unit charge. The total assessable footage on the Mound side is 1291.7 feet which results in a rate of $16.35 per front foot. we have assigned a to''sl of 11 units to the properties abutting the �- proposed street. if 11 units are used, the cost per unit would be $1,905.00. The following is a breakdown of the proposed assessment for the properties in Mound. /57/ UNIT FRONT FOOT I OWER P.I.D. CHARGE CWF4M TOTAL Sw 14- 117 -24 0007 : 953.00 s 3 : 4 J SMP 14- 117 -24 0014 1 1 3 Anderson 14- 117 -24 0013 5 5,395.00 11,110.00 �. Alwin 14- 117 -24 0001 12 10,990.00 _23 TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED ................. ..................... $41 It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed improvement is technically feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. r • r 11's c r. is �s�� CONTINGENCIES 6,795.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 74,780.00 • ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COST 14,960.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $89,744.00 I /573 ESTIMATED COST WEST EDGE BOULEVARD ESTIMATED ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL Clearing 4 Grubbing LUMP SUM $ 1,500.00 Common Excavation 2 C.Y. $ 3.00 1CY 7 Subgrade Excavation 600 C.Y. 3.50 /CY 2,100.00 Granular Borrow 600 C.Y. 5.00 /CY 3 Gravel Base C1.5 1 TONS 7.25/TN 10,150.00 Sit. Base Course (2331) 410 TONS 27.00 /TN 11,070.00 Tack Coat 180 GAL. 1.50 /GA 270.00 Sit. wear Course (2341) 300 TONS 25.00/TN 7,,500.00 Concr. Curb do Gutter (8618) 2 L.F. 5.50 /LF 15,070.00 Adjust Gate Valve 1 EACH 150.00 /EA 150.00 . Adjust Manhole 4 EACH 200.00 /EA 800.00 Adjust Hydrant & G.V. 1 EACH 300.00 /EA 300.00 • 21" R.C.P. Storm Sewer 50 L.F. 35.00 /LF 1,750.00 Catch Basins w /Casting 2 EACH 900.00 /EA 1,800.00 ' 21" R.C.P. Aprons 2 EACH 450.00 /EA 900.00 ' Black Dirt 500 C.Y. 7.00 /CY 3,500.00 Seed 1 -1/4 ACRES 500.00 /AC 625.00 CONTINGENCIES 6,795.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 74,780.00 • ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMINISTRATIVE COST 14,960.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $89,744.00 I /573 LG' R / W 13 S' , 4.. 1 Llvx" BIT WEAR COURSE MN /DOT 2341 V SIT. BASE COURSE MN /DOT 2331 `" CLkA#S V IOO'/. CItV'2"G:D aVARRY RMK sws wwot4TE LURE ' &vTTER TY P 1 G AL STREET 'SG GT I ON 1'3.5' 17 "o � W ESTP —c*rc BLV c>. MCCOMBS•KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSED STREET IMPROMFJr1E1�S mmim Omura a uw a+w�a I an ►&MUM �� , M�NNUI 'OLIiMINVTCINMWN.MINNEfOTA TQ27 CITY OF MOUND CITY of NIOU IND MOUND. D MAYWOOD M " , (612) 472 -1156 May 3, 1990 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL L � FROM: ED SHU[LE, CITY MANAGER RE: STATUS OF SHOP %INE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION FUNDING REQUEST The Shoreline Beautification Committee came to the City Council at the last regular meeting requesting assistance in a matching funds program to provide assistance to property owners along County Road 15, to make planting improvements per the plan developed through the Chamber of Commerce. The city attorney gave the opinion that the City could not do this type of a matching program arrangement due to the fact that most )f the property involved is private property. Mr. Jim Ventura, w.io was present at the meeting on behalf of the Beautification Committee, indicated that the City of Spring Park's city attorney had given his okay to this type of program, and that perhaps the City of Mound could contact the City of Spring Park regarding that opinion. After the meeting, "The Laker" news reporter, Lori Hamm, informed the city attorney that she was at the meeting Mr. Ventura refererc�;u. She indicated to the city attorney that the attorney °u: Spring park was not present at the meeting and no opinion was issued by the City of Spring Park. It is the opinion of the c'ty attorney and myself, that the City cannot get involved n any type of a matching funds program. Therefore, it appears that the program will not work and we will have to rely on the individual property owners in doing something to beautify the road. Unless we want to offer the program to every property owner in Mound, therre isn't anything we can do. If you have any questions, please contact me. ES:ls • • 1,576 • r FROM: Mentonka Area Chamber of Commerce Beautification of Shoreline Drive Committee RE: Matching Funds for Plantings REP'D APP. 16 W0 DATE: April 9, 1990 The Beautification Committee will be asking the i ^ities of Mound, Orono, and Spring Park to participat in a matching funds program to encourage plantings along Shoreline Drive. We are asking each of the Cities to dedicate $3,000 or $4,000, but feel that 4 minimum of $2,000 per City is Essential for the program to have any impact. We would recommend that the Cities consider naming a particular nursery as being a plantings provider and ask that the nursery then bill the City directly for their portion of the matching funds program. The Committee recommends the following matching fund plan rules: 1. The matching funds would be available to residential or commercia: land owners abutting Shoreline DriveiCounty Road 15. Any plents purchased with matching funds must be visible from the street, and cannot be used to enhance property.owners' off - street or back-lot areas. 2. The property owner would be responsible for all naintenance including watering and trimming of any plantings .._:-chased using City funds. 3. Plantings purchased using matching funds must be consistent with the overall Beautification Plan and are to be planted within the aesthetic frame work of the plan. 4. The matching funds are available only for the - •urchasE of live plans, not for the purchase of improvements such as fences, planters, or painting existing fences or retaining walls. 5. Each parcel of lajid or property owner is entitled to claim matching funds up to a ceilinq of ;200 per land owner /property. 6. The funds will be made available on a first -come first -serve basis, and the program will either expire upon exhaustion of all of the matchin7 funds in each of the Cities or June 17, 1990, whichever comes first. If each City chooses, thay may elect to expand the matching fund program at any time. 1577 Jam robin 11 January, 1990 l r # a � ss p * 1 p Westorka Chamber of Commerce, 5600 Lynwood Drive, Mound, Hinnes isck lssiori COST ESTIMATE FOR SHORELINE DRIVE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT minnesot 58 612/4'. 4.394 :he foi:owing estimate of costs ! implement the Shoreline Drive Beautification Project is information shown on the Design Concept Drawings. Pricing does not include grading, demoli Contractor's General Conditions, contingencies or design fees. 157 * - - -- --City of Mound-------- - - - - -- * - - - - -- --City of Spri * - - ---- Sheet--- - - - - -- * -------- Sheet- - - - - -- Unit * -1- -2- -3- -4- 'tem Item * -4- -5- -6- -7 Cost * Totals $ Sargent juniper 30 * 10 0 0 0 10 300 * 0 0 46 15( 24" dia cont grwn Isanti Dogwood Hedge 20 * 353 1063 603 186 2205 44100 * 308 826 666 80` 1/:" ht cont gru Redtwig Dogwood 20 * 0 0 0 65 65 1300 * 0 0 0 36" ht cont grwn Littleleaf Linden 275 * 16 0 0 0 16 4400 * 10 27 13 2E 3" cal BB Marshall's Ash 250 * 1 27 0 0 28 7000 * 29 0 28 3 3" cal BB Colorado Spruce 250 * 3 0 0 3 C 1500 * 12 0 28 • 6' ht BB Eastern Redeedar 75 * 55 0 0 0 55 4125 * 0 0 0 4' ht BB * « Willow 50 * 0 0 0 8 8 400 * 5 0 0 1" cal cont grwn Crabapple 175 * 0 0 48 0 48 8400 * 0 23 20 C 1.5" cal BB Scotch Pine 250 * 0 0 0 0 C 0* 12 0 0 C 6' ht BB Shoreline Shrubs 20 * 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 100 3' ht cont grwn Preirie Restoration 5000 * O 0 1 0 0 5000 * 0 0 0 C grasses and flowers Banners 250 * 11 15 0 5 31 7750 * 5 5 3 1C cloth: w /image, hanger Metal Grille 35 * 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 100 340 276 painted steek UNIT COST TOTALS FOR EACH CITY x,4275 25% ALLOWANCE FOR CONTRACTORS GENERAL CONDITIONS, 21069. CONTINGENCY AND DESIGN FEES FOR THE ITEMS SHOWN --- - - - - -- RECOWNDED BUDGET FOR EACH CITY BASED ON THE DRAWINGS 105344 • 157 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 • CITY HALL ADDITION AND REMODELING NO APR 2 31� CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA MFRA #8878 ITEM NO. 1 Alternacq No. 1 - Extend intecioc sF�ice below Add $ 5,500.00 additional existing overhang in Police Department offices as show: on Drawing No. A10 TOTAL - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Add S 5,500.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 763,297.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ADD $ 5,500.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $ 768 .797-00 APPROVED: By: MtCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATFL. APPROVED: By: SHINGOBEE BUILDERS DATE. i9, �y 90 DATE: 90 ACC By: DATE: y12 Y/% y C m OF MO' D MOTA • /s27 r � �J Whereas in 1989, the Mound Police Reserve Unit contributed 2,291.5 hours of community service to the citizens of Mound; and whereas, these hours translate into the equivalent of having an additional officer available and results in a major financial savings to the citizens of Mound; and Whereas, the officers of the Mound Police Reserve Unit have shown outstanding commitment and the highest degree of service and ability to this City. Be it resolved, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, in recognition of these fine contributions, does hereby thark and honor the Mound Police Reserve Unit for their dedicated service to our community and encourage Mound residents to express their gratitude to its me , Capt. Dave Nelson Sgt. James Fox Sgt. Jeff Fleming Off. Richard Hawks Off. Ruth Vogel Off. Richard Jazowski Off. Kathleen Fox Off. Steve Kohman Off. Demean Shell Off. Makiko Swanson Off. Sherry Zuccaro Off. John Romain Off. Tom Geyen Off. ..evin Larson Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 • Isgo May 22, 1990 U80LMXON MD. 90- MOOLOTI01 APPROVIRO =3 NLIBP WSWIRTI08's RRQUM TO IRCRBR/8 PMION 88NPITS 88 NQ08eT8D •N18R8, the Fire Department Relief Association has had its Actuarial Study done for 1989; and nzaaA8, they are now requesting an increase in pension benefits from $350.00 per month to $395.00 per month, effective July 1, 1990; and W932 M, there are adequate funds in this fund to allow these increases; and 8B8RM they have not had an increase in pension fund since 1988. NOW, TNRBSON, DR IT RZOOLVBD that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the Fire Department Relief Association's request to an increase in pension benefits as follows: $395.00 per month, effective July 1, 1990. • • 1 /ss,) �/oiwrd ?JOIN � $�jso��ww�, INa Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mound City Council April 9, 1990 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: The Mound Fire Department Relief Association recently contracted with Bordewick & Company to conduct an actuarial study for our retirement fund. The study was conducted based upon monies .n this fund as of December 31, 1989. A copy of the actuarial study is attached for your review. The actuarial study was conducted to determine current normal costs and accrued liabilitie- based on actuarial assumptions required by state law. Another objective of this study was to determine the costs of increasing the benefit levels from the current $350.00 per month. The actuarial study contains discussions of the purpose, the current assets, the impact of benefit increases, the benefit plan outline, the actuarial assumptions, and the member statistics. S The Relief Association Pension Fund is currently supported by a combination of 2% State Aid and city contributions. In 1989, the 2% State Aid was $45,818.00 and has historically increased each year with increasing property values within our coverage area. In 1990, the city is contributing $64,108.00 or $5342.33 per month. Therefore, even assuming the 2% State Aid remains constant, the total funding for 1990 should total at least $109,926.00. Page 6 of the actuarial study contains a chart which shows the annual contribution requirements for various benefit levels from $350.00 per month to $450.00 per month. Based on an annual funding of $109,926.00 the study indicates the relief association has assets to p-_y a $395.00 per month benefit. This increase is due to a good return on pension fund investments and continued support from the City Council with steady increases in contributions. The Relief Association Board of Directors would like to propose a benefit increase to $395.00 per month effective July 1, 1990. This increase will not require additional funding from the city, but does require the approval from the City Council. The proposed benefit increase is needed to help the Is$va, IflowNd V114 " �s $qpw�r -,A& Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55384 0 PAGE 2 Fire Department to continue to attract quality firefighters. Just as important, the benefit increase will help to encourage current.firefighters who have had an extensive amount of training to remain on the department to earn retirement benefits. With the Treater demand on the individual's time, it is becomin5 more difficult to find people willing to vc'unteer the necessary time for the training necessary to be a good firefighter. Recent years have seen many changes in firefighting. As technology has advanced, the equipment for firefighting has improved, but has resulted in the need for additional training so that we can take advantage of these advancements. 'Hazardous materials' and 'aids' are regular terms in our vocabulary and have required special training and equipment for proper management of these types of situations. We are using computers more every day to keep records as well as to use as a training tool. We have been lucky to have competent personnel that have been able to learn to handle these changes in firefighting -often at a significant commitment of their own time. • If there is agreement with our proposal, we will need an approved motion by the Mound City Council and a letter for our files stating the same. The City Council approval is required since the city makes contributions to our pension fund. Hopefully this letter has adequately discussed the attached actuarial .study and the proposed benefit increase. If questions remain or any of you would like to discuss this proposal, please contact us. Sincerely, David J. arlson, President Mound Fire Department Relief Association • 1.5,83 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION, INC. ACTUARIAL VALUATION DECEMBER 31, 1989 1,524 BOROEWICK & CO. SOmrmcK et CO. ACTUARMt AM COM MUNTt u February 13, 1990 Board of Trustees Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association, Inc. P.O. Box 37 Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Mr. David J. Carlson, President Gentlemen: 701 OHM LAM ton". MN tt�tt Attached is the report which presents the results of the December 31, 1989 Actuarial Valuation of the Mound Volunteer Fire Department Relief Association, Inc. • I certify that all calculations with respect to the valuation were performed on the basis of the assumptions and methods outlined in the Exhibits of the report and the results are correct to the best of my knowledge. The Actuarial Valuation was conducted in accordance with my understandi,.; of the applicable provisions of Chapter 69.733 and Chapter 356 of the Minnesota Statutes. L JRB:cah Attachment • Sincerely, -• 'Q. ,A- 4 I�+ James R. Bordewick, F.S.A. /sss !" VOLU NTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT RELIEF ASSOCIATION INC. ACTUARIAL VALUATION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1989 INTRODUCTION Chapter 356.216 of Minnesota Statutes requires that an actuarial valuation of the fund be conducted periodically. An actuarial valuation is a calculation to determine the normal cost and accrued liability of the fund and includes a determination of the payment necessary to amortize the unfunded liability over a stated period and a determination of the payment necessary to keep the unfunded liability from increasing. The actuarial valuation is conducted according to a stated actuarial cost method, Entr Age Normal Cost, and, as prescribed in Chapter 356.215, Subdivision 414), an interest assumption of 5% must be utilized. The By -Laws of the Association were amended on January 1, 1987 to provide for a monthly service pension of $350. MEMBERSHIP There were 36 active members and 21 inactive members or beneficiaries included in the actuarial costs. Member statistics are shown in Exhibit B and C. ASSUMPTION CHANGES The actuarial assumptions are shown in Exhibit D. There were no changes in the actuarial assumptions from the previous actuarial valuation. 0 I Sgt BOROEWiCK et CO. ASSETS Chapter 356.20, Subdivision 4 as applied to firefighter's relief associations enumered in Chapter 69.771 and 69.773 of the Minnesota Statutes requires that assets be reported on a basis which is approximately a cost basis. However, it is our opinion that the asset basic rrlr actuarial valuation can be on a different basis and we have continued , ,,,tice of using market value. The market value of the assets on Dece , - I 31, 1?89 was $1,163,659.78 and the cost value on the same date was $1,133,54.44. The table below shows the inventory of the prinicipal trust assets as of December 31, 1989 furnished on page 82 of The Marquette :yank Minneapolis, N.A. 1989 trust accounting, adjusted for the accrued Trustee Fees. INVENTORY OF PRINCIPAL TRUST ASSETS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1989 Cash A Trustee Fees i Investments Shearson /American Express Fund B Certificiates of Deposit US Government GNMA and Treasury Notes Municipal Bonds Corporate Bonds Mutual Funds Total Assets Market Value Cost Value $ 1,243.36 $ 1,243.36 (1,093.72) (1,093.72) 20,500.00 20,500.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 735,709.08 716,217.59 53,600.00 50,420.50 145,492.88 144,306.41 108,208.18 101,948.30 $1,163,510.14 $1,133,342.80 $1,163,659.78 $1,133,542.44 / BORGEWICK & CO. ACTUARIAL BALANCE SHEET The actuarial balance sheet showing accrued assets and liabilities is shown below as of December 31, 1989. Assets Market Value of current assets $1,163,660 Unfunded accrued liability 532,209 Present value of future normal costs 380,027 $2,075,896 Present value of benefits - active members $1,012,573 inactive members 1,063,323 $2,075,896 i 1 Sa V BOpCiEWICK & CO ANALYSIS OF CHANGE IN UNFUNDED ACCRUED LIABILITY The unfunded accrued liability increased by $154,053 from December 31, 1987 to December 31, 1989. The analysis of this change is shown below: 1. Unfunded Accrued Liability, 12 -31 -87 $378,156 2. Amount By Which Contributions Were GrPi + Than Normal Costs And Interest Requ 67,910 3. Increase In Accrued Liability Due Ti Benefit Increases 264,978 4. Actuarial Gain For The Period 43,015 5. Unfunded Accrued Liability, 12- 31 -89: 532,209 (1) - (2) + (3) - (4) The actuarial gain of $43,015 was primarily due to investment earnings in excess of the actuaria "I assumption of 5 %. CONTRIBUTION REQUIREMENT Section 69.773, Subdivision 4 of the Minnesota Statutes states that the contribution requirement is equal to the normal cost and amortization of the unfunded accrued liability by December 21, 2003 in this case. The normal cost is $36,689 and the contribution requirement as of December 31, 1989 is $87,894. The contribution required to keep the unfunded accrued liability from increasing is $65,134 on December 31, 1989. Estimated city contributions for 1990 are $47,000 and estimated state contributions are $64,100 for a total of $111,100. IMPACT OF BENEFIT INCREASES It was requested that we determine the financial impact of benefit increases to active and inactive members. The current benefit level is $350 a month. For every $25 increase in the monthly benefit, the normal cost will increase by 12,621 and the accrued liability by $120,419. The increase in the accrued liability is amortized over 20 years by statute and a new amortization period is determined for the entire unfunded accrued liability. The amortization period may be extended depending on the size of the increase in the accrued liability. We have developed the contributions for various benefit levels on an asset basis equal to market value. The contribution requirement under the $350 benefit level is shown on this basis for comparison. BOROEWICK & CO. IMPACT_ OF BENEFIT INCREASES 350 1375 400 425 450 Unfunded Accrued Liability $532,209 $652,( ,,047 $893,466 $1,013,885 Full Funding Date: December 31 2003 20.y 2004 2005 2005 Annual Contribution Requirement $ 87,894 $ 99,192 $112,862 $123,064 $ 136,269 EXHIBITS Five exhibits are attached to this report. They are: Exhibit A ..... Plan Outline Exhibit B ..... Member Statistics Exhibit C ..... Age /Service Distribution of Active Members Exhibit D ..... Actuarial Assumptions Exhibit E ..... Actuarial Funding Method i 510 BORDEWICK & CO. CITY COUNCIL PACKET -- 5/22/90 #3 EXHIBITS 1.s9/ BORDEWiCK & CO. EXN ?RIT A PLAN OUTLINE 1. ELIGIBILITY: Member of The Mound V Inc. after having served a one year �ment Relief Association) 2. SERVICE REQUIREMENT: The later of of service. Must retire at age 60. The monthly benefit payable is $350. 3. DEFERRED PENSION: Retirement prior The monthly benefit payable at age 5 inpletion of 20 years with 20 years of service. 4. DISABILITY PENSION: Disability which: prevents the member from performing duties for at least two weeks. The monthly benefit payable is $350 per month prorated per day. 5. DEATH AND SURVIVIOR BENEFITS: These benefits are applicable if the member dies prior to or after retirement. FUNERAL BENEFIT: $1,500 WIDOWS AND CHILDRENS BENEFITS: Widow receives 75% of member's monthly pension for life or until remarriage. Surviving children receive 25% of member's monthly pension until age 18 or marriage. If the event of death of member and wife, children receive $350 per month until age 18 or marriage. The maximum family benefit is $350 per month. 1 5 " O-L, BOROEWICK d Co. EXHIBIT B MEMBER STATISTICS • • ACTIVE MEMBERS 1. There were 36 active members includE osts. An age/ service distribution is shown in Ext 2. The average entry age (age at mem: -b active members is 25.2. RETIRED MEMBERS 1. There were 14 retired members include actuarial costs. 2. The total annual retirement benefits ._:,able to these members is $58,800. 3. The average retirement age for these members has been .:ge 51.8 and average current age of these members is age 64.7. SURVIVORS OF MEMBERS 1. There were 3 widows included in the actuarial costs. 2. The total annual widow's benefits payable is $9,450. OTHER 1. Five members terminated since January 1, 1987 and three of these members were vested. Four members are currently vested. One previous terminated member retired. 2. There has been disability payments to three participants since January 1, 1987. These disabilities were temporary disabilities. There have been no permanent disabilities since January 1, 1979. � s93 BORDEWICK Q CO EXHIBIT C AGE /SERVICE DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS DECEMBER 31 1 COMPLETED YEAR Aqe* 0 -1 2 -4 5 -9 10 -14 15 -1 Total 15 -19 20 -24 3 3 25 -29 1 2 3 1 7 30 -34 1 1 1 3 6 35 -39 1 1 5 2 9 40 -44 1 2 2 5 45 -49 3 1 1 5 50 -54 1 1 55 -59 60 -64 65+ Total 6 3 6 it 8 1 1 36 Average Age = 36.0 Average Service = 10.4 years *Nearest Birthday 0 I �� BOpDEWiCK & CO MORTALITY: MEMBER TURNOVER: DISABILITY: RETIREMENT: INTEREST: MARITAL STATUS: ASSET BASIS: EXHIBIT D ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS lc_ N; Ac tality Table. loaded 1 %. Th, age 53 or after 20 years of 5 %, c,;n, pounded annually. Actual status utilized. Market value. 1 s9.S BORDEWICK & CO EXHIBIT E ACTUARIAL FUNDING METHOD ENTRY AGE NORMAL This actuarial funding method is one of the family of projected benefit cost methods. An estimate of the projected benefits expected to be payable under the plan iL required to determine the c_sts and liabilities with this funding method. The NORMAL COST for each active member is the annual amount required from the member's entry date to retirement date so that the accumulated contributions at termination or retirement will equal the liability at that time. This cost is expressed as a level annual amount. The PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE BENEFITS is equal to the value of the future benefits expected to be payable discounted back to the member's current age. Discounts include such items as mortality, turnover, interest, and any other decremental assumptions. The value includes the value of benefits for both active and inactive members. The PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE NORMAL COSTS is equal to the value of the future NORMAL COSTS for the active members discounted for the decrements described above and payable from the member's current age to retirement age. The ACCRUED LIABILITY is equal to the difference between the PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE BENEFITS and the PRESENT VALUE OF FUTURE NORMAL COSTS. The UNFUNDED LIABILITY is equal to the difference between the ACCRUED LIABILITY and the current valuation assets. ACTUARIAL GAINS AND LOSSES are reflected in adjustments to the UNFUNDED LIABILITY from year to year. 15 % ® oAOEW ;CK 6 Co. for May 22, 1990 Council Meeting • May 16, 1990 Mound Volunteer Fire D eft. requests the following permits for the June 2, 1990 Fish Fry. Please waive the fee on two of them as indicated. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance etc. being turned in. Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit Public Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Set -Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Northwest Tonka Lions Club requests the following permits for June 16, 1990 Mound City Days. Please waive the fee on two of them as indicated. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, police officer in attendance, etc being taken care of. • Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit Public Dance /Street Dance Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE Set-Up Permit - PLEASE WAIVE THE FEE hD Mound City Days -- June 14,15,16,17, 1990 requests the following Permits along with WAIVING THE FEES. Carnival Concessions Craft Shows Fireworks Merchant Sales is /s97 til es---- - - - NAY 22, 1990 • BATCH 0051 BATCH 0052 SuperAmerica April gasoline TOTAL BILLS 109,881.22 111, ;10.89 2,881.98 224,074.09 • • 11518 • s99 1 CITT 9 TN Mao OL mum m NE MTE IINIi 4Nmr MFIIM NIN m e w 04849 PE4NID 816.19 La 71-7140-m 5 /1300 311500 NLLW CD81DMTIOD T TT x 816.19 816.19 J8L-CD IMO 816.19 3WI WM CIAO P0E-Ma 3,70.00 CR WON 4/20 PR 01-20400100 3/1300 5/1500 3,70.00 Jell 1010 370.00 3050' 51701!0 CITY COINTY CIBIT 00 MUR TOOK 3748.00 0097/ FK_m 67.82 PETTY all"MIfE 01-4140 zm 4.17 PETTY COI-MIM 01-4140-3710 5/1500 3/13/90 71.99 AL-0 1010 71.9! 30319 51900 CITY OF ND= VB■Ot TOTAL 71.99 d a l PRE-MID 2,319.33 SIT 4/21 PR 01- 20100000 5/15/90 5/13!90 2,30.9 JIL-C9 1010 2349.35 3048 SMIN PRE-PAID 143.61 MR S l.ES TM 73- 3392-0110 5,03.00 NCR SXB TA1 - 1- 3992-00* 5/13/90 3 113/90 6,02641 AL-0 1010 6026.61 30542 5/1500 CO NISIONER OF KVW VB01a1 TOTAL 0376.16 C1077 PRE-mm 175.00 RERIo-DEPOT DEPOS7-CONTEL 01- 3020-M 5/15/90 3/15/90 175.00 JK- D 1010 175.00 30531 5/10/90 ONE Vl9148 TOTAL 175.00 • C1107 PRE-Ml 5/15/90 3/13/90 05.72 05.72 COF-LIIDID JK-CD 01-41404110 1010 05.72 30M 3/14/90 own's COFERWE CENTBI VENOR TOTAL 05.72 81219 P1E-FAID 341.28 36 CONTRACT TROTHS 01-4310-3100 5/15/90 5/15/90 341.20 J00.-CD 1010 341.20 3044 5MI" PIE -PAID 274.92 29 CONTRACT 11OI11S 81- 4350-3100 5!15/90 5/15/90 274.92 J4L-CD 1010 274.92 30539 5115/90 DBJERT RIDO PH Yom TOTAL 616.20 01735 PREPAID 1,317.60 DENTAL 01-2040-OM 16.20 DENTAL-RETIREE 01-4190-1310 41.60 DENTAL-RETIREE 01- 4280 -1510 41.60 DENTAL - RETIREE O1-4140-I510 57.8D DENTAL- RETIREE 71- 71001510 5/15190 5/15/90 1,474.80 Jel-CD 1010 1474.80 30512 5/03/90 DELTA DENTAL VENDOR TOTAL 1674.80 01328 PREPAID 18.20 C.O.N. Mr DIMMER 01-40204120 5/15190 5/15/90 18.20 JK -CD 1010 18.20 30536 5/15190 DOING'S PIZZA VF1DOt TOTAL 18.20 00 5/ 3�Yyf °s Y7 • s99 0 NV 0 MIIO IILOI 401E 881E 88Au ANI m1ri m am PDKMD SAW SA RE4m 5/15190 5115190 5/15/19 5/15/10 ® P1NRLPS i m ve0 TOIL F1710 RE4= 5/15/!0 5115190 F1MBE OlA X YBDD11 !OIL 81750 FW- AID 5/15/90 5/15/90 HUMID 5/15/90 5/15/90 POE -►AID 5/t5/90 5/15/90 336.56 LID 364.45 NIK 6.72- UK 611.29 AL-0 •13.10 LID 36.35 DIIE 12. 16- KOC W.80 AL-O 373.30 DIIE 373.39 Al.-O 2017.18 $0.00 49Y48O -III[ OF -m-am 00.00 J8L-O 010.00 100.00 09 WIT C RTIF POw 6FOA 4m TWL D1la FRE4W 10.00 5/15190 5/15190 GUY OW LIFE %� ML 61971 ME-ma s/15/10 5/15190 war ITN 64401 Yom TOIL 619n PIE -PAID 5/15/90 5/15/90 HUMID 5/15/90 5/15/90 POE -►AID 5/t5/90 5/15/90 336.56 LID 364.45 NIK 6.72- UK 611.29 AL-0 •13.10 LID 36.35 DIIE 12. 16- KOC W.80 AL-O 373.30 DIIE 373.39 Al.-O 2017.18 $0.00 49Y48O -III[ OF -m-am 00.00 J8L-O 010.00 100.00 09 WIT C RTIF POw 75.00 80 41011 0 WIF PON01 70.00 0 MIT O RTIF P0181 10.00 0 MIT O NT1F FI 315.00 J8L-O 315.00 1,306.00 013 MNP 4120 PR 1,306.00 JK-O 1305.00 21.80 OINN 4/26 PR 21.00 JK-Cl 21.80 33!.50 LID 325.71 MINE 13.31- DISC 10.78 FRY 662.68 JK-CD 163.85 LID 430.46 NINE 11.80- DISC 8.41 FIIT 590.83 ,1R-CD 827.30 LID 265.47 NINE 22.27- DISC 9.43 FRY 1,099.93 J84.-CD TW GANA /E�MOI 010 NOIO �� 48381!1 OIDI� 0 808: 71 -7100-00 71-7140-m i 71 1010 641.2! 3M WOO 71- 7108.1664 71 -710 71- 7108 -m 1010 14!.80 38814 5W% 71- 7100-10 1010 373.38 31M 5115190 01-4014110 1010 010.00 30037 5/15190 01- 40!0-3130 71-7100-3130 73- 7300-3138 78.7088-3130 1010 315.00 30532 5110/90 01-2010-0880 1010 1305.00 30'300 5/13/10 • 01-2040 -M 10 21.08 30608 5/03110 71-7100-1510 71-7100-1520 71-7100-"" 71-7100 -9600 1010 662.68 30485 5/01/10 71-7100-1510 71- 7100-9520 71-7100-0560 71-7100-9600 1010 590.83 30522 5/08190 71-7100-9510 71- 7100.9520 71-7100-9560 71- 7100-9600 1010 1099.93 30513 5/15/10 is 1 (000 • )60/ .4iw V4" OTT E !M Tog ISAA am 10WE WE IV 94949411 0m •. t m IM MIE l > ANT mrrm am me WE M OIORIt i m ' n VM MIAL 2353.44 me NE400 210.46 w MA PR ot- 2940 -0000 %#" snsm 210.46 JAL-0 1010 20.46 39M 5A3/91 IDI♦ OO wool 6 CRW;s V nqk 210.46 Im61 READ 20,491.01 1ST tic RE Its 01-432MO 2,42.10 IST iR E =-CD IS Y- 3132.0000 619.93 1ST 1/1 RE TWO 66-311324000 Si/15d99 5/15/90 23,23.07 .AL-0 1010 2323.07 30635 5/14/90 R8N to 1 VWI TD RL 203.07 :7381 FIE-MW 517.90 B aw 4/23 M 01- 2010-0000 W1S/!0 5/15/90 512.90 AL-0 1010 512.90 30001 5/03/90 194 ETDMI mm-W 1=1 TOTAL 512.90 I23M ME4MH 91.90 I00 4/3 M 01- 2010.0000 SAW" 5115190 91.90 JK-m 1010 91.91 30502 5103/90 DDm ETIR w MIX-01 V TOIIL 91.98 Am PRE - MI0 465.06 0 m1IRKT 101E 01- 4310.3100 511500 Snsm 465.06 AL-Cl 1010 465.06 30195 5/02/90 RE- MDI 511.90 77 CQIQRACT !OILS 01-4310 -3100 $/15/91 5115/90 511.91 JOI-a 1010 511.91 30610 5/15/90 • JOIN TNTE V Im 9M.04 .2519 ME-ftl 1,619.17 LID 71-7100-9510 54.20 ON 71- 7100-9520 37.97- DIE 71-7100.9560 SAW" 5/151" 2,130.10 AL-0 1010 2130.10 30106 SAI/90 ME-PAID 694.93 LID 71- 7100-9510 900.13 UK 71- 7100-9520 23.41- DISC 71- 7100-9560 3/15/90 5/13/90 1,569.39 JAl-0 1010 1569.59 30623 SAW" FIE-MID 1,029.45 LID 71-7100 -9510 356.05 NINE 71- 7100-9520 40.31- DISC 71- 7100.9560 5/15/90 5/15/90 2,145.16 JAL-0 1010 2145.16 30544 5/15/90 A M W 100ESLE Lit VM TOTAL 5914.85 12917 PIE -MID 44.00 LOTION 4/20 PR 01- 2040-0000 5115190 5/15/90 44.00 JK-0 1010 44.00 30511 5/03/90 LAN E FUNCE) T LAW SE" Ym TOTAL 44.00 L2940 PRF-POID 25.00 LAC IIWUP-9U(LE 01-4020-4110 • )60/ r"a • r YQ1.0 Mat YYYMAII� 04R-01 CITY A 101111 AIMM 11111M DIE W IM. MM MMl Wt DATE $TAME ~ BJRIP'TIM SAWW 5AW" 25.0 AL-0 Low OF M CITIES 611111t TOTK 25.01 LM PE-M88 436.88 AM -1A8L-DN LA6 5/IW" SAS/90 431.00 AL-0 1/164110 MIN31 VE1A1 TOTAL 431.00 Mai PM-Ma 10.442.9 FIT 4188 A 5/15/90 5AS/90 10,442.9 ,AL WWII UK - NDllO M01M TOTAL 1002.9 R1060 PIE-M 464.00 AUM A1CTIa 5/15880 SAS/90 464.00 .AL-0 ImIN's MINNE 66 VEldt IOTAL 464.00 MOM PIE MD 97.94 AEC 4/3 PR 5/15/90 5 11500 71.94 .AL-0 in CENTEII WATN PLAN VEIIIIIIN TOTAL 97.0 I0121 FIE-PAM 4.0 PL11® 5/15/90 5/15/90 41.00 JLLi0 1131MD's VEAA1 TOTAL 41.00 Rill. PIE-1 1.112.00 in SAC 5/15/110 5/15/90 1,112.00 ,AL-0 AEM WISM CMIIa C11MI4 VEI0M1 TOTAL 1712.00 113101 PRE-MID M.00 DT3 CORP 4/21 PR 5/15/90 5/15/90 20.00 AL-0 M IETIAMI STS181 VE1w TOTAL 288.00 03/95 PIE - PAID 645.65 tMO4 4121 FN 5/15/90 5/15190 60.65 ,AL-0 111 TEA LOCAL 320 YE11010111 TOTAL 45.65 N3700 PIE -PAID 15.00 Off EUFNICDII 5/15190 5/15/90 15.00 JML-0 NATL RMISTRT OF ENT VEGM TOTAL 15.00 P39% PIE -ARID 6,425.88 FEAR 4/21 PR 3/15190 5115/90 6,425.88 JLL-CD P E R A VENOW TOTAL 6425.0 P4030 PIE -PAID 44.12 PW 4118 PR 5/15/90 5/15/00 "4.12 JK -CD 11� ■� NN 3364 - 01- 410-4110 1010 4" 3110 01- 2010.0100 1010 10442.9 3164 10" 01-040-4210 1010 464.64 3118 %f" O1- 2010-M 1010 W.11 =13 %f" 01- 2300 -M 1010 41.64 311!1 %ohm 71`2364 -0100 1010 17012.64 no M" • 01-2640 -0000 1010 264.64 MR %"m 01-2010.0000 1010 645AS 36410 SAW 01- 4140-4110 1010 MOD 309 31II/91 01-2040-0000 1010 6423.'0 3WW 31JI90 01- 2010-0000 1010 494.12 MW $/" • (o -Z CITY OF on ME 1101.01 vMM maim ME Ku XIE4W ow 1. D1 E M MTE On STAlU9 MU NT IWIPTIOI mm ORSINI 00441 on 0 8111E • PMSICIAE OF M t Tuft 494.12 04171 P1E4Mn 1,318.39 LI8 215.04 NINE 29.25- DIK sits/" 5/13/90 1,574.18 AL-Cl P1-MID 1,124.12 LIO 416.15 NINE 27.00- DIm 33.90 Nil 5/15/90 5/15/90 1,547.17 JOL-CD FIE-no 1,319.03 LM x!6.45 BIM 30.36- 919t 5115190 5115/90 1,606.14 AL-Cl INKITY BITE 4 SPIRITS 110811 TOTAL 47$.49 A4259 FIE-MID 344.32 32 CWMACT i1NS 5/15190 5/13/90 344.32 AL-M PIE -NO 60.64 64 CONTRACT Ip16 5/15/90 5/15/90 60.64 AL-Cl NOT E ANN VBm TOTAL 1002.96 44300 ME-MID 110.00 A NMI Nftis 7mw . 5/15/90 s /15/90 110.00 JOL-O ADTAt<T aim ff IO10 Im TOTAL 110.00 54381 PIE -PAID 21,423.21 PENT 1--C NALL Will 5/15/90 s /15/90 27,423.21 AL-0 9 Immm I UILOEAS uoom TOTAL 27423.21 S4510 PIE -PAID 82.00 0116 CANE MTERIAIS 5 /15/90 sits/" :x2.00 JR -CD STATE OF NFOODMENTS {A7w TOTAL 32.00 S4511 FW -PAID 508.92 CR UNION 4/28 PR 5/15/00 5/15/90 508.92 JK•CD STATE CAPITOL OEDIT UIICN YOM TOTAL 508.92 U510D PRE-PAID 68.44 APR TOlELS 81.75 OR NOS 118.93 IN INIFQI6 23.79 APR INIFWIS 60.78 APR INIFNIS 60.78 APR UNIFOiS 5115/90 5/15/90 417.47 JK-CD • 71-7100 -9610 71- 7100 -M 71- 7100-9560 1010 1574.18 3001 5/01/90 71 7100.9510 71- 7100-9 :1-7100-9560 • 71-7100-M 1010 1347.17 310 5/08/90 n -nog -9610 n -nN -9521 71 -noo-9660 100 1603.14 3115 $/1504 01-4310.3100 100 344.32 3003 51" W- 430.3101 INN 6M.M 3= 5/15/90 01- 4140 -4120 1610 110.00 30091 5/02/!0 304000.3000 1010 27423.21 30327 5108/91 01-4140-4170 1010 32.00 31030 5/10/90 01-2040 -0000 1010 508.92 30506 5/00/90 01- 4290.2250 73- 7300 -2200 01- 4280••2240 01- 4290-2240 73- 7300.2210 18-1800 -2240 1010 417.47 30518 5/08/90 A 03 '�- CITY OF NM tls�■t 9l im 1W IL IIMtQ Ilrt 111E WE !?0116 now 00$71Wfm win 100m 110}TBI YB6IE TOTAL 41.47 ' - sns/11 snsnv 421.02 TOTAL 421.02 333.00 5/13/!0 SAW" CITIIOO X01 o 1 IOTA Ii06! FIE-me 3/13M S/IW" 0IE IL1 1 Im ?6011 ��A1D S/i3Jl1 3/TS1l0 LOUD U� YB�t TOTAL ua5 FIE-me AL-Cl SAW" 3/13/!0 JOT POE am TOTAL FOUR- OIT -PIAOE TOX ILL 1 41.47 421.02 KCA" frIAME-IP 421.02 AL-Cl 421.02 333.00 00101 LNE NLFD L All 333.00 AL-M 333.00 25.00 T -ILIA! 3.00 JK-M 3.00 135.00 0017( NOUBdllCL 10.00 IM No1M -dlm 143.00 AL-Cl 145.00 3.00 FOUR- OIT -PIAOE 3.00 AL-la 3.00 10!,031.22 Tog - NEB AUNT NAIL HOOT 0� O 01- 4310.30 1010 421 .02 30617 SMM A 01- 4020.4100 1010 33x.00 3M SM1 O1- 310-0000 1010 3.00 306x/ 5AM 01- 3260.0000 01 -3500. * . 1010 ICA 3061 50M 01- 310.0000 1010 25.00 30547 5/!3/!0 • • 1604 0 � , �" y., � �' "• ". � V 1 V .1 A J � Y Y V 1\ 1. A ` ./.1` Yf.Jf v 3 ' C[ CE ION TAE 14.24.31 �. . WE 10,1 F4E -p1t1 on IIM>t 1111E WE OTAAM AIOMT IUCWIN ACCMMT ww NOME C4®10 MITE ATOM) 1,993.21 1919 OU 01- 400-3130 730.00 190! UNIT 71- 7100.3130 700.00 1901 MIT 73 -1300 -3130 700.00 19M MIT 70-7100-3130 5/16/0 $/16/90 4,143.21 AL-0 1010 A AM110 Eta TOTAL 4143.21 ATOM 12.34 OFFICE M KIES 01- 1090.2100 12.34 OFFICE W LIES 01- 1090-2100 43.02 OFFICE SMIES 01- 4110-2100 12.36 OFFICE 1JRM 01- 4190-2100 96.15 OFFICE gpnm,CALCWITOAS 01-4310.2100 6.17 OFRCE OURIEE 01- 4L0.2100 6.17 WM IPR ME 71- 7100-2100 6.17 OFFICE WMM 737300.2100 6.17 OFFICE lIIRIB 71-7000.2100 17.20 OFFICE IMIES �PHOW2100 137.39 COMM MM 01- 409s-2Z00 10.47 OFFICE MIES 11- 4350-2100 5 /16/0 5/16/90 365.9s AL-0 1010 ALT" YM TOTAL 365.95 AAO1110 172.97 ®IOOt FNS 01- 4320 -2100 5/14/0 5/16/90 172.97 JOL-0 1010 A1L1MM M M YE4MOt TOITAL 172.97 AM 42.00 DWIn 01.4320.4140 25.00 MMET FOR JM 01- 4190-4100 5/16/90 5/16/90 67.00 AL-0 1010 AIANITI RMK iMM TOT/. 67.00 A0371 312.23 COOETE -sIM1 01-4210-2300 210.35 CRETE -3TM3 01 -4200 -2300 5/16/90 5/16/90 572.60 ,11E-0 1010 MRI yam RM MI1 YEW TOTAL 322.6' MM 75.00 116 QE104 -LI1 71- 7100 -4210 5/16/90 5/16/90 75.00 AL-0 1010 W MASS Swims YEW TOTAL 75.00 10521 30.00 J0E PNRIN LEAF 01-4200-4200 30.00 JIE PWIN LEASE 73 -7300 -4200 30.00 J0E PAN(A6 LEAD: 70- 7000-4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 90.00 JIL-o 1010 MENU MINEMA COMM YEW TOTAL 90.00 10639 40.10 I110TZMTIN 01-4290-2330 5/16/90 5/16/90 40.9D JR-CD 1010 OO S 2 - sloy s . SY z- • ldoS row • u n Y .. w j L Y Y Y w N w L 04000-ot CITY W MM %I= WAICE ME MU M 10. MMCE M MTE 1AN STATUS New WDIPTI AO� 111 %TIM► 1 TIM MAC VEM TOTAL 40.80 10610 4.12 APR OITIIFII 73 -7W20 4.13 APR MYGEN w M0 - 2200 8.25 OR 011M 01- 00.2500 5/16/90 5/16/90 16.50 JK-CD 1010 MAIM C01MIr Yom TOTAL 16.50 %167) 6,560.00 APR MECICLE SEAM. 01-4270.4200 5 /16/90 5/16/90 6,560.00 AL-CD 1010 OR REL'10LIN SYSTEM OF N YOM TOTAL 6560.00 80600 44.52 APR 8A1 M E-5TRI ET O1 103.88 FM GMJMIE -11 01- 4290-37% 65.72 APR O -FIRE 22- 4170.37% 5/16190 5/16/90 214.12 JK-0 1010 RAOIMIIN AND SON VE1Mt TOTAL 214.12 80746 300.00 1ST QTR OPERATION CMG 01-4140-3100 300.00 1ST M CONNECT DIG 01-4140-3100 5/16/90 5/16/90 600.00 AL-CD 1010 MlEAU OF ORIRIILIL APT4EIM VETMI TOTAL 600.00 00828 570.00 AM AK SEN- CATHODIC PROTECTN 73- 7300.42nO 5/16/90 5/16/90 510.00 AL-0 1010 CATHMIC PROTECTION SENIC YEIMt TOTAL 570.00 00830 36.45 TAPES, INK ROLLERS 71- 7100.2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 38.45 AL-0 1010 CAN REGISTER SALES VENDOR TOTAL 38.45 00960 5.99 UPS-DEMER 01-42110-3210 6.69 GLOVES 01-4270-2200 9.37 APR OF 01-4290.2200 2 APR %DIE 01-4290-2300 9.56 APR MQE 01- 4290-2310 75.11 APR HK 01-4310-2200 76.02 APR HK 22- 4170-2200 24.68 APR 1471E 73- 7300 -2200 10.50 UPS -MATCH 73- 7300.3210 30.97 APR MINE 73-7300-2300 2.78 MIRE TIES 01-4140 -2200 17.96 BUCKETS 01- 4320-2200 5116/90 5/16/90 297.18 JK-M 1010 !''w To COAST VEICOR TOTAL 297.18 58.50 APR C0PPM 01- 4095-2100 M. 25 APR CMPIlTER 01 -4095 -38M 907.00 APR CMPIlIFR 01- 4095-5000 • • ) 40� • no? ♦!- CITY OF ROUND TIME 14.24.32 IMMIIE K HOLD PRE-PAID am 116 ! Mw 441E DATE IIATW NOME DEBCAIPTION ACCM r SPIER MM CIEM 8 MBE 5/16/90 3/16/90 1,690.73 AL-M 1010 . Be V9M1 TOTAL 1690.75 CNM4 295.00 LAD MP 9441 73- 7300 -2200 295.00 MTING LAM 73- 7300-2300 240.00 CRAY fOt SAM 01-4280-2310 5/16/90 5/16/90 830.00 JNNL-C11 1010 MMIE SAM, PC. VEiMt TOTAL 830.00 01079 324.82 TEL 444 01-4320 -3220 2.71 TELEI E 01- 4190 -3220 8.90 MR" 01-4040.3220 43.47 TOB41K O1- 1095 -3220 64.77 TELEPHONE 01-4280-3220 119.63 TELEP E 73-730 -3220 32.39 TEISM E 78-7800.3220 63.38 Y6JP1OE 01-OW3120 144.73 7ELELM 71-1100-3220 227.56 MBI OE 01-4140 -3220 71.07 TELEPIOE 22- 4170-3220 67.70 1ELEPIOE-COLPIITFft 22- 4170 -3220 5/16/90 5/16/90 1,171.13 JtLL-CD ' ^10 Wffm1fAL IELEPMDIE VEIMt TOTAL 1171.13 111130 200.00 an DIRT 73- 7300 -2340 100.00 an TINT 01- 4310-2350 5/16/90 5/16/90 300.00 AL-0 1010 • D J EM MATING VEIMI TOTAL 300.00 111170 108.65 M LEAS TO 5/15 40-60003910 204.36 AR LEASE TO 5/15 01.4320-3910 1, 511.44 89 SPECIAL INESSPEN15 -M 66- 60003100 5/16/90 5/16/90 2,124.44 AL-CD 1010 DMOTTA MIL M VENDOR TOTAL 2124.44 111175 284.62 51.75 14LS CABLE TAPING 01- 40303100 5/16/90 5/16/90 284.62 AL-CD 1010 ME wK VENOM TOTAL 284.62 01178 37.00 ENT SPTIOL E1P- NICCIM 01-41404110 3/16/90 5/16/90 37.00 JAIL -0 1010 DANIEL NICLTM VENOM TOTAL 37.00 01219 10.12 MILEAGE 81-4350-3340 5/16/90 5/16/90 10.12 J K-CD 1010 DELIERT IUPM VETO R TOTAL 10.12 M29 325.00 PROLE Fn 8* WATER LSE 73- 7300-3100 • no? A? -COQ -0t CITY OF 1WM TOE 14.24.32 �a INNIM BE w IUFPAID am N. D1MDIM M DATE DATE STARE NM DESCRIPTION AMMI T an AUNT OEM t IAW 5/16/90 5/16/90 325.00 AL-CO 1010 DEPT OF NATURAL WVUM VENDOR TOTAL 323.00 81342 38.05 EPOII COPOID 73 -73DO -2300 38.06 EPOYY COMM 01-4290-2250 5 /16/90 5/16/90 76.11 JRN.-CD 1010 ■IM ND AMERICAN CORP YOM TOTAL 76.11 81360 2, 120.00 ASPHALT- BARTLETT 73-7300-4200 %1.00 AfiP11111.T- LYNOM-COIM 73- 73DO-4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 3,061.00 JK-CO 1010 UBM ASPHALT COMPANY YOM TOTAL 3081.00 E1410 239.22 LETTERS,SIGILS 01-4280.2360 5/16/90 5/16/90 239.22 JN -0 1010 EARL F ANKH VENOOR TOTAL 239.22 E1401 510.00 INSTALL PARTITI0MB- 841,842 01-4140-5000 5/16/90 5/16/90 510.00 JK -CD 1010 ENERRElCY VEHICLE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 510.00 E1484 100.00 ASBESTOS TESTS 3D- 6000-3100 5/16/90 5/16/90 100.00 JK-m 1010 GNIMMATE, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 F1710 13.50 ELECTION KM 11101 01-4060 -4120 5/16/90 5/16/90 13.50 JK-CO 1010 FWMCBE CLARK VENDOR TOTAL 13.50 F1711 290.95 APR FREIGHT 71-7100-9600 5/16/90 5/16/90 290.95 Jea-CD 1010 FWAUS TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL 290.95 F1720 451.95 ARBITRATION 01-4399-4100 5/16/90 5/16/90 451.95 JRNI -CD 1010 FRAM( NADIEN! 6 ASSOC VENDOR TOTAL 451.95 F1722 114.82 BINDER,COVER 01-4340 -2100 54.85 BINER,NANEPLATE 01- 4140-2100 98.87 COVER, NAMEPLATE 01.4040 -1100 5/16/90 5/16/90 268.54 JK-CD 1010 FRANCLIN INTERRAT'L INSTIO VENDOR TOTAL 268.54 G1750 40.00 GAAFR Sl CRIPTION 01-4090.4130 5/16/90 5/16/90 40.00 JIRL-CD 1010 • 1 0 • lkl� rmm J f u n L n H J L u u u n n n &-.L J /iV /.V A9- DD2-01 CITY OF IQIO TIME 14.24.32 yew INVOICE ME MOLD FIE-PAID am ND. INVOICE m DATE DATE STATUS AMO111T DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT MIER NOW DECI(1 DATE 6 F 0 A Yoram TOTAL 40.00 61800 434.59 REPAIR 112 22- 4170-2200 5/16190 5/16/90 434.59 J1L-0 1010 OART'S DIM SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 434.59 G1890 31.20 APR MATER COMER 01-4140 -4100 40.50 APR MATER CORER 01-OW2100 15.34 APR HATER CORER 01-4280-2200 6.28 APR MATER CORER 73- 7300-2200 6.28 APR HATER CORER 78- 7800-2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 99.60 JK-CO 1010 GLENN INDLEADOD VEDOR TOTAL 99.60 G19M 335.00 APR K Ctrl SERV i3- 7300 5/16/90 5/16/90 335.00 JAL-0 1010 COPIER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL 335.00 G1975 22.86 PPD-DEC ADV 71-7100-3500 5/16/90 5/16190 22.66 JVL-CD 1010 GTE DIIECI IES SERVICE Cf YOM TOTAL 22.86 M2120 15.75 APR POSTAL VERIF 01-4060-3210 5/16/90 5/16/90 15.75 JK-CD 1010 NEW CO DEPT OF PROPERTY T VENDOR TOTAL 15.75 M2140 9.00 EARPIECE 22-4170.2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 9.00 JK-CT 1010 NOM CO SIOtIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 9.00 M2160 568.00 NARCM BOARD 01-4110-4230 5/16190 5/16/90 568.00 JK-CD 1010 NEW 00 TREASURER YEW TOTAL 566.00 M2180 30.00 H AZ WASTE RMINAR-ROY 01- 4140-4110 5/16/90 5/16/90 30.00 JK-CD 1010 iEIN COUNTY TIER VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 M2255 60.00 115E OF EGUIPNENT 73-7300-4200 312.00 LABOR- COIP06T SITE 01- 4270 -1300 5/16/90 5/16/90 392.00 JK -CD 1010 HAW SIMAR YEW TOTAL 392.00 12329 475.00 PMTS FIT CDJM- NIAVdU 01-4140-4110 5/16190 5/16/90 475.00 JK-CD 1010 INSTITUTE FOR AEROBICS RE+ VENDOR TOTAL 475.00 • lkl� AMR O f u n.. n waC u u U Atl♦ N -OOQ -01 CITY OF HM TINE 14.24.1E IMOa IMIOICE RE NDLD PIE -M11 an b. MICE MMK BATE DATE STATIB IMP DESCRIPTION AlxIQ am mm ow 1 UK 12400 25.00 TO11 04 01-4140.4240 361.62 REPAIR 942,844,CELO 01- 4140.3110 44.00 TON IT TRK TO KENNEDY TWO 01-4340.3110 23.95 SCOPE 111 73-7300 -3110 5/16/90 5/16/90 454.57 JIIL-CO 1010 ISM PM11 SK LLLY VENDOR TOTAL 454.57 J2421 590.00 MY JANITOR SERV 01- 4320 -4210 50.66 AMT JANITOR SERV 01-4210-4200 50.67 MAY JANITOR SEW 73- 7300.4200 50.67 MAY JANITOR SEW 71-7100-4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 742.00 JAL-CO 1010 J 6 S MEWING CO. VENDOR TOTAL 742.00 ,12333 6.87 APR MILEAGE 71- 7100.2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 6.87 JANL-CD 1010 JOEL Mm VENDOR TOTAL 6.87 J2560 416.00 1FDA COF-NWMAN 01-4090 -4110 5/16/90 5/16/90 416.00 JRNL-CD 1010 JOM L 1011tH VENDOR TOTAL 416.00 K26M 532.00 m,Kx -00 125 73-7300 -4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 532.00 JAL-CO 1010 KNUDA VBDOR TOTAL 512.00 L2752 58.33 APR GAfiOI.IIE 22- 4170 -2210 5/16/90 5/16/90 58.33 JWNL -CD 1010 LABATT'S SPRING PART( SPUR YOM TOTAL 56.33 L2811 84.09 MR ORDERS 73- 7300 -2120 5/16/90 5/16/90 84.09 JRNL -CD 1010 UIRSOI PRINTING i GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 84.09 L2ft 1,453.50 2ND QTR TNSlJWQ 01- 4020-3610 612.00 2ND QTR INSAMCE 01 -4040 -3610 612.00 2ND QTR IN51JRANCE 01- 4090 -3610 102.00 21D QTR IKL5IWINCE 01-4110-3610 3,825.00 21D QTR INS WNCE 01-4140-3610 38.00 2ND QTR IN AANCE 01-4150-3610 612.00 21D QTR lM3J WCE 01- 4190-3610 3,952.50 X QTR IIISFAlCE 01-4280 -3610 337.00 N QTR 101RANCE 01- 4290 -3610 153.00 210 QTR IMWALE 01- 4320 -3610 969.00 2111 QTR INSIWWCE 01-4340-3610 3,570.00 2ND QTR INSIWWCE 22-4170 -3610 146.50 2ND QTR INSURANCE 71-7100-3610 1,741.00 21D QTR INSLRAKCE 73-7300-3610 • lb to • 411 YMIR I Y UMLhA b JUUMNNL Ulllt 31161* AP-0O2-01 CITY OF MO11O TK 14.24.32 %am INVOICE ME WILD 9IE4AI! an 10. MICE VW DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT OWIPTION ACCOITT "m am am 0 O E 2,741.00 20 OTR INSUl0NCE 78- 1800 -3610 5/16/90 5/16/90 21,881.50 AL-cD 1010 LEAOE OF A CITIES INS Tt YOM TOTAL 21884.50 Lml 300.00 89 k= COP AUDIT 01-4280-3600 1,770.00 89 M COP AUDIT 01- 4140.3600 250.00 89 WX COP AUDIT 71- 7100 -3600 100.00 89 IM CORP AUDIT 01-4190-3600 3/16/90 5/16/90 2,420.00 AL-CD 1010 LEA RE OF MN CITIES DS Tt VENDOU TOTAL 2420.00 L2w 47.61 IAL -IAR EIP-DNIA6- HAIVIE 1 01 -4140 -4110 5/16/90 5/16/90 47.61 JK-CD 1010 LEONARD IARMI. YETOIII TOTAL 47.61 L2910 8.54 ELECTION MTG LtID 01- 4060 -4120 5/16/90 5/16/90 8.54 JK-CD 1010 LINDA STRONG YBW TOTAL 8.54 11911 9.76 MILEAGE 01- 4090-3340 5/16/90 5/16/90 9.76 JK-CD 1010 LOMB SANDIIIIST YOM TOTAL 9.76 L2920 5.47 FITTING, 01- 4340-3820 5/16/90 5/16/90 5.47 JK-CD 1010 LOW LANG: FORD TK13 VOW TOTAL 5.47 L2930 535.88 APR AUTO PARTS 01-4290-2310 12.80 APR AUTO PARTS 22- 4170-2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 548.68 J1NL-CD 1010 LOELL'S AU1O DTIVE /IITC& VEMDM TOTAL 50.66 L2940 1,845.00 REMOVE TREES 01-4340 -5110 1,260.00 TRIM TREES 81-4350 -5110 1/16/90 5/16/90 3,105.00 JK-CD 10 , 10 LUTI TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 3105.00 M2980 60.66 12V MOTOR DUAL SHAFT O1- 4280-2310 90 5/16/90 60.66 JK-CD 1010 MACKM EWIPMENT , VENDOR TOTAL 60.66 M3040 170.00 JUNE EN'ORS MAINT 01- 4095-3800 5/16/90 5/16/90 171).00 JK-CD 1010 MASTS CORPORATION VE?w TOTAL 170.00 M3080 248.00 APR SFRV- SMOKING EVALUATION 01-4320 -3100 • 411 rift b ► U 11 b M M 3 L J U U a N M L Unit J190i ry AP' -0001 CITY OF !WO TDE 14.24.32 11EIOM HANDLE BE MILD WPM am 10. MIOIUE M 01 DATE STATUS AMMT DESC RRTIM AImm M M MINT DWI MTE 1,560.00 AM ENMN-TIREDDCLYDE 26- 5700 -3100 64.00 MR 90 -DEPOT 0 60-6000-3100 192.00 APR 80-COM -L"WM SIGNAL 66-6000-3100 16.00 APR EIMR -M/S KPT 73-7300-3100 2, 304.00 APR ETMt -M/S UT,LIFT STA IIPG 79- 7900-3100 %.00 APR M-STREET KPT 01-4280-3100 4, 498.00 APR EM-CITY NrL AM 30-6000-5000 214.00 APR 90-IS PARK REPAIRS 01- 4310-3100 64.00 APR Elo-CID LOTS 60-6000-3100 128.00 APR 00-LOU LAM STOIMIE 60 -6000-3100 64.00 APR 00- DFNOItAR-AMESS 26-110 -0000 224.00 APR 80-90 SEALCOAT 27 -5900 -3100 19, 337.85 ARCMIT FEE THIN M-C HALL ADD *4000 -MM 208.00 APR M-MI IEFT 01-4190-3100 64.00 APR Bm-am 01-4190-3100 64.00 APR Elo- IESTF?]M 01- 410 -3100 32.00 APR 00-LM DRIVE 01°4190-3100 3/161" 5/16/90 29,377.85 AL-0 1010 II COi6 FRAM( R1$ AMUCI* YOM TOTAL 29377.85 83207 37.47 TETRMINRLS,SCRE11S 01- 4290 -2310 5/16/90 5/16/90 37.47 A&-CD 1010 RIPEST BOLT i %MY Yoram TOTAL 37.47 mm 44.28 APR GAS 71- 7100-3720 182.45 APR GAS 22-4170-3720 125.35 APR GAG 01-4°20-3720 259.89 APR OAS 01-4310-3720 81.45 APR GAS 01-4280-3720 95.82 APR GAG 73- 7300-3720 62.29 APR ON 78- 7800-3720 5/16/90 5/16/90 851.53 JOL-CC 1010 RIIIECA M) VENDOR TOTAL 851.53 mm 163.35 FACEPIECE 22- 4170 -7100 5/16/90 5116190 163.35 AL-CD 1010 MM MMINAT FIRE i SAFETY VODOR TOTAL 163.35 M3710 17.78 BMT,DOORSTWS 01- 4290 -22W 14.28 GLASS 22- 4170-3830 13.33 UM,GLOVE `a- 7800-2200 4.90 TUBING 3-7800-2300 5/16/90 5/16190 50.19 AL-CD 1010 NPAW E MWOMMiE VENDOR TOTAL 50.:9 N3740 136.60 BLACK LETTERS 01-4310 -2300 460.80 SIGNS -NO CONGREGATING 40 -6000 -2200 64,35 WHITE LETTERS 01- 4280-2360 5/161% 5/16190 663.75 JIRL-CD 1010 MEMO SIGHS VENDOR TOTAL 663.7° • • • /G 1 Oz. Pak y r U It L" N) t J U U N M N L Limit Jf ►o/ •v W-M-01 CITY IF ND1N TILE 14.11.31 VMR WILE I1fE ILLD FOIE -FAIR ow W. ISOICE WON 07E MHE SFAT16 MW 9ES01IPTION ACCOIW ow AOMT ow 0 SAVE Nwo 337.66 APRLL EEECIVICiTY 01 -4190 -3710 • 152.39 APRIL ELECIRICITY 01- 4310-3710 462.22 APRL 82MICITY 01-4320-3710 320.3 APRIL ELECTRICITY 71-7100-3710 209.30 APRIL ELECTRICITY 22-4170 -3710 2,266.90 APRIL ELECTRICITY 73- 7300-3110 1, 722.29 AFRO. ELECTRICITY 78- 7900-3110 5/16190 5/16/90 5,478.13 JK-0 1010 WRIN Tit STATES FOB CO YOM TOTAL 5478.13 P4031 162.00 6,7,8 1W-R TW K= 01-4140-1510 162.00 6,7,8 HOBP -dRTS 71 -7100 -1510 205.45 ,lVE HOW-N TWNLSUN 01- 4140 -1510 5/16/90 5/16/90 529.45 JOL-(I1 1010 PNTSICIAI6 OF MN VENDOR TOTAL 529.45 P42W 497.05 90 Isms 22- 4170-3610 5 /16/90 5/16/90 497.05 AL-0 1010 R L Y0116DA11L 6 ASSOCIATES YEWM TOTAL 497.05 84240 247.00 10:1001 FEES 01-4140-4270 5/16/90 5/16/90 247.00 JOL-m 1010 FED-RIU WNELS VEWW TOTAL 247.00 84314 90.00 KNIVES 01- 4140-2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 90.00 JK-CD 1010 MaR l MITIFIM VE1MOt TOTAL 90.00 54347 722.75 RENT BAR ICADES 73 -7300 -4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 722.75 AL-0 1010 SAFE T FLAFE VE1M TOTAL 722.75 54390 2,305.42 .ALE RENT 71- 7100 -3920 5/16/90 5/16/90 2,305.42 JAL-CD 1010 SHORELINE PLAZA YEIOOt TOTAL 2305.42 54430 425.00 BOTTLE TAGS 71-7t00 -n00 5/16/90 5/16/90 425.00 JK-CD 1010 SOS PRINTING %UW TOTAL 475.00 54438 227.33 PISTON,VALVE KITS 22-4170 -2200 5/16/90 5/16190 227.33 At-CD 1010 SPECIALTY E1IUIPFENT CO. YOW TOTAL 2:7.33 54498 117.00 EIFI AD 01- 4190-4100 5/16/90 5/16/90 117.00 ,TRW a 1010 1613 PAM 10 PURCHASE JOURNAL 147E 5116/90 1-002-01 CITY OF HON TINE 14.24.32 VENW INVOICE W NOD P E-ftI2 On 10. INVOICE WIN OR NOW STATUS A OW OEDOFTION A1F ru lum am am 8 "If Still 1NIAAE Ym TOTAL 217.00 S1199 41.58 ALIGN S10 Pit 73-7300-3810 5/16/0 5 /16190 41.58 ,III-0 1010 STAN-WEST U)EV as Y9WN TOTAL 41.58 Sam 30.00 VIA STST OPER-SHAN,KIY 73-7300.4110 5/16/90 5/16/90 30.00 .181-0 tOIO STATE TRFA9IEN YOM TOTAL 30.00 S4580 798.92 FII UIRIIG 01-4280.4200 5/1610 5/16/90 796.92 JRH1 -D 1010 STEFIE ELECTRIC CO YEMWH TOTAL 796.92 S4600 37.90 ANlO 01-4140.2200 5/16/90 5/16/90 37.90 AI-CD 1010 STREIDER'S YOM TOTAL 37.90 54642 482.50 REPAIR AUTO COI EQUIP 73- 7300 -4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 482.50 .fll-CD 1010 SYSTEMS SERVICE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 482.50 T4716 29.75 TEMP HELP 0I- 4270-1300 5/16/90 5/16/90 29.75 ,181-0 1010 TEIMWIES TO 00 YE WN TOTAL 29.75 T4730 7.80 APR LBAL-NO SMOKING PILICT 01-4320-3100 76.70 NPR LEGALS 01-WZO-3510 15.60 APR LEWS 01-4190.3510 20.00 AKIN LEW-EASTER PROMO 71-7100 -3500 29.76 EW AO-PT 71- 7100-3410 5/16190 5/16/90 149.86 ,181-CD 1010 THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 149.86 T4780 23.60 FILM 22- 4170-2200 5/16/90 5/16190 23.60 AIL-CD 1010 THRIFTY SNYDER DRUG NO4 VEND TOTAL 23.60 T4890 143.90 TOOLS 78-7800 WM 5/16190 5/16/`: 143.90 BUCD 1010 TOOLS 1 WHITED VENDOR TOTAL 143.90 T4940 810.46 REPAIR PUP 78- 7800-3800 5/16/90 5/16190 610.46 JRP&-CD 1010 TRT-STATE PUP i CONTROL I VEND TOTAL 810.4A • 1W9 .'.%, !1 A/-OOC-OI r un, n„ a uuue qw, CITY OF MW TINE 14.:4.32 IWIll WAICE BE HLO FIE-PAID ow 0. maim I01101 DATE NYE STATUE NOW DESCRIPTION ALCOW mm mw 0®c A WE 375.00 WIC SPEW- HUDSON 01-4140 -4110 er 5116190 5/16190 315.00 JAIL-0 1010 E M MIS 6 AMIATES VEIllm TOTAL 375.00 *430 147.54 STM PIPES 73- 30p .'30p 5/16190 5/100 147.54 ,yt-M 1010 WTER PITS CON W YOM TOTAL 147.54 1,312.50 REPLACE STOWIPES 73-7300-3[!00 1,965.00 REPAIR LINE- IIILLIN IS 73- 7300 -.03W 258.00 RIP RAP- BARTLETT 01-4280-4200 549.80 R!P RAP -TWAIW 01-4280-4200 5/16/90 5/16/90 4,084.30 JRIL-0 1010 111111" TIC VEWW TOTAL 4084.30 16690 2,651.82 343.5 T BUCISIDT 27- 5800 -'.'340 5/16/90 5/16/90 2,6`..i.K JRIL -0 1010 M NAELI.ER i SOB VENKIR TOTAL 2651.9? 8150 402.98 MY LEASE 5052 01- 4320-5000 278.20 APR MINT 5052 01-4320 -3800 516/90 5116f90 681.08 JRNL-CD 1010 1IElg1 CO WATIO1 VENOW TOTAL 681.08 e m 385.25 DE94EM 01-4 - 90-,+50 5/16/90 5/16190 385+.25 JK-CD 1010 MIS IIC VEND TOTAL 385.25 TOTAL ALL VEIM 111,310.89 /9/,5- C l CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT APRIL 1990 33.39 APRIL YTD PER CM BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIYap -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - ---- GENERAL FUND Taxes 1262190 0 2172 1260018 0.1T% Intergovernmental 780860 0 17152 763708 2. ,109 Business Licenses 9950 610 1503 8447 15.119 Non - Business Licenses and Permits 86700 4469 13750 72950 15.469 Charges for Services 34800 879 3255 31545 9.359 Court Fines 95000 5762 16758 78242 17.649 Charges to Other Departments 20000 1239 6453 13547 42.279 Other Revenue 49300 -1506 4803 44497 9.749 TOTAL REVENUE 2338800 11453 65846 2272954 2.82% LIQUOR FUND 900000 69739 260401 639599 28.939 WATER FUND 360000 25405 97448 262552 27.079 SEWER FUND 590000 48489 194110 395890 32.909 DOCKS FUND 62950 925 55105 7845 87.549 CEMETERY FUND 2000 0 2800 -800 140.00% • L J 161L r � /4 /7 CITY OF !MOUND 1990 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES APRIL 1990 33.3% APRIL YTD PER CENT BUDGET -- EXPENSE - -- EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- Council 63890 3854 25862 38028 40.48% Cable TV 10150 0 8738 1412 86.09% City Manager /Clerk 166310 13348 60977 105333 36.66% Elections 11400 16 1510 9890 13.25% Assessing 43320 20 328 42992 0.76% Finance 162030 14627 49482 112548 30.54% Computer 22150 2833 10929 11221 49.34% Legal 80900 7618 20764 60136 25.67% Police 717850 49717 248110 469740 34.56% Civil Defense 2750 0 317 2433 11.53% Planning /Inspections 145000 10613 45292 99708 31.24% • Recycling 60670 344 18779 41891 30.95% Streets 382890 31497 121080 261810 31.62% Shop i Stores 61440 5194 23130 38310 37.65% City Property 84200 3582 12792 71408 15.19% Parks 148560 8147 25014 123546 16.84% Summer Recreation 11310 0 0 11310 0.00% Contingencies 30000 1400 3306 26694 11.02% Transfers 122270 - - - - -- 10048 - - - - -- 40192 - - - - -- 82078 - - - - -- 32.87% - - - - -- GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2327090 162858 716602 1610488 30.79% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 19285 69924 144366 32.63% Liquor Fund 163450 13129 55139 108311 33.73% Water Fund 347930 30052 126266 221664 36.29% Sewer Fund 771560 46649 198077 573483 25.67% Cemetery Fund 3680 0 806 2874 21.90% Docks Fund 62950 1054 52095 10855 82.76% r � /4 /7 Rn MAY i i Wo MINUTES OF A MEETING Me THE MM ADVISON'1f P1.AINING COIMl1SGION May 7 1990 Those present were: Chair 8111 Meyer, Commissioners Goff " _ Michael, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Bill Thal, Bili Voss, Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Manager Ed Shukle, Clty Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Those Absent were Commissioners Kqn Smith and Jerry Clapsaddle. MINUTES: Mueller commented on the lost page of the minutes, referring to Section 319147= confirming that staff will investigate what con- stitutes a "seasonal home." MOTION mode by Mueller seconded by Thai to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 23, 1990 as sub- mitted. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALSs a. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to replace an existing 14' x 14' deck with a 12' x 18' screened Porch. The existing deck Is setback 35 feet from the Lakeshore. The proposed porch will be setback 37 feet from the Lakeshore, and therefore, will encroach 2 feet less than the existing deck. Staff recommended approval of the 13 foot lakeshore setback variance to construct a 12' x 18' screened porch at the rear of the hone due to the size and configuration of the existing lot. ' Meyer commented that he talked to the applicant, Mr. Tome ike, and he was unable to attend the meeting. MOTION mode by Welland to deny the varIonce request be- cause the proposed porch w111 encroach 2 feet more into the setback than the ex i st I ng dock. Due to 1 ack of a second the motion failed. The Commission clarified that the encroachment Into the setback Is 2 feet IM , not more. MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the City Planner's recommendstion for ap- proval. Voss questioned, "What would prevent the homeowner from convert - 1 ng the porch into a future room ?" Koegler commented that ap- proval can be made to specify construction of a "screened porch" only. I6I% Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1990 Page 2 Thal and Mueller accepted an amendment to the motion to clarify that approval is for a "screened' porch. Motlon carried uron imous 1 y. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. ., M I •1 Arm "1111117 il- MIFF lZ I1L JE E . n = I i ll. :r. • City Planner, Mark Koegier, reviewed the history of seasonal out - door retail sales at the Ben Franklin store. Koegler explained that the zoning code requires seasonal merchandise to be enclosed by walls, fencing or other suitablo materials. The applicant's request, however, is not consistent with these standards. Presently, and in the past, the store has had unenclosed open storage areas at the front of the store for bagged products and at the rear of the store for trees and shrubs which is not in compliance with the zoning code standards. A variance could be issued to allow sales of these unenclosed Items, or this request • could be tabled to allow the applicant to modify his site plan to provide enclosed areas for these products. There is also the issue of Christmas tree sales and pumpkin sales which are also displayed unenclosed. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission table this item and direct the applicant to meet with staff to see if this Issue can be resolvfd with a modification to the existing proposal. It Is possible to establish a phasing of future improvements which would satisfy the enclosure requirements identified in the definition. The commissioners commented on the appearance of the store. The consensus of the Commission was that the bags in the front of the store do not look nice, and they preferred to table the request as suggested by the City Planner. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Applicant, John Royer, commented that he has operated the store for 16 years, and admitted that every year the outdoor sales have grown. He has never heard any complaints from citizens on the appearance of his store. He al3o Feels that the tree and shrub sales at the rear of the lot blend in with the background and look nice In that location. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of treating the pumpkin and Christmas tree sales as separate applicatlol 1119 Planning C- emission Minutes May 7, 1990 Page 3 MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Voss to approve staff recommendation to table the Conditional Use Permit request to allow staff and applicant the opportunity to further review the proposal. Motion carried unanim- ously. This public hearing will be continued by the Planning Commission after staff and the applicant have had the opportunl *v to meet. C. Case No. 90 -916: Lawrence Pillar. 2157 Grandview Blvd., Lots 6. 7. i Of Koehler's Second Addition to Mound. PiD 814- 117-24-42 0012, MINOR SUBDIVISION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a minor subdivision. Both parcels will meet the lot area require- ments. Parcel A, which contains the existing structure, will require a variance. The structure is setback 24.4 feet from the east property line on Langdon Lane, therefore a 5.6 foot front yard setback variance will need to be granted. The proposed Par- cel B will easily accommodate a new structure with a net building envelope of approximately 42' x 82 Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision and recogni- • tion of the existing front yard setback of 24.4 feet to the east property line upon the following conditions: 1. At the time of building permit Issuance, Parcel B shall be charged one residential park fee in accordance with the fees in effect at that time. 2. The division of the property shall be contingent upon the payment of a one -half unit street asses_tnent in the amount of $914.08. The City Engineer's recommendation was reviewed. His recommenda- tion included the following comments and conditions: 1. According to City records, there are no existing sanitary sewer or water services for Parcel B. 2. The City should have a guarantee that thie utility services will be provided before the lot split Is recorded at Hen- nepin County by either actually doing the installation, sub- mitting escrow money, a bond, etc. The applicant should submit either an estimated cost or a bonafide bid so the amount of surety can be determined. Mueller questioned if there would be any drainage problems due to the elevation of the lot. It was determined that this should not be a problem. Mueller also commented that when the property 1s developed, they try to save as many trees as possible. 1420 Planning Commission Minutes May 7. 1990 Page 4 The location of the driveway being off of Grandview or Langdon was discussed. The applicant commented that he does not have any plans for a home to be built at t h i s t i m e , and the decision of driveway placement would be up to the person who purchases the lot and proposes to build. The applicant, Mr. Pillar, questioned the process for paying the park dedication fee and the street assessment. Koegler informed the applicant that the street assessment must be paid prior to filing the subdivision at the County, and the park dedication fee Is due at the time of building permit issuance. The applicant stated that he would prefer that the assessment also be due at time of building permit issuance. Mr. Pillar also commented on the City Engineer's recommendation to supply a guarantee that the sewer and water services will be installed. He feels this should be she builder's responsibility and would prefer to delete the requirement. Aue11er commented on a previous case off of Rambler where this requirement was deleted. MOTION made by Welland, seconded by Michael, to approve the City Planner and the City Engineer's recommendations for approval with the condition that house numbers will be assigned to both parcels. Motion carried unanim- ously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. d. gne No. 90- 9171 David Holm, 4321 Wilshire Blvd., Metes and sounds, first Rearr. of Phelps Island Park, PIO 119- 117 -23- 13.0003, VARIANCES Lakeshore setback. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a Lakeshore setback variance. The applicant is proposing to build a new home on the site with an 18 foot setback from the lake. The existing home will be occupied while the new structure is being built. The existing home will then be demolished to al- low construction of the attached garage. Due to the depth of the parcel, staff recommended approval of a 32 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence contingent upon the following conditions 1. At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or lettir of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Officla: to guarantee removal of the existing structure. The Commission determined that the proposed lakeshore setback is somewhat consistent with the neighboring properties as they are setback 31 feet and 21 feet. 1621 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1990 Page 5 • MOTION wade by Voss. seconded by Thal to recommend aP- proval of staff recommendation for approval of the variance. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. e. Case No. 90 -918 Richard McCarthy. 4877 Hanover Roads Lots 9. 10, i< Part of 8. Block 16, Devon, PIO 025- 117 -24 -11 0148. VARIANCES fence height and setback. Tf,a City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request for a fence height and setback variance. The applicant is proposing to install a 7 foot high privacy fence along the east property line within 10 feet from the front property line, Hanover Road. Koegler commented that given the grade dlfferen- tial of the surrounding properties, a 7 foot high fence in lieu of the standard 6 foot high fence would provide reasonable privacy along the eastern and southern yard areas of the home. However, If the 7 foot high fence was extended within 10 feet of the Hanover Road property line, it would impede the site distance from vehicles exiting the garage. Staff recommended approval of the one foot high fence variance to is allow construction of a 7 foot high fence. However, staff recom- mended denial of the 10 foot fence setback variance from Hanover Road. A fence observing a 20 foot setback In this area wlII im- prove the site distance from the garage and result in a safer situation. The commission determined that the houses set on each side of the subject garage are setback approximately 15 feet from Hanover Road. They d!scussed the feasibility of allowing the fence to be constructed up to the house line, approximately 15 feet from Hanover. MOTION made by M u e l l e r , seconded by Welland to approve the l foot fence height variance to allow a 7 foot high fence; and to approve a fence setback to allow the fence to be constructed within the required setback, but not exceeding the closest distance that the adjoining struc- tures are setback from Han .)ver. Motion carried unanim- ously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. /6; ;z_ Planning Commission Minutes May 7. 1990 Page 6 f. base No. 90-919: Kenneth Carlson, 5324 Three Points Blvd., Part of Lot 22, Lafayette Park, PiD *13- 117 -24 -21 0044. YM I ANCE . The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to allow a can- tilevered second story addition. The requested variances are as follows: Fronts 29.4 foot setback, .6 foot variance Rear /Lake: 40 foot deck setback, 10 foot variance West Side: 7.1 foot setback, 2.9 foot variance West Side: 2 foot deck setback, 2 foot variance Koegler explained that the applicant is planning to remove the deck on the west side which will bring the west side setback into compliance. Staff recommended recognition of the variances identified above and approval of the variances on the north and south sides of the structure to add a 2 foot cantilever to the second floor addi- tion. Approval of the cantilever will alluw the applicant reasonable use of the property and allow more design flexibility In making the structure more compatible with some of the new homes in the Three Points area. The approval of the variances is contingent on the removal of the existing deck on the west side of the home. The commission discussed the cantilevers and determined that the setbacks should be measured from the cantilevers, not the founda- tion wall. The cantilever towards the south /front was discussed, and it was determined that the existing wall already encroaches into the front yard setback more than the neighboring properties. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Thal to approve the setback variances, allow the 2 foot cantilever to the north, however, the proposed 2 foot cantilever to the south is to be eliminated. Approval is upon the condi- tion that the deck on the west side of the structure be removed. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, 1990. Weiland informed the commission that he received a request from Mr. Gerald Kust to review a variance request at tonights meeting. There was some discussion about the application, and it was determined that it was not submitted until after the due date. is The commission agreed that they would like to hear staff's recom- mendation and visit the site before they make a decision on the request. 163 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 1990 Page 7 City Council Representative Report Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of Apr 11 24, 1990, the Committee of the Whole meeting of May I, 1990, and the agenda for the meeting of May 8, 1990. The Commission discussed the issue of opening wells to help the lake level. Meyer commented that he would like to see more in- formation on capping the wells. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recognize that the Mound Advisory Planning Commission opposes the opening of the wells, and are in favor of capping the wells. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Thal to adjourn the meeting at 9129 p.m. Chair, Bill Meyer . Attest: C. Iea.y April 27, 1900 Mr. Jim Glasoe Westonka Community Services 5600 Lynwood Blvd Mound, Mn 55364 Dear Jim: At the City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 24, 1990, the City Council approved the agreements for the 1990 parks program and the 1990 lifeguards program. They did, however, have some questions with regard to the parks program and the fees that are charged under Community Services Office Staff. The budget calls for $1500 for this which also states that it pays for your time • as well as secretarial time. In addition, you have an administrative fee of $2,100.68. We are not clear as to why the administrative fee is charged in addition to the secretarial time and your time. Is there a difference? If so, what is it? The Council also questioned the same issue under the lifeguards program where there is $200 of supervision and an adm.'listrative fee charged of $2,337.01. The same question is asked. Also, of concern is the mileage item under the l..feguards program. One of the Councilmembers questioned the figure of 1100 miles. Could you furnish us with mileage logs for the past two years, 1988 and 1989; to show us Nhat mileage there is around the beaches in Mound? I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. I ncerel,y,� t Edward ;J. Shukle, — �T City Mainager ES: I s 11 RECD MAY 1 1 SU WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS MEPENDE Sf HOOL DISMCT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD • MOUND, MINNESOTA .`,5364 • PHONE: 472 -1600 • May 8, 1990 Mr. Edward J. Shukle Jr. City Manager City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Ed, Thank you for your letter of April 27, 1990. I was pleased to learn the C'.ty Council had approved the Parks and Lifeguard program plans for 1990. Once again I look forward to working with you and your staff. With respect to the questions the council raised, I will attempt to answer them accordingly. In response to the question, why an administrative fee and supervision time both appear in the parks and lifeguard budgets? I offer the following. The $1500.00 figure in the parks program budget is mislabeled and is not intended to reflect both secretarial and supervisory time. It is approximately 100 hours that I spend annually in preparing, supervising and evaluating both the Parks and Lifeguard programs. As you will note, the lifeguard budget contains no charges for supervisory time beyond that of the Lifeguard Coordinator. That $1500.00 figure is time that the Lifeguard Coordinator spends in direct supervision of the lifeguard staff. It does not include any expenditures for my time nor any other Community Services staff person. The 15% administrative fee is a District directive imposed to oft set costs that are not customarily identified in contract fees. Some examples of services provided for this fee include: preparation, printing, binding and mailing of quarterly brochures which detail the Parks and Lifeguard programs, personnel, payroll and accounts payable functions for all parks and lifeguard staff and expenditures, computer input for scheduling and registration relative to the respective programs, word processing functions for staff and program materials, flyers etc., liability coverage for all program employees, housing of all program equipment and supplies and non - coordination, secretarial staff time for handling of phone calls, registration and related duties. L J 16 -4 • Finally, in response to the concern regarding the lifeguard mileage figures, the following should assist in clarification. I have enclosed copies of the programs mileage forms that I have from last year. In addition, I have instructed our business department to forward all forms from 1988 and 1989 as requested. As evidenced by the enclosed sheets, the average daily mileage figure for 1989 was approximately 10.5 miles. For 1990, I have revised the Coordinators daily travel schedule which will result in an increase in daily mileage to approximately 13 miles per day. If I may, I will do the mathematics to further clarify the situation. 13 miles x 56 days of roving = 728 miles, 1100 - 728 = 372, which are miles I estimate that I will use to supervise the lifeguards from Memorial Day week end to Labor Day. If there is any additional information I can provide for you, or questions I can answer regarding the above Information, please feel free to contact me at 472- 0343. • Sincerely, i /)9rr i Glasoe stonka Community Services Enc. (3) 0 1G27 DIST. EMPLOYEE DATE .'.. T VENDOR 1 277 1 - a ..ACCOUNT NUMBER PURCHASE CRO:.R 0 s T r P F PD 0110 PRO FIN ON CRS R AMOUNT O L C AMOUNT ► ► `"INVOICE NUM8EII 1 T C T R 1 2 1 t ! 11 1314 1. 17 1t 20 2223 2S :6127 36137 3/26127 36i37.]tSt 6 ,16 2 E I 21 1 2 E 2 EXPENDITURE DEBIT PURCHASE OROER - OEWT 4REOIT • 4 O. DISCOUNT PARTIAL - GENERAL LEDGER C- ^.REOIT INVEN C•CREDIT ;i'._ F•FREIGHT '.i PULL. •1 SUPPLIES t S • SALES TAX. 1 - •LANKET -\ A- ADJUST MONTHLY MILEAGE & EXPENSE REPORT t lots Date Trip Record (to) - Total M"s • �1 1 Rhr am D emp Slfl • Date(( up•rvlsor Slpnatur• ' 27T Q ACCOUNT NUMBER f Po ova • ' PRO P oar cRs A • 1] 1. 16 17 If 20 2227 E E 4 r EMPLOYEE y DATE y �T1' VEN QOE 1 PURCHASE ORDER _ ]PI g TAT O C AMOUNT • I INVOICE NNIIABFR AMOUNT C T R l j 127 1�,])3�26i27_ _ ] 6i]7.] Si • 2 E 2 E 2 L E 2 E y Ex ►ENO�r VRE DElIT PURCMASEORDER DEBIT CREDIT .4 D• DISCOUNT PARTIAL GENERAL LEDGER C•CREpIT IN C- CREDIT "iC , .9 l i; f- :f/tEIGNT PyLI.T tJ:: SUPPLIES - f . Q;i . S - SALES TAX 1 1 - - BLANKET.. t:' j10 :!O ',:IA30k0JU;yj "I• - '' %I' ' :.-�., - - - - MONTHLY MILEAGE & EXPENSE REPORT 6 O` c' Date Trip Record (to) Total Miles 1 lUv.'r1ll�;:� j - - n0 Total S Total Mileage and Other Allowable Expense $ r / / r y r--` • Employee; I /G 06 4 upervlsor 8lpnatue Rev 9100 DIST. Y - "a`• EM�L 277 ,! ACCOUNT NUM9fM C PURCHASE CADE PD' 1 '000 I PRO FIN I nei CAS AMOUNT [9—M11 13114 1411 19120 2223 23 - 7 -AmOmi , i Cif . �'wlplfs! A E E T E I T ; E Z � ^ :' ^ ^ ten E X PENDITURE 0EE1T FVwCKASEORDEw OEeIT MEOpIT•I O�Op00YNT �ANTIAfL• G GENERAL LEOGER C •CREDIT INVENTOwr •e' �:pwEO1T . 9aX� 14 - - • 2 ?�'ri;:FwE T':rlOv •i1/Lt.� SUPPLIEf-.t. J .,S-SAIEitAl . '1•fi SLlfl 9�i �,�ifM�tC+fiZ �►nC A- ADJUBT MILEAGE & EXPENSE RE FOR t' MONTHLY Da te Trip Record (to) Tatty EEtra 0 , r u 16 z I�` MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PARK a OPEN SPACE COMMISSION • MAY 10, 1910 Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey, Steve Burke, Neil Weber, Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleson, and Carolyn Schmidt. Council Representative Phyllis Jessen, Park Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent was: Commissioner Cathy Bailey. The following citizens were in attendance: Ed Freidlund, Eric Berglund, Gary Breuhan, Jim Ostman, Lee Henderson, and Gert Gerold. M inwtes The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of April 12. 1990 were presented for changes and /or additions. Casey made the following suggested changes and corrections: Page 3, 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence: The commissioners agreed that it was a good plan as they discussed the site plan did not Incur any decisions as to what improvements should be made however, the depot is the main concern at this point. Page 3, last paragraph, within the motion: MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Bailey, to recommend to the City Council to move ahead with the building im- provements so citizens can enjoy the Mound depot for years to come. The Commissioners agreed that a site plan did not Incur any decisions as to when improvements should or should not be made. In addition, recommend that the City Planner proceed with the site plan for the park. Motion carried unanimously. Page 4, 6th paragraph: Page 71_ 3rd paragraph, 4th = sentence to read: As-cont•i-ftded Before future development and--fatare redevelopment occurs, the City may acquire additional park land if . . ." And 4th paragraph, at the end of the first sentence. the following should be added: " . . ., and to preserve the plant and animal life by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enlovmsnt of to future generations." Page 4, last paragraph: Page 80: Last Second paragraph, feet second sentence should be added Mmended to read, "However, figures indicate a shortage of community parks and nature conser- vation areas." Casey referred to page 85, number S. Page 5, 1st paragraph: Page 85: Number 5. before -the At beoin- n1na of to seconded sentence insert the word "Native," Casey stated the - fp}}pw - shou}d- be- eddedi "We we have allegation to put native plants into our parks." Weber argued the Issue that native plants are not always the best plants to use. /44,3/ � wt h Park i Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Pow 2 Page 7, 5th paragraph: ". . . Bonnie Pop kei Horywr who is with the Department of Transportation; ." MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Asleson to approve the Park Ga olsslon Minutes of April 12, 1990 as awe 'rim d. Motion carried unanimously. Guest speaker Ca l Straus fr= the M. Straus explained that she works with the Division of Maters and they process permits for protected waters. They regulate through the permit program anything that would alter the cross section, course, or current in a wetland or lake, such as: dredging, structures, filling, etc. Casey questioned how we evaluate sand blankets if it exceeds the allowable size. Straus stated that a sand blanket creates a sterile environment where there was value to the overall ecosys- tem. However, you need to balance what Is reasonable with recreational use, with preservation of the resource. An effort is made to concentrated Impacts of sterile environments. Casey questioned, as citizens of the community, how do we help e you evaluate the impacts? Straus answered that they need infor- matlon relating to the conditions of the soil or vegetation of the subject location, the history of the location, if it will be a great impact to that location, etc. Casey questioned if the DNR could supply the City with a check list that may be useful to the local governments when reviewing ONR applications, even though he is aware they do not have juris- diction below the ordinary high water level. The Impacts of dredges was b r i e f l y discussed and what the city needs to look for when reviewing a dredge application. Straus Informed the Commission that she will forward a check list for their use when processing DNR applications. "car Ino for late applications from abuttIno dock holders Mr. Ed Freldlund of 4909 island View Drive, Site #73770 was present to request renewal of his dock permit for the 1990 season. Jim Fackler informed the Commission that his late fee would be $40.00. Mr. Freldlund stated that he did not submit.his application for his dock on time because of the low water. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Casey to approve the late dock permit application for Ed Freldlund upon the condition that he pay the late fee of $40.00. Motion carried unanimously. This matter will be forwarded to the City Council on May 22, 1990 1 632, for their final approval. n • Park i Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 3 Mr. Djupstrom Is a Scientific and Natural Areas Program Super- visor. Casey invited Djupstrom to enlighten the Park Commission on the issue of Native Plants. DJupstrom handed out some posters and pamphlets to the Commissioners on the subject of Native Plants. Djupstrom noted that the City of White Bear Lake, since December, has been involved in amending the Noxiol Weed ordinance, and hopefully in early June after one more public hearing, the amend- ment will be adopted. Presently it is illegal to maintain grasses greater than 12 inches tail in White Bear Lake, and of course, native prairie species can grow to 4 and 5 feet tall. Djupstrom reviewed advantages of using Native Plants: i 1. Have evolved with our vigorous climate. 2. Tend to be more drought tolerant. 3. Are winter hardy. - 4. Are more tolerable to insects. S. Are less susceptible to wind damage. 6. Contribute to water conservation. 7. Have less need'for pesticide use. S. Far less need for chemical fertilizers. Mr. Djupstrom referred to the proposed resolution on Native Plants which Casey submitted to the Commission, and he feels it Is a fine proposal. it was determined by the Commisslon that they would review the proposed resolution later in the meeting. al Jim Fackler explained that Bruehan's property abuts both private and commons 1akeshore. The private dock site which Bruehan has used In the past is not usable this year due to low water, there- fore, Bruehan, is requesting a commons deck. Bruehan feels that since his property abuts commons property he should have first priority to a site, however, no sites are available in front of his property. Fackler referred to the City Attorney's Opinion Letter dated April 18, 1990, which states: "it would not appear to me that this would be sufficient cause for Mr. Bruehan to remove some other person from the Commons. if the Park and Open Space Commission • wishes to amend the dock location map and to find another location for the gentleman, that would be up to that Commission and the City Council. The ordinance ap- pears to have taken Into account this type of situation, and it would appear that based on what you have told me, he does not have a first priority." 14 33 Park & Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 4 The priorities, as listed in City Code Section 437.05, Subd. 7a were reviewed. First priority is basically given to abutting commons property owners, and third priority is given to residents owning private Lakeshore which has dockable lake frontage. Fackler informed the Commission that they did offer Bruehan a commons dock site which Is down Waterside Lane a little ways from his property. Applicant, Bruehan, stated that he feels since the first priority states "abutting owner" to commons property and he maintains the commons, he should have first priority. It was determined that this Is a unique situation. Bruehan stated that he wants a guarantee that he can get a commons dock site in front of his house every year. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Jessen to grant Mr. 9ruehan the available commons dock site on Waterside Lane which was peev1ous1y offered to him by the Park Director, due to the fact that he Is a private Lakeshore owner. • Casey suggested that maybe next year, or the following year, a • site will open that abuts his property. It was determined that since Bruehan will then be a dock holder, he will have second priority the next year. Bruehan agreed that he could live with this decision, however, he would prefer to have a dock on the commons abutting his property. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on May 229 1990. Allocation of Park Funds, Commissioner Schmidt informed the Commission that her neighbors have been asking her about the allocation of park funds for 1990 and if improvements can be made to Avalon Park. Schmidt also mentioned that she and her neighbors are interested in seeing im- provements to Doone Park, Wychwood Beach, and Swenson Park. The history of this Issue was reviewed by the Park Director. He explained that the allocation of these funds wlis put on hold un- til It was declr'ed, at the April meeting, what Improvements would be made to the uepot and where the funds could come from. Fack- ler stated that it was reviewed In the past that instead of pur- chasing large playground units this year, a number of small Im- provements should be made, such as. garbage cans, benches, stairways on the commons, etc. IL34 Park i Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Page S Andersen stated that she would like to see some tennis courts in- stalled through the five year plan. The Commission recalled that last year they had promised Chester Park would receive some playground equipment, and that Avalon Park would receive some picnic tables and possibly a couple of small pieces of playground equipment. Weber commented that he received two phone calls from persons regarding equi - rent at Chester Park. Lee Henderson of 4435 Dorchester Road, Jim Ostman of 2945 Island View Drive, and Gert Gerold of 4600 Manchester Road were all present to speak on behalf of Avalon Park. Henderson requested that some sort of boundary be erected defining the property line between the park and Cable's property. The shape of the lot and the types of boundaries were discussed. It was determined that Commissioner Schmidt would have a neigh- borhood meeting to discuss Improvements to the park. Schmidt will contact all abutting owners to the Park and the secretary will supply her with a list of the dock holders. Weber suggested the meeting be held in the park. MOTION aisle by Jessen, seconded by Weber that Comals- s i oner Schmidt chair a coma i ttee that Includes the i w- • mediate neighborhood to discuss improvements at Avalon Park and submit a recommendation, with prlorltles listed, at the June Park Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Improvements to other parks was discussed. Weber stated that he will contact Julie Hunter to discuss the type of equipment to be installed at Chester Park. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Asleson, that Weber will contact Julie Hunter to arrange a Chester Park Com- mittee meeting to discuss the type of playground equip- ment needed, and to submit a recommendation at the June Park Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Casey that the Park Director submit, at the .rune meeting, a list of Improve- ments he wants at the parks other than playground equip- ment, such as: steps, trees, benches, etc. before any more park equipment Is allocated. This list should In- clude cost estimates. Motion carried unanimously. Fackler noted that Carlson park will regjjire some repairs after the dredge which was done this winter. It was agreed that Chester Park needs a nice garbage can. • 1935- Park a Open Space Commission Meeting May 10, 1990 Page 6 ftMped Native Plant Resolution. MOTION made by Casey to adopt the proposed Native Plant Resolution as submitted with the following amendments: 1) On page 2. add before the second paragraph: "WHEREAS, In genera 1 , compered to non - native plant species, native plant communities, when estab- lished, generally require less fertilizers, her- bicides, and pesticides and artificial watering to maintain their life ;" 2) On page 2, add to section 1. the following: "e. Not withstanding other provisions of the Mound City Code non - native plants may be used In lieu of na- tive plants by approval of the City Council upon a showing that planting native plants are not pos- sible at the site Intended." Jessen questioned If the City Council has to ,Judge whether native plants can grow in certain areas. Casey stated that he is trying to create the importance that is necessary to make sure that • these plants are used and thought of prior to planting, and that the City Council could receive a recommendation from City staff, similar to processing a variance. It was confirmed that this resolution does not pertain to private property, except when an excavating /land reclamation permit Is obtained. item 2.b. states "Upon completion of the excavation, the property shall be replanted with native plant species." Casey stated, "The Intent is to restore what you can." Asleson commented that he feels the proposed ordinance is too hard core. Schmidt commented on the planters in the parks and stated that she, or others who maintain the flowers, may wish to plant geraniums or some other non - native plant. Weber stated that he finds it troublesome to make an ordinance that takes the choice of plantings away from people, even if it is only on City property. The possibility of having a "Native Plant Park" in Mound was dis- cussed. Casey referred to Item 2.d. which states: "Section 1000.15A(,J), add a line, "Native plant species shall be exempt from this sub- section." Casey stated that this code does not allow him to grow prairie grass or any grass higher than 12 Inches. . Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. 1434 Park b Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 7 Proposed Environmental Quality Amendment Resolution. Casey explained that the Intent of this resolution is to be a plebiscite showing that the people really believe environmental righi.., are as important as any other right that the constitution guarantees, for example: freedom of speech or freedom of religion. The environment is s-) important, we need a constitu- tional guarantee. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Jessen to recommend adoption of this resolution by the City Council. Motion carried unanimously. This resolution will be reviewed by the City Council on May 229 1990. Proposed Nature Conservation Areas Resolution. Casey stated that since the City of Mound has now dedicated a Na- ture Conservation Area, he is suggesting language to define such areas, and then Identify other areas In the community that might need that kind of protection. Casey then reviewed the resolution Item by Item. Weber questioned if Items 3., 4., b 5. apply to private property also. Casey answered yes, If the area was to be designated and acquired as such, there would be an agi:ement that they would do that as long as they want. The intent would be that the owner would agree to have a minimum impact parcel and preserve it. Weber confirmed that item 7. does not pertain to private property. Weber questioned Casey what he is trying to accomplish In this item 7. Casey replies.+, "To not allow that property (the nature conservation area) to be sold or altered without City Council approval." Jessen commented that she does not feel ready to approve the resolution as of yet, and would like to review it further. Weber commented that his original concern of the resolution was that it implied the city should acquire private land. Casey replied, stating that it is not for the City to acquire the lands, but to identify them. Casey informed the Commission that Carol Dorf of the Nature Con- servancy has information on a private registry program, and if you wish to obtain Information about how this program works, she • can be contacted by calling 379 -2314. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Asleson to table the review of the Proposed Mature Conservation Areas Resolu- tion until the June meeting. Motion carried umnim- ous 1 y . 163 Park a Open Space Commission Minutes May 10, 1990 Page 8 • DNR Applications: 890 -626A and 890 -6282 The Park Commission had no comments on these applications. Review of the Lake M i nnetonka Lora -Term ManeaeMfOent Proaraml from the LMCD. The memorandum from the City Manager was reviewed, and the due dates for comments was clarified. Weber commented that anyone can conCact Gene Strommen directly if they have any input on the plan. Weber also stressed how important it is to get this plan adopted for the City. Casey referred to page 32 of the plan, item 4., and commented that he feels this statement needs to be strengthened. In fact, he would be in favor of a complete ban of fertilizers and pes- ticides. It was determined that due to the late hour, if the Commissioners had any more questions or comments pertaining to the plan, they could refer them to the Park Director. City Council Representative Report. • Jessen reviewed the City Council's action on Casey's proposed resolution relating to pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. Jessen questioned if the signs at Mound Bay Park could be changed to allow vehicles with boat trailers to park in the lot during the week days. The Park Director will look into it. Park Director's Report. Fackler updated the Commission on the activities of the Park Department during the last month, and tasks to be taken care of In the near future. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Schmidt to adjourn the Park a Open Space Commission Meet 1 ng at 11 :04 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 163 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE A G E N D A . 4:30 pm, Monday, May 21, 1990 Ip MAY 16 NO 1. Water ski permit review, Carey Manson and Westonka water ski residents, seeking permission to renew approval for slalom water ski course per enclosure, and to further discuss proposal to amend LN.CD ordinance governing requirement for an observer at all times while waterskiing on Lake Minnetonka. 2. Special Event application, Lord Fletchers Restaurant, Canoe Races, involving use of channel. to transient docks, which would further require off -lake storage of canoes which will conflict with the existing transient license held by the restaurant. 3. Personal Watercraft Ordinance amended ordinance review as reviewed by the Board of Directors 4/25/90, copy with proposed amendments attached. 4. Special Event deposit refund recommendation, Holiday - Johnson Crappie Contest, confirmed by water patrol as creating no problems and no moving violations per 4/25/90 Board minutes. 5. Water Patrol report: a. Charter boat inspection progress; b. Fishing opener activity; c. Underwater Found Obstructions coordination assistance; d. Incident report; e. Additional reports . . . 6. Additional business recommended by the committee; a. Citizen complaint concerning wakes at approach to City of Wayzata docks on Wayzata Bay at Broadway Avenue near Sunsets restaurant- 0 5-15 -90 1439 larey Manson; along with Westonka Water skiing residents 5104 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472 -7346, work 895 -2016 MAY 3, 1990 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Lake Use Advisory Council 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Lake Use Committee, RECD MAY 16 1990 /0 • I am writing this letter to request a continuance of our permit to use our portable, slalom water ski course this year. Please see LMCD action report from Lake Use Committee; Nov. 28, 1988 for original permit referenced above. As in the past, we will rotate the location of the course between the indicated sites in figure 1 attached To further reiterate the self regulating nature of our activities; Practice for competition requires replication of tournament conditions. Typical tournaments are held on closed, or no wake restricted lakes. This is necessary because the ski::r requires calm water to properly initiate the pre -turn and turn around a buoy. In other words, we are forced to ski at times when lake traffic is at a minimum. This is typically early and late in the season; i.e . before memos a clay after labor day. The other option is e in the morning with some waiting required by us for boat wakes to pass. We participate in Minnesota and American Water Ski Association sanctioned tournaments. These are held at Island lake in Shoreview, Little Crow river in Hutchinson, etc. We are participants in the Minnesota Star of The North Games as well as avid recreational water skiers. We had a successful season last year and we are looking forward to another excellent year. On a separate mat_tert I would like to formally request that you consider c the observer rule in Since most skiers get maximum enjoy- ment when they are in` minimum to no traffic times (i.e. no other wakes), I respectfully propose that the observer rule be enforced only when there is sufficient congestion on the lake to warrant it. There are several potential ways to word this in the law. The simplest is usually the best. I would ask that you consider making the observer rule a requirement after 11:00 a.m. on Friday through Sunday between Memorial and Labor day. IutP�Qr b -w10E. A,OrLE At other times, a "rear view mirror would b_erequired. This requirement is consistent with the state statute on observers while water skiing. Si n c e rely, Carey Manson U 40 Ito RECEIVED • MAY 7 1990 LM ,!1, • Names and Addresses of Water Skiing Families 1.) Carey Manson 5104 Edgewater Drive Mound, MN 55364 3.) Brad Rognrud 1703 Jones Lane Mound, MN 55364 3.) Jacques Gibbs 4901 Three Points Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 4.) Brian Marciniak 1735 Lafayette Lane Mound, MN 55364 5.) Mike Pride • SOU Edgewater Dr. Mound, AN 55364 6.) .Gary Sandlass 2146 Cardinal Lane Mound, MN 55364 • Signature fly ` n Signature p 04Q-* � Signature 1 3 � i ,S4gft&t u r e, i Signature Signature RECEIVED MAY 71990 14 Y/ LhC= WATER SKI MAP i28 EASTVIEVI AVIS l� OREST 4 . 1.--.4 LAKEr. N ►rk WEST k og p er J � 15i �� 46; - AR r Lai, 1 1 SAAY fYO nd 9 10 VIS ; i ��` /! !'.��:...,. DRIVE ID AR PolAf 30 3 30 ARRIS 2 BAY IDEEFUN4 Point ISO ilt 6 51 IN z L Pi Ii ;\ e •� lge /me FIGURE 1 KEY A WATER SKI SITES )4qzo SKI RESIDENTS RECEIVED MAY 7 19960 LM.C.EX CAREY MANSON 5-3-90 • Section 3.10. Water Skiing Subd. 1. Observers Required. Watercraft may not be operated to tow a person on water skis, an aquaplane, surfboard, saucer, or similar device, unless there is in such watercraft another person in addition to the operator in a position to continually observe the person being towed. The operator of such watercraft shall be at least 12 years of age and must watch where the watercraft is being driven at all times. The second person on board shall act as observer of the person being towed, shall be at least 12 years of age and shall watch the person, or persons, being towed at all times. Subd. 2. Hours. No person shall be towed, or shall operate a watercraft towing a person on any such device on the Lake at any time from one -half hour after sunset to sunrise of the day following. Subd. 3. Safety Equipment. No person shall be towed, or shall operate a watercraft towing a person on any such device unless the person being towed is wearing a life vest, belt or other buoyant device, except with the written permission of the sheriff. If the buoyant- device worn is not a U.S. Coast juard approved personal flotation device, a U.S. Coast Guard approved personal flotation device must also be on board and readily accessible to the person being towed. Subd. 4. Number Towed. Not more th three persons may be towed at one time, except with the writt permission of the sheriff. Subd. 5. Length of Tow. No person shall be towed by rope, cable or other towing device longer than 85 feet, except with the written permission of the sheriff. Subd. 6. Distance. No person shall operate a watercraft when towing a person, and no person being towed shall come within 150 feet of any bathing sraa, skin or scuba diver's warning flag„ swimmer, raft, watercraft, dock or pier except the raft, dock or pier from which he is operating. Subd. 7. Empty Tow. No person shall drag an unoccupied tow line behind a watercraft for an unreasonable length of time. Subd. 8. Towing in Channels. No person shall tow or be towed into or through any marked channel connecting two bodies of water of the Lake. r� JG `l3 v'�� p11NNt�y,� +7 M 4t,.w off/ Bohm MUKAS JoEll n L. Hurr, Chair Orono Thomas Reese. Vice Chair Mound Jan Boswinko:, Secretary Minnetonka Beach John Lowman, lhaasurer n Mlnolrista Douglas E- Babcock Spring Park Mervin Bjorlln Ibnke Bay David Cochran Greenwood Albert O. Foster De ,phaven James N. Grathwol Excelsior John G. Malinke Victoria Thomas Martinson V* •zals Robert K. Pillsbury Minetonks Robert Reseop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Mlbodland LAKE M I N N ETON KA CONSERVATION DISTRICO 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE i1214T3 YM June 19, 1989 Mr. Carey Manson 5104 Edgewater DRive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Manson: WORNE N. ETROMMEN, EXECUTIVE 0161=70 ,The Lake Miri.netonka,Conservation District Board of Directors approved your request for a water ski slalom practice course at its 11/30/88 meeting, per the recommendations of the Lake Use Committee. Certain stipulations are included in that pri- vileAge as you were advised at the meeting which you and some of the water ski participants attended, namely: - 1. Water ski practice will take place in the non- conflict- ing morning hours up to seven days per week as needed. 2. Locations will be rotated among the five identified • sites in Harrisons Bay and - Weal -Arm 3. Markers are all to be removed immediately upon completion of the practice. 4. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol is to be notified in advance of each water ski practice session. The Water Patrol will maintain authorization for all practice sessions -- to approve or disapprove. 5. Practice course map showing locations and additional considerations are as described in your letter of 10/4/88. We look forward to your enjoying your summer water ski slalom practice as presented by you and your water ski associates. Your cooperation with these conditions will serve as the means by which this special privilege will be continued. Sind 'ugc Exec cc: e , c u 164 `i rely, q S� �p J mmen C4 ive Director Sgt. William Chandler, Water Patrol Lake Use Committee Chair Bob Pillsbury B'D MAY 16 VA- • Including amendments adopted by the Board 4/25/90; Arrows point out amendments recommended by Lake Use Committee 4/16/90; ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BOAT SPEED IN QUIET WATERS AREAS AND TO THE OPERATION AND RENTAL OF PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ADDING NEW SECTION 1.02, SUBD. 37; ADDING NEW SECTION 3.041; AMENDING SECTION 3.02, SUBDS. 1 AND 4; AND AMENDING SECTION 3.01 SUBD. 17 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that the LMCD Code is amended as follows: Section 1 . LMCD Code Section 1.02 is amended by adding the following .7 definition as Subdivision 37 and renumbering the current subdivisions from 37 on: Iy Subd. 37. "Personal watercraft" means a watercraft less than 4 -feet in } 4/25/ length which uses an inboard motor powering a water )et } pump, as Its primary source of motive power and which is des igned to be ope rated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside, the watercraft. Section 2 . The LMCD Code is amended by adding new Section 3.041 as • follows: Section 3.041. Personal Watercraft. Subd 1. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to operate a personal w atercraft or for the owner thereof to permit the ope ration of a personal watercraft on the Lake in any way which Is contrary to the p rovisions of this Code or the laws, rules or regulations of Vie state. Subd 2 Personal Flotation Devices No person sha operate or ride on a Rersonal watercraft unless wearing a Un ited States Coast Guard approved personal flotation d evice. 141's- /1094 Subd. 3. flours of Operation. No person shall operate a personal wste_ between sunset and sunrise the following day. Subd. 4. Speed. No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed in exc ess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake within 150 feet of any shoreline, swimmer, anchored boat, person fishing. mooring, dock or other water structure. Subd. 5. Operation Within 300 Feet of the Shoreline. No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results In more than a minimum wake between 150 fet. and 300 feet of the shoreline unless the personal watercraft Is being driven perpendicular to the 300 feet from the shoreline or shoreline and to or from the nearest point of water parallel to the shoreline from one location to another in a manner which is not itive. repetitive. Subd. 6. Automatic Cut -off Device. No person shall operate a personal watercraft which is equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard -type cutoff switch unless the lanyard is attached to the person, clothing or personal flotation device of the operator. No person shall operate a personal watercraft on w hich the automatic cut -off device applied by the manufacturer lies been altered, disabled or removed. Subd 7 Wake Jumping No person operating a personal watercraft shall the wake of another watercraft within 150 feet of that watercraft. Jump Subd. 8. Age of Operator. Except in the case of an emerge no person under the age of 13 shall operate or be permitted by the owner to op —ate a personal watercraft + A person under 18 years of age may o perate a personal watercraft under the direct supervision of an adult 18 years of site or o ver and wi thin visible hand signaling distance No person 13 years of age or older but less /1094 • tUmn 1S rears of age shall operate or be permitted by the owner to operate a persons watercraft, regardless of horsepower, without possessing a valid operators permit Issued by the Commissioner pursuan to Minnesota Statutes, Section 361.041 ( 1988). Subd. 8. Careless Operation. A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unreasonab or unnecessaft endanger life, limb or property, including, but not Mited to wea ving through congested boat traffic or swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision shall constitute careless, reckless or grossly negligent operation within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 2. Subd. 10. Rental. Any person who offers personal watercraft f or rent: shall not rent a personal watercraft, regardless of the horsep to any person who is less than 16 years of age or who is 16 y ears of age • or over but Aless than 18 years of age and not In posses of an operator's permit required by this section. C9 is required to provide a summary of the laws and rules go verning the operation of personal watercraft and to provide Instructio regarding safe operation to any person renting personal wate The instruct provided to a renter must cover the laws and rules o% Wing personal watercraft as well as the actual oper ation of the personal watercraft Itself; and Lel Is required to provide a United States Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation device to all persons who re a personal watercraft, as well as all ot her required safety equipment. Subd. 11. Prolonged Operation No personal } 4/25/90 3 A-LL. 16! OPLUT IEb } • ive minutes. A watercraft "in a single 4194 area for more than thirt cons ecut /497 s�re�e **WM" area Is defined as an area of the lake whic Is so small that the nolsR ) 4/25/40 emanating from Personal watercraft operated continuously within It Is liable to be • a nuisance or cause substantial annoyance to residents of one or more shoreline Properties during all of the time of such continuous operation. Section 3 . LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 1 is amended as follows: Section 3.02. Watercraft Speed. Subd. 1. Maximum Speeds. No person shall operate a watercraft on the Lake at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is In compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. No watercraft may be operated on the Lake at a speed in excess of the following limits: (a) 40 mile per hour during the daytime; • (b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime; (c) 6 5 miles per hour In the following areas; 1) a quiet waters area established by this section. ii) that area within 150 feet of the shoreline. iii) that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver's warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pier except that from which a watercraft with a person in tow is being operated. Iv) an area of restricted speed posted in accordance with Subd. 4. • l,c y8 4 • The sheriff or executive director may provide for the erection of signs at • appropriate locations in the Lake to inform operators of watercraft of Ue speed limitations established by this subdivision. Section 4 . LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subd. 4. is amended as follows: Subd. 4. Quiet Waters Areas. No person shall operate a motor operated watercraft, including waterborne aircraft, on those areas of the Lake hereinafter specified at a speed in excess of 6 5 miles per hour, or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake in any area of the Lake designated as quiet waters areas. Quiet Waters restrictions shall apply to areas, channels, bays and shorelines as delineated by markers, buoys, or other aids to navigation placed by the County or the District. Section 5 . LMCD Code Section 3.01, Subd. 17 is amended as follows: Subd. 17. Noise. No person shall operate any watercraft or boat, other than an aircraft, on the Lake which is capable of exceeding a noise level on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet or more from the watercraft or boat of: (a) 84 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured before January 1, 1982; or (b) 82 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured on or after January 1, 1982 r - or J!Zl 79 decibels In the case of personal watercraft water Jet p ump engines manufactured after January 1, 1992. This enactment is In effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. Adopted by the LMCD Board of Directors this day of . , 1990. 5 14 y? M MM IE SITAATE OF H LN CUA DEPA NJtRf N T IbN F FMONE N0. 296 -7523 May 4, 1990 NATURAL RESOURCES WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 Ide FILE No. Mr. William Schuyler 5351 Baywood Shores Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Schuyler: RE: LIMITED PERMIT #90 -6213, SAND BLANKET, LAKE MINNETONKA (27 -133) HARRISON'S BAY #15, CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY Enclosed is Limited Permit #90 -6213 authorizing the placement of a sand blanket in an area approximztely 40 -feet along the shoreline and 20 -feet waterward of the ordinary high water elevation (OHW) for Lake Minnetonka. This permit does not authorize you to place the entire 80 -foot long sand blanket you requested. The Department has determined that a 40 -foot by 20 -foot sand blanket provides for reasonable recreational use. This permit requires that the excess sand shall be removed and the shoreline returned to its original cross - section by November 30, 1990 (expiration date of this permit). It is important to remember in the future that any project constructed below the OHW that alters the course, current, or cross - section of a protected water or wetland is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a permit. Work done without a valid DNR permit is considered a misdemeanor according to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105.42. For your information, I have enclosed a brochure that summarizes the work that can be done without a DNR protected waters permit. You are further advised that the City of Mound, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should also be consulted regarding any future shoreline projects you may anticipate. Although we have detenined that the above- referenced sand blanket is reasonable, and have issued a permit, you should be aware that the Department does not consider the placement of sand blankets for aesthetic purposes to be justification for damaging the lake's ecosystem. The Department's goal is to preserve the lake habitat; this includes the aquatic vegetation and the natural substrate of the lakebed. Sand blankets replace the benthic organisms in the natural substrate, which are important :o the overall lake ecology, with a sterile environment. While the DNR rules do allow small sarld blankets • for recreational purposes, it remains the goal of the Department to limit these activities whenever a smaller area of disturbance is reasonable. I &SO AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'William Schuyler May 4, 1990 Page Two Pursuant t�, Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.44, Subdivision 3 and 6, the applicant, the managers of the watershed district, the board of supervisors of the soil and water conservation district or the mayor of the city may demand a hearing on the Order provided the demand for hearing and the bond required by Subdivision 6 be filed with the Commissioner within thirty (30) days. No bond or security is required of a public authority which demands a hearing. The Statutes further provide that if no demand for hearing be made or if a hearing is demanded but no bond is filed as required by Subdivision 6, the Order shall become final and no appeal of the Order may be taken to Minnesota State Court of Appeals. Subdivision 6 requires that an applicant filing a demand for a public hearing execute and file a corporate surety bond or equivalent security to the State of Minnesota. The amount to be filed is $500 as set by the Commissioner. The bond or security shall be conditioned for the payment of certain costs and expenses of the public hearing if the Order is affirmed without material modification; however, the applicant's liability is limited to $150. The $750 limit does not apply when a public hearing is demanded by a public authority which is not the applicant. Bond forms will be supplied at your request. Please contact Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at 296 -7523 should you have any • questions. Sincerely, 4 , 4 1 J n Linc Stine Regional Hydrologist C279:kap Enclosures cc: USCOE Hennepin SWCD Minnehaha Creek WSD LMCD City of Mound D. Zappetillo, AFM J. Parker, AWM S. Walter, C.O. J. Fax, St. Paul Waters City of Mound file Lake Minnetonka (27 -133) file #15 Violation file V90 -6114 • Z AS/ 1A ArN N 3 5 0 TA STATE Of DEPARI'�IA�NT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MBE R REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 pwoE Mo. 296-7523 FILE No. May 8, 1990 Mr. Terry Barque Lakewinds Condominiums c/o: Garsten Management 2560 University Ave. W. Suite 110 St. Paul, MN 55114 Dear Mr. Barque: RE: LIMITED PERM..T #90 -6211, SAND BLANKET, LAKE MINNETONKA (27 -133) SPRING PARK BAY #11, CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY Enclosed is Limited Permit #90 -6211 authorizing the placement of a sand blanket in an area approximately 100 -feet along the shoreline and 25 -feet waterward of the ordinary high water elevation (OHW) for Lake Minnetonka, and i 6- inches deep. This permit does not authorize you to retain the one -foot deep sand blanket you requested. The Department has determined that the authorized sand blanket provides for reasonable recreational use. Although we have determined that the above- referenced sand blanket is reasonable, and have issued a permit, you should be aware that the Department does not consider the placement of sand blankets for aesthetic purposes to be justification for damaging the lake's ecosystem. The Department's goal is to preserve the lake habitat; this includes the aquatic vegetation and the natural substrate of the lakebed. Sand blankets replace the benthic organisms in the natural substrate, which are important to the overall lake ecology, with a sterile environment. While the DNR rules do allow small sand blankets for recreational purposes, it remains the goal of the Department to limit these activities whenever a smaller area of disturbance is reasonable. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 105.44, Subdivision 3 and 6, the' applicant, the managers of the watershed district, the board of supervisors of the soil and water conservation district or the mayor of the city may demand a hearing on the Order provided the demand for hearing and the bond required by Subdivision 6 be filed with the Commissioner within thirty (30) days. No bond or security is required of a public authority which demands a hearing. The Statutes further provide that if no demand for hearing be made or if a hearing is demanded but no bond is filed as required by Subdivision 6, the Order shall become final and no appeal of the Order may be taken to Minnesota State Court of Appeals. • 14 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER a Terry Barque May 8, 1990 Page Two Subdivision 6 requires that an applicant filing a demand for a public hearing execute and file a corporate surety bond or equivalent security to the State of Minnesota. The amount to be filed is $500 as set by the Commissioner. The bond or security shall be conditioned for the payment of certain costs and expenses of the public hearing if the Order is affirmed without material modification; however, the applicant's liability is limited to $750. The $750 limit does not apply when a public hearing is demanded by a public authority which is not the applicant. Bond forms will be supplied at your request. Please contact Area Hydrologist Ceil Strauss at 296 -7523 should you have any questions. Sincerely, vu� J j�� c Stine Regional hydrologist C279:kap • Enclosures cc: USCOE Hennepin SWCD Minnehaha Creek WSU LMCD City of Mound D. Zappetillo, AFM J. Parker, AWN S. Walter, C.G. J. Fax, St. Paul Waters City of Mound file Lake Minnetonka (27 -133) file #11 0.1 �ZS3 � t is 1;11 � �� S III !16! lI ell�lraea II illl � Jjllli ] i i till ' fi ll! � Itflll }i � i �tl�'lllflf l�Ij!`!i! as • s jI s so lift 1 a I �1!!! ! s 11 • C7 • ii'i,i�ili�i �!lflfflfllffil'f(�� ss ► j [�El � ( if If r �r� rcr' fill �' `iil[ P �� ,ct� ff ��r r rrr If III Ill �,ef�; ►��[fill r flip IL P [f {f i�� IL IL i r !a - f if If Ott r �FFo ,H p t �� 1 GOVERNOR'S SAFETY AWARD WINNERS • MAY, 1990 We 8*0 wbm of die W"roWs Way A"* for Maoftg Way aiiarenate is IMI %'* pad to hre ym wft at at dK 1990 mhoom 3efety ! Elam CM 51 1 -1 ►�i�i 11 M [Iflf f 14ss MIMUT93 - BCOMOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI33ION - KAY 15, 1990 The meeting was called to order at T AM. Members present: Chic Remien, Mark Brewer, Fred Guttormson and Ben Marks. Absent and excused: Tim Kenealy, Paul Meisel. Also absent: Mayor Smith. Also present: John Norman, Finance Director and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Upon motion by Remien, seconded by Brewer and carried unanim- ously, the minutes of the April 19, 1990 meeting were approved. City Manager Ed Shukle handed out the working draft of the Downtown Plan as prepared by Public Financial Systems and VanDoren, Hazard and Stallings, dated May 10, 1990. He explained that the draft was received on May 11th. He was out of town at that time and did not get a chance to review it. Hence, the draft was held from being sent until this morning's meeting. He reviewed the changes in the working draft versus the original draft, as follows: 1. Market Analysis pages 31 -35, no change. 2. Land Use pages 35 -52, no change. Pages 53 -58 adds the Meisel property and the Anthony's Floral property to the storage issue and recommends Anthony's as the best solution. 3. Finance Plan pages, 61 -T1, adds an update to the legislative changes on tax increment financing and updates the discussion on Dakota Rail. K. Implementation Plan pages, T2 -TT, are all new pages. 5. Survey of Local Businesses, A -1 - A -16, no changes. 6. Citizen Attitude Survey, B -1 - B-4 no change. T. Commercial Data Base, C -1 - C -10, no change. The discussion then focused on the storage issue and it was moved by Remien, seconded by Guttormson, and carried unanimously to Inform the City Council at its 5 -15 -90 Committee of the Whole meeting that the City should look at the Anthony's Floral site and investigate it further. The discussion moved to the Implementation plan and prioritizing the items within the plan. The Commission recommended the following: fhilosophioal Polioy 3tatement: "The implementation of the Downtown Plan cannot succeed if it is the sole responsibility of the City of Mound. The private sector must play a strong role in the process. The Plan identified some action strategies for building public /private partnerships. "Continue to build a consensus cooperation and common promotion between downtown businesses. The current City Days celebrations and local festivals are enjoyed and well received by the residents. Downtown Mound needs to present these types of activities to build participation in the downtown area, create Identity and provide a focus that the residents can be proud of." 1656 0 Pri-- °� 1IIR.LLs 1 Public Works Storage Area 2 Development of Lost Lake (Item 13, Pg. 74) a. Landscaping b. Clean up c. Facade improvements 3 Physical Improvements 4 Land Acquisition 5 Off Street Parking f Marketing - Lost Lake i acquired buildings 7 On Going Planning Responsibility City of Mound (City Council) City Council, EDC, POSC and PC CC, EDC, POSC, PC City of Mound Private /Public City of Mound (CC, EDC, POSC & PC) City of Mound (CC, EDC, POSC, PC) Public /Private EDC City of Mourd, CC PC & EDC After prioritizing these items, it was the consensus to advise the consultants as to this list of priorities so that they were Informed as to what the EDC was thinking. The EDC also mentioned that at one of the earlier meetings, Becky Yan13ch of PFS had indicated that she would check on competitive market data for surrounding communities. The City Manager is to :ollow up on this. • The Commission then talked about the agenda for the next special meeting which will be held Thursday, May 313t at 7 AM in the council chambers. The consensus was to review the priority list and further discuss so that the consultants can develop the final draft for presentation to the EDC, Planning Commission and Council sometime in June. Upon motion by Remien, seconded by Guttormson and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 AM. Res ectfully submitted, YS X hu k l City Manager ES:ls • 2 /457 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS A G E N D A Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 23, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 1. Call to Order RECT MAY 2 1 1990 2. Roil Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 4 -25 -90 Regular Meeting 4. Public Comments - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5. Reports A. Chair Cochran 1) MN DNR Shoreland Grant contract processing status, ready for 14 member city approval to begin the Shoreland Rules adoption process. 2) MN DNR Management Plan reimbursement contract status, signed, awaiting MN DNR response in preparation for funds application 3) Additional priorities, announcements B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lewman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions, month ending 4 -30 -90 2) Audit of vouchers for payment 3) Annual audit, year ending 12 -31 -89 C. Standing Committees 1) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Approval of minutes 5-12 -90, committee action as follows b) Temporary low water variance requests recommending approval for * Smithtown Bay Association, Smithtown Bay, Victoria * Baycliffe Property Owners Assn., South Upoer Lakp, Victoria * Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn., Jennings Lay. Minnetrista * Lafayette Club, Crystal Bay, Minnetonka Beach * Minnetonka Yacht Club /L.M.Sailing School, Carsons & St.Louis Bays, Deephaven c) Dock license renewals, including Orders and stipulations, recommending approval for • Lafayette Club, East. Crystal Bay, Minnetonka Beach • Pizzelli's on the Lake, Seton Lake, Spring Park, with name change from Pizza on the Lake d) Dock license renewals, including Orders and stipulations, recommending approval pending city approval of zoning certificates: * Gayle's Marina(need $100 late fee) * Maple Crest Estates Grays Bay Resort & Marina * Minnetonka Portable Dredging * The Harborage * St. Albans Bay Marina * Jennings Cove Dock Owners Assn. * Smith's Bay Marina * Johnston, Adeline D. * Smithtown Bay Association * Loring Acres Beach Assn. e) Bean's Greenwood Marina slip adjustment, recommending temporary change for slip 4101 during low water emergency f) City of Deephaven Environmental Assessment Worksheet, recommending ap- proval subject to verification, of water surface use for the 8 slips (over) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Board Agenda 5 -23 -90 page 2 g) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District report concerning Gayle's Marina dredging violation h) Use of Lake Water for Lawn Sprinkling recommendation to encourage city inclusion in annual lawn sprinkling regulations i) Priority study items, recommending: * Le,ter to cities requesting assistance in preparing wetlands inventory * Preparation of Code amendment categorizing and valuating amenities required in 12.05, including additions to "B" and "C" j) Findings of Fact, City of Wayzata Environmental Assessment Worksheet, recommending approval upon favorable response received from MN DNR and Metropolitan Council, to distribution per Environmental Quality Board rules 5. C. 2) ENVIROr9MNT, Chair Reese a) Eurasian Water Milfoil program planning status * Equ:.pment * Perso, nel * May 29 start -up "cerenony" to accommodate media coverage b) Unidentified Found Obstruction (UFO) progress c) Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement recommending an informational hearing prior to adoption d) Additional business recommended by the committee 5. C. 3) LAKE USE, Chair Pillsbury a) Approval of minutes 5 -90, committee action as follows: b) Water ski slalom course proposal by Westonka residents, and Code amendment regarding observer requirement while water skiing, as recommended by the committee c) Special Event application for canoe races, Lord Fletchers on the Lake, as recommended by the committee d) Personal Watercraft Ordinance as recommended by the committee e) Special Event deposit refund, Holiday- Johnson Crappie Contest, as recommended by the committee f) Water Patrol report g) Lake inspection tour, setting priorities, for 7:30 a.m., Sat., 6-9-50 h) Additional business recommended by the committee 5. D. Executive Director's Report, Strommen 1) Administrative Technician staff appointment, recommending finalists for Board authorization to officers to approve most qualified candidate; as budgeted for compensation and benefits for full time service 2) Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) grant request progress on the three applications 3) Presentation to Central Minnesota Lake Management Conference, i)anel member on Managing Lake User Conflicts, Central Minnesota Water Quality Project, May 25, Brainerd 6. Unfinished Business 7. New Business 8. Adjournment 5 -18-90 FEUD MAY 2 1 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS Regular Meeting, 7:30 p.m., April 25, 1990 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by .Chair Cochran at 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Jan Boswinkel, Secretary, Minnetonkm Beach; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; James Grathwol, Excelsior; JoEllen Hurr, Orono (as noted); Douglas Babcock, Spring Park; John Lewman, Treasurer, Minnetrista; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata,(as noted); Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff's Water Patrol; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. Members Absent:' Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; John Malinka, Victoria; Robert Rascop, Shorewood. 3. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 28, 1990 regular meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Public Comments. Charles Timberg, 5060 Minneapolis Avenue, Mound, asked to be heard when the personal watercraft ordinance is discussed and was informed he will be called'upon. 5. Reports Martinson arrived. A. Chair Cochran 1) DNR Shoreland Grant Contract The Board received the Shoreland Grant Agreement between the MN DNR and LMCD. Cochran reported the agreement has now 'been separated into two documents, the management plan partial fund reimbursement and shoreland rules adoption reimbursement. The management plan partial reimbursement segment is presented at this time incorporating the changes recommended by the LMCD attorney. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to authorize the Chair and the Executive Director to execute both agreements upon review and to proceed with the execution of the shoreland rules adoption reimbursement agreement with the fourteen cities. Motion carried unanimousl .,. Hurr arrived. 2) Management Plan Public Review Procedures.. - Cochran reported arrangements have been made to hold the public hearings on the Management Program public review draft - continued 1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS APRIL 25, 1990 June 6, 1990, 1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Minnetonka City Hall. The public review comment period will continue until June 19. Reese suggested highlighting the items of specific Iiterest to the public at this hearing rather than presenting a broad overview of the plan B. Financial Reports, Treasurer Lawman 1) Statement of Cash Transactions as of 3/31 /90 Lawman submitted the statement of cash transactions through March 31, 1990. It was ordered filed. Audit of Vouchers for Payment Lowman submitted bills for approval, checks nucbered 6021 through 6077 in the amount of $38,262.24. Responding to a question from Babcock, the executive director stated check 6060 to Uniter: Marine International for $4,000 is the balance withheld on equipment purchases. It should be described as a capital item rather than repair. Hurr moved, B3orlin seconded, approval of bi.l 3 in the amount of $38,262.24, checks numbered 6021 through 6077. Motion carried unanimously. C. Standing Uommittees 1) BNVIRONMBNT, Chair Reese. a) Bids for Hauling Cut Aquatic Plants to Disposal Sites. Reese disqualixied himself fr the discussion of the bids for hauling weeds because ,i a conflict. He turned the discussion over to Bjorlin. Bforlin submitted a comparisoi bids received from Land Men and Ceres. Land Men bid $64,320 at $45 per hour using a 15 yard truck and a 7 yard truck. Ceres bid $57,904 at $47 per hour using ?4 yard and 33 yard trucks. It was noted the 24 yard truck capacity will reduce the number of trucks needed. In response to a question from Boswinkel, the executive director stated an hourly rate was specified because it would bs-t difficult to estimate tons or yards to be hauled as a bid quantity. The time is estimated on an eight hour day with the trucks starting about 30 minutes later than the harvesters. Grathwol moved, Babcock seconded, to declare both bidders responsible and to award the contract for weed hauling to Ceree. Motion carried, Reese abstaining. b) Pro3eet Supervisor F'.irtng Agreement The executive director presented a field operations supervisor employment agreement for the Eurasian water milfoil weed control program. He recommended Rcbert J. F. Merila for the - c,.citinued E LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 position based on Merila's experience in 1989, including knowledge of the equipment, operations, maintenance and suppliers. Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the field operations supervisor employment agreement with Robert J. F. Merila. Motion carried unanimously. c) Project Equipment Maintenance Contract The executive director reported a decision has been made to handle equipment maintenance through a repair service on call rather than with a season -long contractual agreement. Daily maintenance will be done by the harvester operators. No action was needed. d) Equipment Purchases - Weed Removal The executive director reported on competitive pricing reviews and estimated costs for - the following equipment: $9,000. Vehicle, truck or van 8,000. Pontoon boat, equipped 1,500. Portable radios 600. Water surface measuring device 3,000. Power packs. Reese moved, Grathwol seconded, to authorize the expenditure of up to $22,100. for the listed equipment, to be funded from the milfoil equipment reserve. Motion carried unanimously. Hurr asked about the boat purchased in 1989. The executive director responded it will be be retained to be used for dock and other lake and weed inspections,particularly if an Administrative Technician is employed. e) Weed Harvest Equipment Operators Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, to designate Chair Reese and the executive director to hire weed harvest equipment operators within budget provisions for the planned harvest period of 5 -29 -90 through 9 -7 -90 to include up to three days advance training prior to 5- 29 -90. Project Manager Norm Paurus is interviewing and recommending the candidates to be hired. Motiou carried unanimously. f) Private Fund Solicitation Progress The executive director reported $28,600 has been received toward the goal of $55,000. Hurr was assured that the equipment operators employment is based on budgeted funds being raised and available. Operators are subject to lay off or termination if the need exists. 3 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 g) Other The executive director commented on Norm Paurus work, stating he has secured contribution of space for parts and equipment storage at no cost to the District. C. 2) WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol a) Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the 4 -7 -90 minutes, amending heading and paragraph 2, page 2, line 2: delete reference to "new dock license and" since the new dock license for change of ownership was approved by the Board 3- 28-90. Motion carried unanimously. b) City of Deephaven New Dock and Special Density License. The Board considered the results of the public hearing held on 4 -25 -90 at 7 p.m. to consider the City of Deephaven new dock and special density license for 8 new Boat Storage Units at Bay St. Louis, for a new total of 218 BSU. There were no objections from the public to the increase. Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of new and special density license for 8 new Boat Storage Units at Bay St. Louis, subject to preparation and distribution of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Motion carried unanimously. Gerald Laughlin was informed the FAW will be prepared, returned to the Board for approval and then distributed to a stipulated list of interested parties. It requires at least 45 days to process it after submission to the Environmental Quality Board. c) Maxwell Bay /Lakeside Marina Temporary Low Water Variance. The Water Structures Committee recommended approval of a temporary low water variance to 600' from the 929.4' shoreline for Maxwell Bay /Lakeside Marina with use of floating docks in the exact same configuration as the permanent docks. Hurr reported the owner has made application to the City of Orono with action scheduled for thA ±r next meeting. Grathwol acknowledged a letter dated 4/6 from Gayle Wittig, Gayle's Marina, objecting to the extension proposal LeFevere commented that 600' is three times the dock length called for in the code and expressed concern about infringing on neighboring dock use areas. He noted the side setback requirement in the Code of Ordinances does not extend beyond 200'. Cochran responded there would be a stipulation in approval that the setback must be met for the full length of the dock, namely 20' beyond 200'. James Dunn, owner of Maxwell Bay /Lakeside Properties Marina, displayed an aerial presentation of the area showing water depths to 600'. His figures show 2.6' near the shoreline, 2' at 400' - continued 4 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25,1990 and 8' at 600'. The figures are based on Minnehaha Creek Watershed District lake level of 925.73 as of the date the readings were taken. Arlo Vander Vegte, attorney representing Gayle's Marina, said the extension to 600' places his client at a competitive disadvantage. The new Marina docks will dominate the water surface. There is no way Gayle's Marina could ask for a similar variance because of their location. Vander Vegte asked the Board to deny the variance to 600' and limit the dock to 4C�0'. Cochran said in his opinion, if the dock were limited to 400', the applicant would not have a usable depth. His alternative would be to dredge his dock area and LMCD does not favor dredging. Hurr asked about the gas dock. Dunn said they will not move the existing gas pump. It will not be usable until a channel is dredged to it. Vander Vegte asked that if the variance is granted a stipulation should be added that the Marina not be allowed to move its gas business to the end of the temporary dock extension. Cochran noted this variance requires an annual review, and that would be a consideration in its renewal. Martinson expressed concern about giving variances to allow applicants to extend their docks to each adequate water depth. He would like to see a policy stating how far out a dock can be extended. Cochran replied this is covered by the stipulations and all such extensions are subject to review by the Water Patrol. Grathwol moved, Pillsbury seconded, approval of a temporary low water variance to allow extension of the Maxwell Bay /Lakeside Marina dock to 600' from 929.4' shoreline using floating docks in the exact same configuration as the licensed permanent docks. Motion carried, Bjorlin voting Nay, Martinson Abstaining. d) Dock License Renewals The Committee recommend approval of seven 1990 dock license renewals. The list includes Dennis Boats, Tonka Bay, which has a new owner. Don Westman, the new owner, stated he has received approval from the City of Tonka Bay pending LMCD approval. The executive director reported the code requires a new dock license on change of ownership. A public hearing is not required on a change of ownership and there are no additional fees. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of the following 1990 dock license renewals, including any and all applicable orders and stipulations: Boulder Bridge Farm, Inc. Formal city reply pending Forest Arms. Association, City time expired Howard's Point Marina, Inc. City reply pending Lakewinds Association, Certificate received Shorewood Marina & Yacht Club, City reply pending Upper Minnetontta Yacht Club, City reply pending Motion carried unanimously. 5 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORw April 25, 1990 e) Deicing Deposit Refunds Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to approve the refund of the 8100 deposit submitted with the 1989 -90 deicing license applicants as recommended by the Water Structure Committee, the eighteen licensees listed in their recommendation having performed their deicing without generating additional expense to the District. Motion carried unanimously. f) Excelsior Bay Yacht Club - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The Board received the EAW required because of the expansion of the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club dock structure which covers over 20,000 square feet of lake surface. Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club and authorized distribution and publication as required by the Environmental Quality Board. Motion carried unanimously. Excelsior Bay Yacht Club - Request to Operate under New Density License Grathwol conveyed a request from the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club. They would like to provide the amenities required for its new density license and to begin operating under it without construction of the additional eight slips, for1990. The Club would thus have eight fewer rental units, 4 for charter boats, 18 for over - night- storage (rental) and 10 transient docks. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, to allow the Excelsior Bay Yacht Club to operate their existing 32 slips as proposed with the same amenities to be provided as offered with their application for 40 slips. Motion carried, Hurr voting Nay, g) Temporary Low Water Variances Grathwol submitted applications for temporary low water variances which have not been considered by the committee. Boswinkel commented on the poor quality of th3 drawing which accompany some of the applications. Cedarhurst Association (Deephaven); The executive director commented that the Cedarhurst docks are not prox; mate to neighbors and while they are licensed for 17 slips they will use only 7. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow the Cedarhurst Association, Robinson's Bay, Deephaven, to extend their dock 30' to a total dock length of 70', subject to all conditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. 6 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 Woodend Shores, Minnetrista. Lewman moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow Woodend Shores Beach Association to extend their dock from 95'to 105', subject to all conditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. Dennis Boats, Tonka Bay. Grathwol moved, Lewman seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow Dennis Boats to extend their dock f rom 84' to 220', subject to all conditions of the permit, based on the approval of the City of Tonka Bay. Motion carried unanimously. City of Kxcelsior, Excelsior Bay and St. Alban's Bay. Grathwol moved, Martinson seconded, approval of a temporary dock extension permit to allow the City of Excelsior to extend their docks at both sites to 66', subject to all ccnditions of the permit. Motion carried unanimously. It was moved by Burr, seconded by Grathwol, to include in the permit a requirements that all docks extending further than 100' in length have reflectorized material on sides and end. Motion carried unanimously. Lyle Berman, Wayzata Grathwol moved, Boswinkel seconded, to refer the application of Lyle Berman, Bushaway Road, to the Water Structures Committee with a request for a better drawing. Motion carried unanimously. Renewal - Multiple Dock License Renewal - Dennis Boats Grathwol moved, Bjorlin seconded, approval of a multiple dock license for Donald B. Westman d.b.a. Dennis Boats, noting a public hearing is not required on a change in ownership without any change in density. Motion carried unanimously. h) Interagency Agreement, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, MN DNR and LMCD. Grathwol orted that the MCWD, MN DNR and LMCD have met to draft a orm criteria and depths for dredging purposes. Slocum stated are should be more participation by Board members before any decisions are made on such an agreement. Cochran moved, Lewman seconded, that the Water Structures, Environment Committee Chair designate a cross - section of the Committee to serve as a sub - committee to study the dredging criteria and to present their findings to the Board before negotiating with the other agencies. Motion carried unanimously. Burr expressed the opinion that it is fine to discuss the matter, but if there are going to be permits issued with no monitoring of them it does not accomplish anything. 3) LAKE USE COMMITTEE Chair Pillsbury 7 M1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 26, 1990 a) Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the Lake Use Committee minutes of 4-16-90 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. b) Personal Watercraft (PWC) Babcock, representing Sub - committee Chair Foster, presented the committee recommendations for changes in the draft ordinance as shown in an edited draft. As a point of clarification it was pointed out that Section 3 applies to all watercraft and Section 3 141 applies to PWC only. Slocum moved, Cochran seconded, to delete the word "confined" in Subd. 11 so the words defined are "single area ". Motion carried unanimously. Charles Timberg, 5060 Minneapolis Avenue, Mound, suggested the LMCD consider a total ban on PWC on Lake Minnetonka. Reese moved, W orlin seconded, to amend Subd. 11 Prolonged Operation. by changing "No person shall operate a personal watercraft in a single area ....." to "No personal watercraft shall be operated in a single area ....." Motion carried, Lowman and Hurr voting nay. The executive director submitted a letter from the MN DNR offering comments and suggestions on the PWC Ordinance. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded, to make a change in the definition of a PWC by changing the watercraft length from 12' to 14' and to strike the words "and outboard motor ". Motion carried unanimously. Pillsbury moved, Bjorlin seconded, to approve the second reading as amended and return the amended ordinance to the May Board meeting for the third reading. Steve Wagner, Minnetonka Jet Ski, asked that the record show that he believes unenforceable laws are inappropriate. e) Charter Boat Wine and Beer on -sale license - Al 4� Alma's Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the renewal of Al & Alma's six charter boat wine and beer on -sale liquor licenses. Motion carried unanimously. d) Special Event Refund Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, approval of the special event deposit refund for Rollin B. Child, Inc. fishing outing having beer. satisfactorily conducted. Motion carried unanimously. e) Commercial Sale Activity an Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, to initiate a subcommittee study of the various commercial activities on the unanimously. the Lake to appoint Bert Foster concerns raised about Lake. Motion carried 1.1 LMCD BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1990 f) Low Water Safety Program (UFO) Reese explained a low water safety program to identify Underwater Found Obstructions (UFO) through the use of temporary low water danger buoys. Persons so finding UFOs would advise the LMCD office. Slocum moved, Bjorlin seconded, to implement the UFO program, approving a $3,500 expenditure from the Save the Lake reserve to purchase buoys, chains and anchors, LMCD weed harvesting personnel to do the installation under the direction of Paurus. Motion carried unanimously. g) Water Patrol Report Chandler reported the Johnson /Holiday crappie contest was well attended and created no problems with no moving violations by the contestants. The training program on report writing and court handling of citations presented by LMV^D prosecuting attorney Steve Tallen,holmes & Graven, was well received. Inspections of charter boats and rental boats is underway. D. Executive Director's Report, Eugene Strommen 1) Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCHR) The executive director reported he and Chair Cochran met with Michael Markell, MN DNR, to revise the Plan on Public Access. They developed a revision which was submitted to the Board. The MNDNR is interested in seeing this plan developed. Markell would be the Program Manager and LMCD would act as local sponsoring agency. This fits in with Management Plan recommended objectives. The grant application for Managing Nearshore Use on Minnesota Lakes will be done independently rather than merged with any other agency. The application to produce a fishing guide has not been responded on by the LCMR. Hurr reported none of the LMCD proposals were recommended for funding at this time by the Citizen Review Committees. A $100,000 grant to the University of Minnesota to study means of controlling Eurasian Water Milfoil was on a list of twenty recommended by the committee on which she serves. Hurr urged members to lobby for the LMCD grant applications, mentioning Senator Earl Renneke as a valuable Lake area contact. Hurr will furnish a list of the committee members. 2) LCMR Proposal Review and Allocation Meeting Schedule The executive director presented the 1990 LCMR Proposal Review and Allocation Meeting Schedule. D 4 LMCD BOARL OF DIRECTORS April 25, 1880 Martinson expressed the opinion that there are other ways to expand access to the Lake than agreeing to furnish 700 car /trailer public parking spaces. He would like to see the wording less specific, if still possible, using the word "expand" rather than the specified 700. Martinson foresees the possibility of the light rail system bringing people to the Lake and the MTC operating boats on the Lake, reducing the dependency on car /trailer parking spaces. There was no action on Martinson's suggestion as Cochran pointed out the car /trailer parking spaces are a MN DNR mandate, and it is part of the management plan. 3) Staff Addition - Administrative Technician The executive director presented a position proposal for an administrative technician, detailing the rationale for the hiring and the means of funding the position. Reese stated he would like to see the position as a back -up to the executive director. Hurr moved, Cochrart seconded, to endorse the position description submitted by the executive director and authorize advertising for interviews taking into account the intent of the Board that this is a administrative position, not a mechanical position. Motion carried unanimously . 4) Office Space Needs The executive director explained the need for additional space to accommodate the needs of the weed program administration and new administration technician. Hurr mentioned space which might be available at the Minnetonka Art Center. Grathwol moved, Martinson seconded, to authorize the executive director and officers to analyze available spaces and to make a recommendation for expanded office space. Motion carried unanimously. 6. Unfinished Business There was no unfinished business 7. New Business There was no new business 8. adjournment The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. David Cochran, Chair Jan Boswinkel, Secretary 10 .I RECD MM 1 1990 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report: Water Structures and Environment Committee Meeting: Saturday, May 12, 1990, 7:30 a.m. LMCD Office, Wayzata Members Present: Douglas Babcock, Acting Chair, Spring Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; David Cochran, Greenwood; Bert Foster, Deephaven; JoEllen Hurr, Orono; John Lewman, Minnetrista; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Jan Boswinkel, Minnetonka Beach; Thomas Reese, Mound; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: Norm Paurus, EWM Project Manager; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order by Acting Chair Babcock at 7:30 a. m. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Mater ■ilfoil equipment purchase. .geed a 3/4T truck. It was agreed to take more time in checking the market. Norm Paurus reported he has searched for a used truck suitable for carrying weed harvesting supplies and for moving the conveyers. He located a 1984 diesel Suburban for $9,000. Bjorlin stated he does not like the diesel and also feels they 3. Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement. Foster spoke against signing the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement prepared by MnDNR, MCWD and LMCD. He objects to the 921.6 feet limitation as it would put a number of multiple dock licensees out of business. He also believes it would have an impact on the tax base of lakeshore properties. Foster would allow dredging to 918 feet with extra consideration given to multiple dock licensees and for the channels to get to the marinas. Cochran explained the 921.6 depth was selected as the bottom line because to go any further would verge on damaging the ecology. Hurr would favor one level for all vs. the tiered system proposed in the agreement. Cochran agreed, adding there is an further problem in enforcing a tiered system Reese favors one depth to maximize the use of the La'A:e. Hurr suggested the MnDNR and MCWD charge a fee adequate to cover complete dredging inspection and the cost of regulation. The committee received a letter, dated May 9, from Charles LeFevere suggesting changes in wording and pointing out that this is an agreement, not a contract. As such it is not legally enforceable. Foster moved, Slocum seconded, to recommend scheduling an informational hearing on the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Policy Interagency Agreement before the agreement is signed. Motion carried, Cochran and BJorlin voting nay. Water Structure and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 Boswinkel arrived. Foster excused. DOCK COMMITTEE 2. Temporary Low Water Extension Variance Requests. Smithtown Bay Association, Inc. Area 6, Victoria Smithtown Bay Association is currently licensed for 17 slips. They request a temporary low water variance to replace the 14 slips in the channel with 4 slips, 198 feet from the 929.4 shoreline. There would be two 20 foot slips and two 24 foot slips. Tom Sheehan, Treasurer, Smithtown Bay Association, explained the 14 BSU in the channel will not be used in 1990. Their request is to increase the 3 slips on the Lake to 4 slips and to extend the dock to 198 feet. The dock would be in line with the Harborage dock on the other side of the channel. Hurr pointed out that the temporary low water variance ordinance does not permit a change in slip size. Sheehan agreed to amend the request to four 20 foot slips. The dock will be sited so there is no infringement on the George C. Owen property dock. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a temporary low water variance to allow extension of the Smithtown Bay Association dock to 198 feet from the 929.4 shoreline to allow four 20 foot slips, in place of the 14 slips in the channel. A stipulation is included that the dock meets the 20 foot setback from the George C. Owen property. Motion carried unanimously. Baycliffe Property Owners Association, Area 16, Minnetrista This, request proposes to relocate 11 slips of 14 licensed to the main lake from a near -dry lagoon. There is a partial encroachment within the 15 foot setback to the southwest, property owned by an Association member. Reese moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend approval of the Baycliffe Property Owners Association temporary low water variance as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Jennings Cove Dock Owners Association, Inc. Area 16, Minnetrista. Bjorlin moved, Reese seconded, to recommend renewal of the Jennings Cove Dock Owners Association temporary low water variance to 200 feet from the 929.4 shoreline granted 3- 11 -89. Motion carried unanimously. Lafayette Club Area 21, Minnetonka Beach. Reese moved, B3orlin seconded, to recommend approval of an additional temporary low water variance from 107 feet to 123 feet. Motion carried unanimously. 2 Water Structures and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 Minnetonka Yacht Club /Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, Areas 33 and 34. Deephaven The request is for a 40 foot dock extension at Site 01 (Carson Bay) and a 60 foot x 6 foot dock at Site #3 (Lighthouse Island) for transient use by sailboats during training sessions. The dock extension at Carson Bay is need because the low water does not allow the keel boats to rig at the existing dock. The 60' x 6' dock is needed at Lighthouse Island to accommodate the temporary storage of 12' Butterfly class sailboats during the sailing school classes. Low water make it impossible for the young students to lift the boats from their land storage location. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the temporary low water variance requests of the Minnetonka Yacht Club /Minnetonka Sailing School. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Dock License Renewals. Babcock moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the following 1990 dock license renewals, city certificates having been received: Lafayette Club and Pizzelli's, with Minor Change - Name from Pizza on the Lake. Motion carried unanimously. Dock License Renewals Pending City Certificates Cochran moved, Lewman seconded, to recommend approval of the following 1990 dock licenses subject to receipt of city certificates or expiration of time period, provided there are no changes from 1989: Gayle's Marina (need $100 late fee) Grays Bay Resort Harborage Jennings Cove Johnston, Adeline D Loring Acres Beach Association Maple Crest Estates Minnetonka Portable Dredging St. Albans Bay Marina Smith's Bay Marina Smithtown Bay Association (Subject to Board approval of Temporary Low Water Extension.) Motion carried unanimously. The Executive Director reported 1990 applications have not been received from Clay Cliffe, Eagle Bluff Association, David Thomas Development and Crystal Bay Service. It was noted a barge is docked at Crystal Bay Service in violation of their license. 3 Water Structure and Enviro;,ment Committee May 12, 1900 3. Bean's Greenwood Marina - Minor Adjustment to 1990 Dock License. Bean's Greenwood Marina is requesting a minor adjustment to the 1990 dock license to move slip 0101 from its location next to slip #98 on the southwest side of the property to a location next to slip #6 on the northeast side of the property. Currently no storage is permitted on the slip next to #6 and with this change no storage would be permitted on 0101 next to 098. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend a temporary change in the Bean's Greenwood Marina 1990 dock license to move slip #101 from its location next to slip #98 to a location next to slip a6. Motion carried unanimously,. g. City of Deephaven - Environmental Assessment Worksheet (RAW) The Executive Director submitted the EAW for the City of Deephaven dock expansion. Bjorlin commented on the water surface use of 7,688 square feet for eight new slips. The computation will be reviewed. Hurr questioned the cost involved in preparation of an EAW. The Executive Director stated they are prepared by Ltaff. They are time consuming. The Environmental Quality Board rules state the administrative time is the responsible governing unit's obligation. Strommen was asked to re- investigate the cost responsibility. Cochran moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the City of Deephaven dock expansion and authorized its distribution and publication as required by the Environmental Quality Board, subject to verification of the water surface use for the eight new slips. Motion carried, Bjorlin and Boswinkel voting nay. Hurr moved, Lewman seconded, to direct the staff to investigate the rules relating to cost of EAW preparation. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Commercial Off-Lake Storage on Trailers in Lien of Low Water Slips. The Executive Director reported he has discussed with Charles Lefevere the public advertising by two marinas offering boat storage on trailers in lieu of slip storag,.. to compensation for slips out of service due to low water. The marinas offering the service were invited to this meeting to explain their plans which ould be in violation of the "off lake storage" code. The Executive Director said Gayle's Marina called to say they were testing the market, have not taken any rentals, and will not pursue it any further. Lakeside Marina reports they have put together a price schedule, are still attempting to secure some clients. Jim Dunn was out of town during this meeting. He is willing to cooperate. 4 Water :structure and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 The Executive Director noted this might be an option for accommodating boats in lieu of temporary low water variance dock ext3nsion5, whereby the storage on trailers would replace slips taken out of service. There is a further anticipation of pore requests for relief from the charge for slips not in service due to low water conditions. The Executive Director is to investigate a means by which off lake storage on trailers may serve as an alternative to temporary low water dock extensions. City parking requirements will be a consideration. 5A. Dredging at Gayle's Marina. Woody Love, Board of Managers member, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, reported Gayle's Marina has dredged a channel in Maxwell Bay without a permit. The charnel is longer; 'wider and deeper than what would have been permitted. MCWD is Working on a full survey of the site. It will present its position at the May' 23 Board meeting. In the meantime Love requests withholding approval of the 1990 dock license for Gayle'* Marina. Burr noted the LMCD does not have a code to cover dredging, end. Gayle's Marina is not in violation of the LMCD code. This'is the type of subject to be discussed at the information h^aring on dredging recommended to the Board. Responding to Boswinkel's question Love said Gayle's Marina had a dredging permit, without a requirement for a dredging license. Their permit expired 5/2, and now Gayle's Marina must be licensed under new MCWD rules to conduct any dredging. 6. Use of Lake Water for.Lawn Sprinkling. The committee discussed a letter Grathwol proposes be isent to mer+ber cities requesting local restrictions on the use of lake water for lawn sprinkling in conjunction with published sprint+, ing control programs as each city may require. Slocum objected stating this is contrary to opposition to the use of the pumps to raise the lake level. He does not believe LMCD should say anything. Boswinkel presented the thought that river water could be pumped to the area west of the Lake and stored in the wetlands to refurbish the ground water. Burr said that while the sprinkling restriction is negative, it is good to make a statement in favor of water conservation. Reese moved, Boswinkel seconded, to recommend the Board direct a letter to member communities suggesting their lawn sprinkling regulations include drawing water from the Lake. Motion carried, Pillsbury and Slocum voting nay. Slocum suggested Cochran re -write the draft so he would be comfortable in signing it as Chair. 5 Water Structure and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 T. Lake Inspection Tour Pillsbury furnished Cochran with a list of places to go on the lake inspection tour schedt - led for June 9, 7:30 a.m. to 11 a.m. If there are matters before the committee which demand attention, a briaf meeting could be held prior te the tour. A Water Patrol representative and Denis Bailey are to be invited. S. Progress Update on Priority Study Ito Relating to the Horatorim Ordinance. Grathwol is preparing a calendar of target dates for the issues to be addressed in the Moratorium Ordinance. a. Hurr moved, Boswinkel seconded, to authorize a letter to member cities requesting assistance in preparing the wetlands inventory. A definition of wetlands is to be included in the letter. Motion carried unanimously. b. The staff is updating the u,ultiple dock licenses which extend beyond 100'. This relates to code provision which allows a vrrinnce for dock extensions to 200'. . C. The committee received an updPtod Amenity Value Study prepared by sub - committee Chair Hurr and the Executive Director. It was agreed to add Milfoil equipment storage to "B" and to add public service slips to "C ". Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend preparation of a Code amendment categorizing and v^luing amenities required in Code 2.05, as submitted, adding Milfoil equipment storage to B and adding public service slips to C. Motion carried unanimously. Lowman left. 9. Findings of Fact - City of Wayzata EAW The committee received the Findings of Fac' in the matter of the determination of need for an Environmental Impact. statement for the City of Wayzata request to add 15 slips to they northerly ;.,ost of two lagoons in its city marina on Wayzata Bay. When the Findings are rpproved the City of Wayzata can n -oceed with the installation. Hurr moved, Cochran seconded, to recommend approval of the Findings of Fact in the matter of the City of Wayzata request to add 15 slips, subject to response from the MnDNR and Metropnlitan Council due 5/16. Motion carried Lnanimourly. 6 Water Structure and Environment Committee May 12, 1990 9. Store Sewer Catch Basins Cochran suggested a letter to the cities and MCWD asking them to assure than their storm sewer catch basins are regularly -leaned out and if they do not have deep catch basins to ask them to install them at storm sewer outlets to the Lake. Two person Pontoon Boats The Executive Director reported Lord Fletchers iz looking into rental of 4 two- person 8' x 7' pontoon boats powered by battery operated trolling motors. Their licen3ri is for transient use only. The license conflict is with off lake storage. Lord Fletchers has received administrative approval from the City of Spring park to operate from an adjacent residential property. Boswinkel said they have installed a dock at that location which should be reviewed by the Water Patrol. This location will be put on the list of places to be looked at on the tour. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Water Hilfoil Program Status The committee received a report on th- EWM program from Norm Paurus dated 5/11/90. A request from the U. S. Olympic Festival 1 90 committee was received requesting harvesting in the Diamond Poirt area prior to their events in July. Reese stated the request will be given consideration if at all possible. 2. U F 0 Program Progress (Unidentified Found Obstructions) A sample of the U F 0 buoy was displayed. It was noted they will be purchase:l =a quantities as the demand develops for them. The cost is approximately $60 each, plus chains and anchors. The committee concurred with the selection. A procedure review with the Water Patrol and Hennepin County Lakes Improvement is set for Monday mo• 5/14. Other Boswinkel reported Mr. Brody has told him - the buoy placements east of the Arcola Bridge are great. Meeting adjourned at 10 a.m. FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director James Grathwol, Chair 7 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DiS7RICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD • MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 May 21, 1990 T0: Westonka School Board District +277 Commcnity Services Council Westonka Area Mayors and City Council Members Westonka Area Legislators Hennepin County Commissioners The School Board of WE;tonka School District No. 277 annually complies with M.S. 275.125 by holding a meeting for all affected parties regarding the program and budget of comnui, i ty services. T. year the meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. in the District Lecture H -' of .ie Westonka Community Center on Monday, June 11, 1990. Another year has passed in which community services in the Westonka School District have significant achievements and are pointing toward exciting new ventures. It is hoped that this meeting will promote continuation of fruitful discussions between the School Board and many other bodies or individuals on the subject of community services. After School Board Chairman Rod Pitsch calls the meeting to order, Community Services Council Chairman Dave Kunz will introduce the presentation of the Community Services Program. We certainly hope you will be able to participate in this meeting. 7 h, ly, . Smit Ph.D. tendent of Schools am/7/35