Loading...
1990-09-25 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -25 -90 #1 PAGE 2800 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 SCHOOL P.K. TVBBDAY BEPTMM R 35, 19 DISTRICT BOARDROOM + 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. PRESENTATION OF WESTONKA DOLLARS TO MR. & MRS. THOMAS HELGET. 2939 DICKENS LANE — RECYCLOTTO WINNER. 3. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO WESTONKA MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY ASSOCIATION (MDA) COMMITTEE. Pg. 2802 4. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 1� REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING & THE SEPTEMBER 18, 1990, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. Pg. 2803 -2814 5. PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS. Pg. 2815 6. PUBLIC HEARING$ ON ASONSOdENT8: T CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE Pg. 2816 -2819 = DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ,BILLS Pg. 2820 -2821 . = DENBIGH ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Pg. UNPAID MOWING CHARGES Pg. 2822 -2833 2834 -2835 UNPAID CLEAN —UP CHARGES Pg. 2836 -2837 — UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES Pg. 2838 -2940 7. RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT ; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR — LEVY #.1835 — $2,000. Pg. 2840 -2841 8. RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT ; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR — LL, /Y #11836 — $2,600. Pg. 2842 -2843 9. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 10. CASE NO. CRAIG HENDERSON, 4435 DORCHESTER RD., LOTS 19 & 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON, PID #19- 117 -23 31 0106 REQUEST: VARIANCE; SIDPYARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONFORMING ADDITION. Pg. 2844 -2853 11. CASE N0, 90 -934: DENNIS & SHELLY DORION, LOTS 1,2 & PART OF 3, BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS • UNIT B, PID #24- 117 -24 12 0023 REQUEST: VARIANCE: SIDE YARD SETBACK. Pg. 2854 -2865 PAGE 2800 12. REQUEST FROM PAU-MR KOOSMANN, 6045 CHESTNUT ROAD RE: BARRICADING TINIMPROVED SECTION OF SOUTHVIEW LANE. Pg. 2866 -2868 13. COMMENTS ON DNR APPLICATION 191 -6051, BAYRIDGE ROAD AND WESTEDGE BLVD. (COUNTY RD. 44). Pg. 2869 -2876 14. APPOINTMENT OF BOB POLSTON TO MOUND HRA. Pg. 2877 15. PAYMENT OF BILLS. Pg. 2878 -2893 16. INFORMATI01ZXI8CELLt=OV8 A. Financial report for August 1990 as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Pg. 2894 -2895 B. Planning Commission Minutes of 9- 10 -90. Pg. 2896 -2901 C. Information from the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM). Please note annual membership meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 1, 1990. Pg. 2902 -2909 D. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of September 13, 1990. Pg. 2910 -2916 E. Comments from the City of Orono regarding . the LMCD Long -Range Management Plan. Pg. 2917 -2920 Page 2801 • • • WHEREAS, for the past three years the Westonka MDA Committee has raised money for the Jerry Lewis MDA Telethon on Labor Day Weekend; and WHEREAS, the fundraising events include the following: selling shamrocks; a State mud vollyball tournament; family crappie fishing tournament; and a Westonka MDA Telethon on Labor Day Weekend; and WHEREAS, the Westonka MDA Telethon raised $24,000 the first year; $39,000 the second year; and between $42,000 and $45,000 this year; and WHEREAS, the Westonka MDA Committee has many dedicated volunteers who have contributed so much time and effort in making the Westonka MDA Telethon a success. ROW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby recognizes the Westonka MDA Committee for all their hard work and dedication in the fight to find a cause and cure for muscular dystrophy. ASOz 137 September 12, 1990 • mINOTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 12, 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, September 12, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. in the School District School Board Meeting Room at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director John Norman, Sewer i Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, and the following interested citizens: John Madson, Darrel Monteith, Walt Wolfe, Tom i Stacy Hintz, Kerry Amundson, Doug Johnson, Mark Mulvey, John Sheffield, Bruce Dodds, John Scherven, Shelly Dorion, John Royer, Dennis & Kelly Hildebrandt, Catherine Moynagh, Glenn Tilton, John i Michelle Olson, Tom Reese, Dorothy is Bill Netka, Gene Strommen, Bruce Martin and Elli Mills. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINOTE8 • MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve the minutes of the August 28, 1990, Regular meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. motion carried. The Mayor read the proclamation for the Candlelight Vigils in Observance of World Summit for Children. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following proclamation: PROCLAMATION #90 -105 PROCLAMATION FOR CANDLELIGHT VIGILS IN OBSERVANCE OF WORLD SUMMIT FOR CHILDREN The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. • A X03 138 • September 12, 1990 1.2 PUBLIC HE]I VG: CONSIDERATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVZNZMT PROJECT TO ACQUIRE AND CONSTRUCT I[MICIPAL PACING TO 8ERVE THE CE11TR�1L BUSINESS DIBTRI The City Manager reviewed the background of the CBD Program as written in the report prepared by the City Engineer, dated August 1990. He stated they have used the maximum amount that would be spent to acquire the parking lots. The public hearing is to gain input from the businesses in the Central Business District. The City Attorney reviewed the basis for the public hearing. There are two Minnesota Statutes that would be used to assess the project, Chapter 429 and Chapter 459. Chapter 459 requires that a minimum of 501 be assessed. The actual percentage to be assessed will be up to the City Council. The City Attorney stated that two years ago he and the city Manager negotiated with Jerry Ross (former owner of Dakota Rail) but could not come up with a price for the parking lots in question. Mr. Mills has since purchased Dakota Rail from the Bankruptcy Court and the price Mr. Mills wanted was substantially higher than what the City considers fair market value. • Negotiations have been ongoing between Mr. Mills, the City Attorney and the City Manager to the prices that will be presented by the City Engineer. Now appraisals have been done by the City on the parking lots and they have come in substantially lower than what Mr. Mills is asking. Mr. Mills contention is that if the City doesn't buy these lots, he will sell them to someone else. The lease on the lots is up September 15, 1990. Mr. Mills has granted an extension to the option agreement to September 30, 1990, but he will expect the City to lease the lots for the extra time at a rate of $2,000 /month for the three parcels or $1,750 /month for two parcels. The City Attorney further explained that the City can condemn the property and Mr. Mills has stated he will not fight the condemnation, but would disagree with the fair market value. At this point the City needs to know how the businesses that would be assessed feel about the acquisition and proposed assessments. The City Engineer gave the descriptions of the parking lots proposed to be acquired. He explained that Alternate A includes all three parcels with estimated costs of $350,000. Alternate B includes only 2 parcels (not the lot adjacent to the Johnson & Wood law office) with estimated costs of $320,000. He submitted Exhibits B & C showing the proposed assessments to the members of the CBD District using the estimated costs in Alternate A and B. O He further explained it would be a 15 year assessment at 8% .ego y 139 September 12, 1990 • interest. This would be a separate assessment from the CBD Parki.,g Maintenance Assessment which is done annually. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Walt Wolfe, representing the Mound Masonic Lodge, stated that whatever they have to pay in assessments affects what they have to give to charities. He stated they do not need additional parking for their meetings per month. Mr. RIM. Mills, President of Dakota Rail, was present and gave the background on how he acquired Dakota Rail. He stated that one of the key reasons for the acquisition was the extensive real estate portfolio that Dakota Rail had and that they need to dispose of the excess property in that portfolio. He stated that if this goes to condemnation he would not fight the condemnation but would aggressively contest the valuation of the property. He stated he has already dropped the price from $4.00 /sq. ft. to $3.49/sq. ft. The Council discussed the negotiated prices of Alternate A i B and the fact that the businesses have not been responsive expressing their desires on how they want the Council to proceed or how such they feel should be assessed. They also discussed whether the City should participate 50% in the assessment costs. • Peter Johnson stated he would like to see the Council move forward and obtain the parcels thru condemnation or negotiate a reasonable price to assess. Bob Polston urged the Council to proceed with the condemnation because the businesses cannot afford to lose the parking lots. Dennis Hildebrandt stated `hat he thinks the businesses should be assessed more than 50% of the cost. Jon Scherven stated he is in favor of proceeding with the condemnation. Walt Wolfe stated the Mound Masonic Lodge is against being included in the Central Business District Parking Program. John Royer stated that when the County stopped allowing parking on County Road 110 and 15, the City should have acquired property for parking lots. He further stated that other cities have municipal parking lots which the city pays for and maintains. The City Engineer stated that he has checked with Hopkins which has municipal parking and their businesses were and are assessed for this. • U Os 140 • September 12, 1990 Councilmember Jessen read a letter from Mueller /Lansing, owners of the Tonka West Shopping Center stating that they provide enough spaces for their tenants. They asked that if parking is purchased by the City, its costs should be assessed to the property owners whose provided parking spaces are less than those required by code. They further stated they feel it would be fair to distribute the costs of any parking in excess of the property owners requirements to the total current membership of the CBD. Bruce Dodds stated he would be willing to work with his landlords to pay for the acquired parking lots. The City Attorney stated that the Council has three options at this point: 1) let the property go; or 2) negotiate a better purchase price for the property; or 3) condemn the property. He reminded the Council that 11 out of the 25 property owners responded to the original petition to have a feasibility report prepared. That has now been done, but there is still the question of how much to assess and the businesses have not been very vocal in that respect. NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to go ahead and start a quick take condemnation. After some discussion, the second and the motion were withdrawn. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to enter into a Issue eztension for 30 days to explore other options on the 3 parcels. The second and the motion were withdrawn after the City Attorney explained that a lease extension was only offered by hills if the Option Agreement was entered into. The Council, City Attorney and Mr. Mills agreed that they should negotiate further. There was a break declared in the Council Meeting at 9:50 P.M. to allow two Councilmembers, the City Attorney, the City Manager And Mr. Mills to negotiate further on the price of the property. Councilmembers Jensen and Jessen volunteered to represent the Council in these negotiations. The Council returned from the break at 10:40 P.M. 1.3 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorise the Mayor and City Manager to esecute an Option Agreement with Dakota Bail to acquire the 3 downtown parking lots plus all Dakota Rail land south of the Coast to Coast at a price of $235,000. Said Option shall provide that the City has until November 1, 1990, to ezercise the Option with a closing on or before December 1, 1990. The City to pay rent in the Ato4 141 September 12, 1990 amount of #2,000 per mont from September 15, 1990, Until the date of closing. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney explained that this will allow the Council not to have to make a decision tonight and give the Council time to explore options for selling some parcels to businesses in need of parking. It will give the Council 45 days to try to work something out and see how much money can be raised from the sales of parts of these lots. NOTION made b7 Ahrens, seconded by Johnson to continue this public hearing until the October 23, 1990, Council Meeting. The vote was unanimously-in favor. Motica carried. •1: 1•t � ' r r The City Manager explained that this item was held over from tha previous meeting to allow the Council to go out and look at the property to see if there was another way to expand the garage and not require a variance. The Council discussed their observations and stated they recognize the practical difficulty to allow the rear yard setback variance. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following motion: RESOLUTION #90 -106 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OP AN 840 SQUARE POOT GARAGE ADDITION AT 5229 WATERBURY ROAD, LOTS 6, 7 i 8, BLOCK 19, WEIPPLE, PID #2S- 117 -24 21 0138 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager explained the Commission recommended approval recommendations. request and that the Planning (6 -3) with the City Engineer's 0 • 2101 0 • 142 September 12, 1990 The applicant asked why he would have to blacktop Boxwood Lane. The City Engineer explained that this would be necessary so the City could maintain the watermain, sewer line and the fire hydrant. The City Attorney pointed out that the City cannot allow privately owned utility services in a platted unimproved right -of -way which is public property. He further stated that the only way the applicant would be allowed to have utility services installed in Boxwood Lane would be in accordance with City standards and then they would have to dedicate the utilities to the City. The City Engineer explained that Iis first recommendation would be to extend Chestnut Road to the applicant's property and install the utilities in that road. He further pointed out that the if the owner of Lot 24 ever requests a building permit he will have to dedicate a 25 foot right -of -way (the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24) for street and utility r;xrposes. The Council discussed the possible exten - ion e` - -- _ niat Road as being the better solution to the applica:-•'s problem and also &W -Lter for the long -term problems that could arise. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -107 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OZ A FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE EXTENSION OF CHESTNUT ROAD The Council asked that this report be brought back to the Council at the October 23, 1990, meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to allow a portable sign at the Pond Arena from September S to September IS, for the Mound Westonka Hockey Association. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. • .1. 11 7,13 The City Engineer presented the Council with the Preliminary Engineering Report for Water System Improvements. He reported that the cost would be from $1.4 to $3.2 million depending upon the whether- they went with the iron removal system or the lime - soda water softening system. The Council accepted the report. They briefly discussed increasing water rates and saving the A6a 2 143 September 12, 1990 money for a system in the future. No action was taken at this time. , 110 • 'CID ( .1 [ .i The Council asked that this subject be taken up at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on September 18, 1990. There were none 1.9 PAYMENT O � NOTION made by Jes.4ra, seconded by Johnson to authorise the paTaent ox biias as presented on the pre -list in the amount of $202,667.93, when funds are available. A roll call vote was wtanimously in favor. Motion carried. SON ITEMS 1.10 CABS #90 -933: CATURINE N�OYNAH i OLENN TILTON, 2561 WEXFORD LANE. LOTS 3 - BLOCK 7, BATON, PID #24 -117- 24 14 00011 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN E 110NCONFORNING LOT O7 RECORD The City Manager explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval upon the condition that the 8.3' x 7.5' shed be removed and the house be removed down to the foundation at the first floor level and be rebuilt to meeting current building code. Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resoluticn: RESOLUTION #90 -106 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT OF RECORD FOR 2561 WEXFORD LANE, LOTS 3 -13, BLOCK 7, OETON, PID #24-117-24 14 0001; P i S CASE #90- 933 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. r� 2601 144 • September 12, 1990 1.11 PAYMENT RE =11 #S - CITY HALL ADDITION AND RZXODELING - d130.747.34 NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve payment request #s from Shingobee Builders in the amount of $130,747.34 for the City Hall Addition and Remodeling. The vote vas unanimously in favor. Notion carried. 1.12 REQUEST FEOm NTC The City Manager explained that the MTC is preparing a marketing plan for their Route 51 service and is asking that we allow them to use our newsletter as a vehicle to get this information to Mound residents. The Council agreed. 1.13 CHANGE ORDERS #13. 19 a 19 - CITY EALL ADDITION i RENUDEL_ The City Manager presented the following Change Orders: Change Order #15 Move duct work and exhaust fan for elevator room ADD $ 217.00 Change Order. #18 Horizontal transom bar and removable vertical mullion to frame for opening #308A. ADD $ 340.00 Change Order #19 Haul 6 loads of Class 5 @ Maywood and haul away 60 yards of bad material. ADD $ 858.00 Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -109 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS #13, 16 i 19, 8EINGOBEE BUILDERS, CITY HALL ADDITION i REMODELING The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION /MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for August. B. L.M.C.D. Mailings. C. Planning Commission Minutes of 8- 27 -90. is A110 145 September 12, 1990 • D. Notice from Triax Cablevision re: rate increase. E. Notice from Metro Council on upcoming Regional Breakfast Meetings. Our breakfast is scheduled for Wednesday, September 19, 1990, 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M. at T. Wrights, 3310 S. Hwy. 101. F. Economic Development Commission Minutes of August 6, 1990. G. Letter of resignation dated September 4, 1990, frcm Dell Rudolph, Dock Inspector, effective October 15, 1990. Dell has been an excellent Dock Inspector for the City of Mound for the past 7 years. He will be missed. Jim Fackler, Park Director, and I will be searching for a replacement immediately. NOTION made by Jenson. sacanded by Johnson to ad;curn at 12:15 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk i s as 11 • MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - SEPTEMBER 18 1990 The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM. Members present: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Skip Joh.ison and Andrea Ahrens. Absent: none. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle, Gene Strommen, LMCD; Tom Reese, LMCD; Bob Rascop, LMCD; Kerry Amundson; Mary Mcline, JEW Properties-; Mary Johnson and Brenda Pearce, Image Now. Ed Shukle, City Manager, introduced the representatives from the LMCD to discuss the following issues: 1. --eland Management and Agreement 2. Long Term Management Plan 3. Eurasian Water Milfoil Harvesting • is Strommen, Reese and Rascop discussed the Shoreland Management Agreement that LMCD had proposed to all of the cities around Lake Minnetonka to participate in a joint work project to work on adopting ordinances on shoreline management within each of the 14 communities around the lake. They emphasized that the DNR had recently established rules and regulations that are statewide in nature and that Lake Minnetonka communities would have to comply with the rules and regulations through their own shoreland management ordinances. Basically, a shoreland management program grandfathers existing conditions and restricts development in the shoreland areas of each of the communities. The representatives recommended that each city have a shoreland ordinance and recom- mend that it would be in the best interest of cities around the lake to participate in a joint project to get the ordinances put in place. Questions were asked with regard to the shoreland management agreement to officially work on this joint project. Council, after receiving answers to their questions, seemed to be comfort- able with the grant agreement. The City Manager will be sending the agreement to the city attorney for his review and comment. The Long Term Management Plan is scheduled for discussion at the LMCD September 26th regular meeting and it is anticipated that the long term plan will be adopted. Council indicated their basic support for the plan with some exceptions which are shared by the City of Mounds representative Tom Reese. Reese also reported on the Eurasian Water Milfoil harvesting program and the type of work that was done this past summer. a40/;).,� MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE VHOLE - PAGE 2 Mayor Smith then introduced Mary Moline of JRW Properties and Mary Johnson and Brenda Pearce of Image Now regarding the proposal to install a sign at the Commerce Place shopping center that would advertise the businesses within the center as well as serve as a community sign. Moline, Johnson and Pearce reviewed the proposal with the idea that the sign could be used for community purposes. They estimated the cost of the sign to be approximately $45,000 and they were asking the City if it was at all interested in participating. If so, the City would be asked to financially support the cost of the sign in some manner. Concern was expressed with regard to having City participation on a sign project that would specifically benefit only certain businesses within the downtown area that happened to be in the Commerce Place shopping center. ' Council felt that the sign was needed, but thought that there might be a different approach that could be made. Mary Moline indicated that she would send a proposal Lidicating the specific breakdown of the cost estimate on the sign Caun ^il took the matter under advisement. The issue of the gent; ai Busine..a Dis:,rict parking lots and the possible purchase from Dakota Rail uas briefly Discussed. There was concern expressed about the percentage of assessment that • would be placed against the benefiting property own,-rs. No action was taken on the item. The Downtown Study was briefly discussed and was continued until the next Committee of the Whole meeting. City Manager Ed Shukle reviewed the location of the new sign that was installed along with the tree plantings and other shrubbery and landscaping. Council praised the appearance of the sign and landscaping. The discussion then focused on what to do with local service emblems and where they should be placed. This matter was taken under advisement. Other business discussed was the fencing that Mark Saliterman placed adjacent to the Hardee's property and what the City could do about removal of the fence. City Manager Ed Shukle provided the background and updated the Council on this issue. Mayor Smith specifically cited Sections of the Mound Zoning ordinance that he thought were applicable to this situation. The pity Manager was directed to review these with the city attorney. Council also considered a pos:�ble moratorium on fences in the B- 1 zone. n ' Q 9I3 2 0 MINUTES — COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE — PAGE 3 Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Jessen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 PM. R Xhu ful submitted, d 1 J e Cite Manager ES :ls • 0 3 au /Y 33 4390 241 22 2350 212 22 2380 664 22 2380 963 22 2382 393 22 2560 452 22 2590 481 22 2594 872 22 2596 361 22 2598 571 22 2680 064 22 2740 032 22 2800 122 22 2800 301 22 2800 511 22 2860 152 22 2860 571 22 2860 601 22 2860 661 22 3010 034 22 3100 331 22 3102 366 22 3102 545 22 3220 122 22 3280 034 22 3430 182 22 3430 995 22 3820 183 22 3850 063 22 3880 752 22 3880 781 RM Delinquent Water and Sewer 0 $213.38 66.54 87.00 73.06 153.97 134.66 112.07 167.02 226.85 164.46 129.38 244.48 66.84 242.90 108.28 284.14 92.86 75.26 96.70 157.45 157.14 86.46 264.35 163.84 205.58 92.86 133.10 146.37 110.41 102.78 88.66 $4448.85 9/17/90 0 • • 9/25/90 $2698.02 Delinquent Water and Sewer 33 4390 241 Paul Olsen Pd $213.38 2636 Wilshire Blvd. 22 2350 212 John Phillippi 66.54 2221 Chateau Ln. 22 2380 664 Jim Hultgren 87.00 4891 Edgewater Dr. 22 2380 963 Wm. Nunsinger 73.06 4924 Edgewater Dr. 22 2382 393 Ed 0 Brian Pd. 153.97 5005 Edgewater Dr. 22 2560 452 Geo Papadakas Pd. $65.00 134.66 4980 Northern Rd. 22 2590 481 H. Miller Pd. 112.07 4949 Bartlett Blvd. 22 2594 872 Terry Tepley Pd. 167.02 5656 Bartlett Blvd. 22 2596 361 L.R.King 226.85 5875 Bartlett Blvd. 22 2598 571 Rich Almquist Pd. 164.46 6553 Bartlett Blvd. 22 2680 064 Sandy Weldon 129.38 5872 Glenwood Rd. 22 2740 032 Alan Burkness 244.48 2901 Meadow Ln. 22 2300 122 Sherri Bosma 66.84 5860 74 lewood Rd. 22 2800 301 Mike Simar 2-.2.90 5910 idlewood Rd. 22 2800 511 Scott Bryce 108.28 5955 Idlewood Rd. 22 2860 152 Tim Bell 284.14 5915 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 571 Maynard Maltz Pd. 92.86 6037 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 601 Peter Solstad Pd. 75.26 6040 Hawthorne Rd. 22 2860 661 Joetta Roehl ,'Pd. X45.)00 96.70 6056 Hawthorne Rd. 22 3010 034 Al Strand Pd. 157.45 2901 Hazelwood Ln. 22 3100 331 W.Lang 157.14 2630 Westedge Blvd. 22 3102 366 Tim Bell 86.46 3116 Westedge Blvd. 22 3102 545 Greg Oakland 264.35 3148 Westedge Blvd. 22 3220 122 Char Witham 163.84 6080 Rusticwood Rd. 22 3280 034 Dennis Wolf Pd. 205.58 2710 Garden Ln. 22 3430 182 Dave Liebenow 92.86 1800 Commerce Blvd. 22 3430 995 Vern Gould Pd. X42.00 133.10 2400 Commerce Blvd. 22 3820 183 Daryl JohnstonPd. 146.37 2352 Driftwood Ln. 22 3850 063 Doug Frost Pd. 110.41 5022 Bayport Rd. 22 3380 752 Paul Stannard 102.78 5754 Avon Dr. 22 3880 781 Randall Geise 88.66 5061 Avon Dr. 9/25/90 $2698.02 • September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING 1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,569.80 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #11832 WHEREAS, pursue t to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Counci. Sias met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to -wit: 1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1989 TO JUNE 30, 1990 IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,569.80 NOW* TIEREFORNs, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY OF MOUNDt 1. Such proposed special assessment as amended, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS 11832 1990 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8% 1 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes fpr the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 1 C2 940 September 25, 1990 0 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 dil-I 0 2 0 0 1990 CBO ASSESSMENT Ralf (1) (2) (3) (4) (s) (6) (7) (a) (9) (10) (11) 112) (13) COST. EMP. % OF % OF 1989 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REO'0. RE0'0 PROP. (7*2 -3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (S) x (7) x (9) (10011+12) (30) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA a 6.s 6 6.5 1.65 100.00 5.13 239000 6.40 185." 125.67 156.79 464.14 (31) 14- 117 -24 " 0001 SNYM DRUG 19 2 10 11.0 2.10 50.00 2.57 133100 3.57 240.29 62.83 87.32 390." (32) 14- 117 -24 " 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 0 20.0 3.62 96.40 S.Os 119000 3.19 436.89 123.66 78.07 634.61 (33) 14- 117 -24 " 000 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 0 SO.0 9.s6 50.00 2.57 313s0o 3.40 1092.22 62.83 205.66 1360.71 (34) 14- 117 -24 " 0004 KOENIG 24 S.5 0 29.S S.64 51.60 2.65 14150.7 3.79 644.41 ".85 92.83 402.08 (35) 14- 117.24 " 0006 SKRBANNNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 $0.00 2.S7 26200 0.70 0.00 229.37 62.83 62.83 17.19 41.33 80.02 333.53 (2) 13- 117 -24 33 0004 COOOEN 4LOG. 10 S.5 S 10.5 2.01 50.00 237 63000 1.69 10.72 1026.68 119.39 262.41 1408.48 (3) 13- 117 -24 33 0005 NOUSE OF MOT 30 22 S 47.0 6.s a." 1.24 95.00 ".00 4.86 2.S7 400000 61200 2.18 141.99 62.83 53.27 254.04 (4) 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOINISON a 7.5 9 3 1s.0 2.47 125.00 6.42 124600 3.34 327.67 157.09 41.74 566.49 (S) 13- 117 -24 33 0076 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 19 10 25.0 4.75 100.00 5.13 160100 4.29 5".11 125.67 105.03 776.81 (7) 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 6.0 1.1s 23.50 1.21 48000 1.29 131.07 29.53 31.49 192.04 (8) 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIx BUILDING 4 2 0 0 11.0 2.10 85.10 4.37 7SSOO 2.02 240.29 106.95 49.53 3".76 (9) 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 3 0 10.s 2.01 62.00 3.18 88400 2.37 229.37 77.92 57A9 366.27 (10) 13-117 -24 33 0016 LOMOPRE 7.5 S 0 Ms 2.39 74.00 3.80 SUN 1.S8 273.0S 93.00 36.57 404.62 (11) 13 -117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.S 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.59 15000 0.40 0.00 87.97 9.84 97.41 (42) 14- 117 -24 " 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 47.S 9.04 ".66 3.42 178900 4.79 1037.61 ' 83.77 117.36 1234.74 (13) 13- 117 -24 33 0077 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 Is 0 5s.0 10.52 207.91 10.67 387400 10.38 1201." 261.28 254.14 1716.86 (14) 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 0 42.0 8.03 58.00 2.98 224800 6.02 917.46 72.89 147.47 1137 -W (36) 14- 117 -24 " 0036 SEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 1s.0 2.87 32.50 1.67 85400 2.30 327.67 40.84 56.29 424.79 (37) 14- 117 -24 " 0037 MUST IOUE 11 4 0 6 4.0 0.76 112.00 S.75 $1000 1.37 87.36 140.75 33.46 26138 (36) 14- 117 -24 " 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 29.0 5.54 40.00 2.09 153500 4.11 633.49 50.27 100.70 784.45 (39) 14- 117 -24 " 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 16.5 LIS 50.00 2.S7 171100 4.59 360.43 62.83 112.24 535.51 (40) 14- 117 -24 " 0041 IMMIG 9 7.S 13.0 2.49 27.00 1.39 96000 2.57 283.98 33.99 62.96 380.0 (41) 14- 117 -24 " 0042 NETKA 17 0 4 0 10.0 1.91 29.30 1.50 65900 1.77 21a." 36.42 43.23 2630 118) 13- 117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (110RO) 4 6 4.0 0.76 80.00 4.11 tOSS00 2.0 87.38 10034 69.21 767.12 (19) 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A is 0 1/ 4 13.0 2.49 60.00 3.08 101300 2.71 283.96 75.40 66.45 425.83 (20) 13- 117 -24 33 0030 RE HOLD A. LINOBUIST 13 2 6 11.0 2.10 49.99 237 23500 0." 240.29 62.82 15.42 314.53 (22) 13. 117 -24 33 0082 MOUND 1000E 14 3 "s IS7 79 523.0 100.00 1947.96 100.00 3731600 100.00 11424.60 2"8 2"a 16`420.00 r CREDIT FOR LAID CREDIT f TO BE PROP KIT IOERTIFICATIOR AWAT LEASED TO CITT APPLIED ASSESSED 13. 117 -24 33 0066 "0.14 461.14 14. 117.24 " 0001 390." 390.44 14- 117 -24 " 0002 631.61 - 1170.00 $31.39 0.00 14. 117.24 " 0003 1360.71 - 614.90 - 74S.01 0.00 14. 117.24 " 0004 002.00 002.08 14- 117.26 " 0006 00.02 - 1300.00 1219.96 0.00 13- 117 -24 33 0004 333.53 33333 13. 117.24 33 0005 1406.40 1401.48 13. 117 -24 33 0006 256.09 251.09 13. 117.24 " 0076 S"At 566.49 13. 117 -24 33 0011 776.01 776.01 13- 117 -24 33 0014 192.09 192.09 13. 117.24 33 OOls 396.76 - 720.00 331.24 6.00 13. 117 -24 33 0016 36S.27 361.27 13- 117 -24 33 0017 401.12 - 210.21 196.41 14. 117.24 44 0046 97.01 -10.20 -79.61 0.00 13. 117.24 33 0077 1230.74 - 673.40 S6S.34 13. 117.24 33 0073 1116.16 1716.06 . 14. 117 -24 " 0036 1137:02 1137.12 14. 117.24 " 0037 424.79 424.79 14. 117.24 " 0030 26130 261.50 14- 117.24 " 0039 781.45 701.45 14. 117.24 " 0061 53S.51 $35.51 14- 117 -24 " 0042 300.00 300.89 13. 117 -24 33 0047 291.50 - 293.28 S.22 13. 117 -24 33 0049 257.12 2S7.12 13. 117 -24 33 0050 425.03 45.83 13. 117 -24 33 0082 310.53 310.53 16320.60 - 5007.99 1257.19 12569.00 • VIF 0 September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER 38E88MENT ROLL Ili THE AMOUNT OF $10,989.20 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #11833 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to -wit: DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed spacial assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments sha be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. Pin 8 IMPROVEMENT MOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY 8 13- 117 -24 12 0013 Del. Wat. & Sew. 279.35 1 81 11833 13- 117 -24 12 0077 Del. Wat. & Sew. 112.63 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 12 0103 Del. Wat. & Sew. 245.95 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 12 0214 Del. Wat. & Sew. 178.40 1 89 11833 13- 117 -24 31 0032 Del. Wat. & Sew. 104.64 1 81 11833 13- 117 -24 32 0091 Del. Wat, & Sew. 482.16 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 32 0094 Del. Wat. & Sew. 796.43 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 32 0095 Del. Wat. & Sew.1,219.82 1 8% 11833 1-3- 117 -24 32 0142 Del. Wat. & Sew. 179.88 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 34 0012 Del. Wat. & Sew. 75.13 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 34 0072 Del. Wat. & Sew.1,002.24 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 43 0022 Del. Wat. & Sew. 205.83 1 8% 11833 13- 117 -24 43 0049 Del. Wat. & Sew.3,898.28 1 8% 11833 14- 117 -24 42 0051 Del. Wat. & Sew. 197.86 1 8% 11833 23- 117 -24 34 0021 Del. Wat. & Sew. 185.95 1 89 11833 24- 117 -24 13 0007 Del. Wat. & Sew. 84.40 1 8% 11833 24- 117 -24 41 0129 Del. Wat. & Sew. 109.87 1 8% 11833 24- 117 -24 43 0017 Del. Wat. & Sew. 63.16 1 8% 11833 25-117 -24 11 0064 Del. Wat. & Sew. 44.05 1 8% 11833 25- 117 -24 11 0147 Del. Wat. & Sew. 63.71 1 8% 11833 1 Of 1�0 September 25, 1990 0 30- 117 -23 22 6016 Del. Nat. i Sew. 252.64 1 8% 11833 18- 117 -23 33 0029 Del. Nat. 6 Sew. 239.10 1 8% 11833 19- 117 -23 24 0053 Del. Wat. i Sew. 165.16 1 8% 11833 19- 117 -23 31 0006 Del. Wat. i Sew. 97.61 1 8% 11833 19- 117 -23 32 0028 Del. Nat. 4 Sew. 143.41 1 8% 11833 19- 117 -23 33 0204 Del. Wat. i Sew. 231.32 1 8% 11833 19- 117 -23 34 0031 Del. Wat. i Sew. 330.22 1 88 11833 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk OR 8a 2 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING TEE IMPROVEMEIIT O? OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST FROM ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT LEVY #11934 September 25, 1990 A PRIVATE PORTION CARDIFF ROAD 0% INTEREST WHEREA8, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has not and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following im- provements, to -wit: STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON A PRIVATE PORTION OF DENBIGH ROAD THAT RUNS EAST FROM CARDIFF LKNE BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF CURB AND GUTTER, CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRONS, AND STORM SEWER - $44,848.51 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby ac- cepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual in- stallments extending over a period of ten (10) years, the first oil the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1990, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution un- til December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. a9a'1: September 25, 1990 • After November 14, following the date of the assess- ment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified dupli- cate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be ex- tended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The forgoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: U Mayor Attest: City Clerk • a?U 3 0 PID NO. LEGAL NAME, ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 19- 117 -23 24 0023 LOT 88, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION HALDEN W LARSON 4400 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0024 LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION JACK R & DEBORAH L WANG 4408 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0025 LOT 90, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION W WITHERS 4 L SANTA 4416 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0026 LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND JAMES JARE'MKO PARK FIRST DIVISION 4424 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINK 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0027 LOT 92, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION ELMA K KLUTH 1 432 DENBIGH ROAD ' OUND MINI 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0028 LOT 93, PHEL-- ISLAND PARK FIRST D: YSION OSWDd C PFLUG 4440 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINI�364 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 1989 STREET IMPROVEMENTS — DENBIGH ROAD CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA MFRA !7064 AREA UNITS COST S.F. COST 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 FOOTAGE TOTAL L.F. COST ASSESSMENT 40 S 1,016.00 S 5,009.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 E 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 1 $ 2 10 $ 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 1 $ 2 10 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 • • PID NO. LEGAL AREA NAME. ADDRESS DESCRIPTION UNITS COST S.F. COST 19- 117 -23 24 0029 LOT 94 PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION PETER C ZUBERT PO BOX 35077 MPLS MINI 55435 19- 117 -23 24 0030 LOT 95, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION 1/2 S 1,106.54 3, - 217 S 572.63 PETER C ZUBERT PO BOX 35077 MPLS MINI 55435 19- 117 -23 24 0031 LOT 96, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION 1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,011 $ 535.96 PETER C ZUBERT PO BOX 35077 MPLS MINN 55435 19- 117 -23 24 0033 LOT 99 AND E 1/2 LOT 98, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST 1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,770 S 671.06 JOHN F MORGAN DIVISION 4400 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND MINI 55364 SUBTOTAL 7 -1/2 $ 16,598.10 69,998 $ 12,459.65 490 $ 12,446.00 $ 41,503.75 19- 117 -23 24 0032 LOT 97 AND M 1/2 LOT 98, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST E 3,344.76 FREDA J OLSON DIVISION 4414 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND MINI 55364 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED S 44,848.51 i FOOTAGE TOTAL L.F. COST ASSESSMENT 50 E 1,270.00 S 1,270.00 50 S 1,270.00 $ 2,949.17 50 $ 1,270.00 S 2,912.50 50 S 1,270.00 $ 3,047.60 N Nuo N McCombs Frank Roos Assodates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 August 28. 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound. Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound. Minnesota Denbigh Road 1990 Street Improvements Preliminary Assessment Roll MFRA COO r� Dear Mayor and Council Members: TWillo to EnOnms 612/476.6010 Planiti s 612/476 -6532 FAX Surveyors As requested, we submit herewith the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the 1989 Street Improvements on Denbigh Road. The amount to be assessed has been calculated as follows: • Construction Cost Easement Engineering, Staking, Inspection. Easement Preparation and Preparation of Assessment Roll Legal. including Easement Preparation and Title Search Cost Administration Cost SUBTOTAL Minus City Share of Costs (10%) TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED S 29.398.00 4,919.00 11.358.00 S 3,840.00 308.00 S 49,823. 00 4,983.00 0.00 ?. P2� An Equal 0oporturnty Emoloyer Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council • August 28, 1990 Page Two In 1976, the City adopted a street improvement assessment policy under Resolution No. 76 -77. The assessment criteria is as follows: a. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed based on front footage. Corner lots shall be calculated to include all front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. C. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. Since 1976 the City Council has added the following refinements to this policy: 1. Triangle Lots - lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be assessed for footage on the long side only. 2. Multiple units other than duplexes are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (i.e., a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus area). 3. Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage will be reduced by 50 percent. 4. Area of land formerly commons and now under private ownership is to be assessed as part of the private property. 5. Large parcels (a number of combined lots) to be assessed one unit, plus area and footage. Two separate parcels under the same ownership will he assessed two units, plus area and footage if they both have enough area to qualify as ' sites under the present zoning. 6. Single lots under separate ownership from adjacent pry arty that do not meet the area requirements for a buildable site .1 be assessed only area and footage. 7. Properties abutting alleys that are bituminous surface only, with no curb and gutter, to be assessed the same as any other property except the front footage will be reduced by 50% with a minimum of 40 lineal feet. 2,97,1 Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council August 28, 1990 Page Three 8. Properties which have the garage located across the street from the house will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except the parcel in which the garage is located will not receive a unit charge. 9. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which previously paid a full assessment on another street improvement project will be assessed for the foo::age only with no minimum. 10. Parcels which do not abut a street improvement project but received benefits from the construction will be assessed for the project. 11. Lots that are adjacent to a 12' wide bituminous street installed for City purposes which front on another street in the project will not be assessed for footage on the side street. 12. Triangular lots that are combined with a rectangular lot are to be assessed for footage on the long side of the triangular lot plus the footage of the remaining lot or lots. 13. Duplexes are to be assessed on the basis of two units plus area and footage, with a minimum on the footage of 80 feet. 14. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the long side and the average length of the other two sides. 15. The cost of the driveway entrances over 12 feet wide are assessed directly to the property owner. 16. Commercial or industrial property get 1 -112 units. 17. Credit is given for past storm sewer assessments except that when credits exceed the assessment, no assessment will be levied and no assessment paid. 18. There is a maximum of 250 feet and 25,000 square feet per residential parcel. 19. Storm sewers are assessed as part of the street improvements and these assessments are included in the unit, square footage and frontage charges. • - Z g z Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Councii August 28, 1990 Page Fot r As part of the agreement signed with Freda Olson when the permanent easement was obtained, a set amount for her assessment was established at $3,344.76. A copy of said agreement is enclosed. Therefore, this amount was deducted from the aforementioned amount to be assessed to arrive at a total to be inserted in the City's assessment formula. The preliminary assessment roll was then prepared as follows, using the assessment policy: The cost per unit is: ($41,495.24 x 0.40) 1 7 -1/2 units - $2,213.08 /unit The cost of the footage assessment is: ($41,495.24 x 0.30) 1 490 feet - $25.40 /front foot The cost of the area assessment is: ($41,495.34 x 0.30) : 69.998 S.F. = $0.178 /square foot If you have any questions or need more information on anything in the • assessment roll, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. q *l — eA John Cameron JC:jmf Enclosures r1 �J ogzq • PID NO. LEGAL NAME, ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 19- 117 -23 24 0023 LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION HALDEN W LARSON 4400 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0024 LOT 89, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION JACK R & DEBORAH L WANG 4408 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19 -117 -23 24 0025 LOT 90, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION W WITHERS & L SANNA 4416 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0026 LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION JAMES JAREMK.O 4424 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0027 LOT 92, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION ELMA K KLUTH 4432 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINI 55364 19- 117 -23 24 0028 LOT 93, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION OSWIN C PFLUG 4440 DENBIGH ROAD MOUND MINN 55364 i PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL 1989 STREET IMPROVEMENTS - DENBIGH ROAD CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA MFRA #7064 AREA UNITS COST S.F. COST 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 FOOTAGE L.F. COST • TOTAL 40 $ 1,016.00 $ 5,009.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08 1 S 2,213.08 10,000 $ 1,780.00 50 S 1,270.00 S 5,263.08 1 $ 2,213.08 10,000 S 1,780.00 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 5,263.08 PID NO. LEGAL NAME, ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 19- 117 -23 24 0029 LOT 94, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION PETER C ZUBERT PO BOX 35077 MPLS MINN 55435 19 -117 -23 24 0030 LOT 95, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION PETER C ZUBERT PO BOX 35077 MPLS MINN 55435 AREA UNITS COST S.F. COST FOOTAGE TOTAL L.F. COST ASSESSMENT 50 1,270.00 $ 1,270.00 1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,217 $ 572.63 50 $ 1,270.00 $ 2,949.17 19- 117 -23 24 0031 LOT 96, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION 1/2 $ 1,106.54 3,011 E 535.96 50 $ 1,270.00 E 2,912.50 PETER C ZUBERT PO B3X 35077 MPLS MINN 55435 19- 117 -23 24 0033 LOT 99 AND E 1/2 LOT 98, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST 1/2 $ 1,106.54 JOHN F MORGAN DIVISION 4400 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND MINN 55364 SUBTOTAL 7 -1/2 $ 16,598.10 69,998 E 12,459.65 490 $ 12,446.00 $ 41,503.75 19- 117 -23 24 0032 LOT 97 AND W 1/2 LOT 98, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST $ 3,344.76 FREDA J OLSON DIVISION 4414 WILSHIRE BLVD MOUND MINN 55364 TOTAL AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED 3,770 E 671.06 50 $ 1,270.00 E 3,047.60 $ 44,848.51 0 0 0 0 STIPUL!►TED AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this Ls� day of September, 1989, between Preda J. Olson, a single person, hereinafter referred to as "Olson ", and the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as Mound ". It is stipulated and agreed that Olson and Mound have negotiated a settlement for the acquisition of certain easement rights over Olson's property and for the levying of assessments to cover the construction of Denbigh Road. Olson has agreed to convey a permanent and a temporary easement to Mound, a copy of which is hereby attached and made Exhibit A, on the basis of the following terms approved by the City Council of Mound at its meeting on August 22, 1989. 1. Mound shall pay Olson $4,129.01 for the permanent and temporary easements that she is granting to Mound.' 2. Olson understands and agrees that Mound will levy special assessments against her property in the amount of $3,344.76. Olson hereby agrees to waive any objection or right to appeal said assessment and acknowledges that the • compensation paid by Mound and the agreed amount of the assessments are a negotiated resolution of the rights of the parties. 3. Mound agrees to replace a maple tree which will be removed with the construction of Denbigh Road with a new maple tree at least 6 inches in diameter and approximately 25 feet in height. 4. Mound agrees to provide Olson and her attorney with a list of any names of other residents who currently have private rights over Olson's property for ingress and egress purposes. Mound has gone further and has prepared a document which is intended to resolve and waive private rights against all the private parties, and said document will be presented to Olson for her signature. If other property owners abutting Denbigh Road all agree to execute said document, Mound will place the document of record, and this should waive most of the private rights. Mound. does not guarantee that this document will clear the title, and if Olson wishes to pursue this further, she and her attorney, Clarkson Lindley, will have the names of all of the parties. • aP3Z Based upon the foregoing provisions, the parties hereby agree to resolve their differences and Olson agrees to convey the easements to Mound. Mound wishes to advise that they recommended a seven foot tempor ry easement to slope the property, but Olson insisted that a four foot easement was all she was willing to grant, since she felt this would save certain vegetation on her property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands the day and year first above written. Freda J. 01 'Won Clarkson Lindley', Her Attorney CITY OF MOUND By Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney • 243 3 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID MOWING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $335.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #11837 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to -wit: UNPAID MOWING CHARGES • NOW THEREFOREp BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THB CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. AMOUNT YEARS Wes$ JiEVY # 24- 117 -24 13 0009 UNPAID MOWING CHARGES $335.00 1 8% 11837 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. • 1 Z 83'/ September 25, 1990 0 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 2835 2 L J September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID CLEAN -UP ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $350.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY $11838 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to -wit: UNPAID CLEAN -UP CHARGES • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY' THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land t'.erein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: PID # 25- 117 -24 11 0098 UNPAID CLEAN -UP CHARGES $350.00 1 8% 11838 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any tine on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. • After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. INT. AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # 1 293 September 25, 1990 . 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 • 2 o 2 September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $900.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST LEVY #11839 WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following improvements, to -wit: UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES U NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows: INT. PID # IXPROV3MXNT AMOUNT YEARS It x LEVY # 19- 117 -23 23 0120 TREE REMOVAL CHARGES $450.00 5 8% 11839 24- 117 -24 41 0098 TREE REMOVAL CHARGES $450.00 5 8% 11839 The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 0 1 Z 83� September 25, 1990 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date c_° the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. • The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember . and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Z 935 • 2 • September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED i SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY #11835 - $2 1 000.00 0 WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessments and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality for supplemental and deferred assessments have been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby: 1. Pursuant to its authority under Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes, the City Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set opposite each of the said parcels ky virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, 4nd hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: INT. ID # IMPROVEMENT MOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # 24- 117 -24 21 0046 Supp. Sewer Connection $2,000.00 10 8% 11835 The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To tha first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. • 1 Z 9(10 September 25, 1990 0 2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of assessments, pay the whole of the assessment against any parcel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assessment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember • The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 2-4 1 -11 2 • September 25, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90- RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED i SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; i DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR LEVY #11836 - $2,600.00 • WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, (Laws 1953, Chapter 398, as amended) has the power to levy supplemental assessrents and the power to levy deferred assessments; and WHEREAS, the following assessments were not initially levied in the projects as indicated, but waivers of formality foi supplemental and deferred assessments hav: been executed by the property owner and delivered to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Ciry of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby: 1. Pursuant to its authority under Chapter 429, Mir::asota Statutes, the :ity Council does hereby determine that each of the parcels of land hereinafter described have benefited in an amount equal to the amount set orposite each of '-:.e said parcels by virtue of the project as indicated and that they be, and hereby are, assessed in the amount set opposite each such described parcel, and each such supplemental and deferred assessment shall be payable in equal annual installments over such period of years as shown: INT. ID # IMPROVEMENT AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY # 23- 117 -24 43 0008 Supp. Water Connection $2,600.00 5 8.$ 11836 The first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1991, and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution un- til December 31, 1990. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. • 1 2,9412 September 25, 1990 2. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time on or before October 30, 1990, following the date of asst •ments, pay the whole of the assessment against any rdreel, to the City of Mound without interest; and he may until November 14, following the assessment date, pay the whole of the assessment to the City of Mound with interest accrued to the 31st of December following the date of the assessment. After November 14, following the date of the assess- ment, the first year's installment shall be added to the taxes for the year's tax list and collected as taxes with interest accruing from the date of the assessment through December 31 of the following year. 3. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified dupli- cate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be ex- tended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. .7 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember • and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk • Z8g3 • PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 90 -932 RESOLUTION #90- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS 19 3 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON, PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106, (4435 DORCHESTER ROAD), P&Z CASE NO. 90- WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog- nize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to al- low construction of a conforming addition for Lots 19 & 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R -I Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 10 and an 8 foot side yard setback for "lots of record ", and a 30 foot front yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al- terations may be made to a building containing a lawful, noncon- forming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby authorize the existing nonconforming 5 foot side yard setback to the northeast property line for the property located at Lots 19 & 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID ##19- 117 -23 -31 0106. 2. The City Council authorizes the violations 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. Zbvy PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 90 -932 • Page Two 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the - ol- lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owner reasonable use of his land: a. To construct a conforming two story addition to the rear of the house. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 19 & 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID ##19- 117 -23 -31 0106. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min - nesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has heen filed with the City Clerk. ? g X1.5 • MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 10, 1990 b. Case No. 90 -932: Craig Henderson, 4435 Dorchester Road Lots 19 6 20, Block 17, Avalon. PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106. VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback - to Allow a Conforming Addi- tion. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to recognize the existing nonconfc,rming side yard setback of 5 feet to allow a conforming addition. Staff recommended approval of the 1 foot side yard setback variance. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Smith to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried unanlmously. • This case will be heard by the City Council on September 25, 1990. • 2Wo STA FF_ RECOMMENDATION DATE: Planning Commis =ion Agenda of September 10, 1990 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official Y11 CASE NO.: 90 -932 APPLICANT: Craig Henderson LOCATION: 4435 Dorchester Road LEGAL Lots 19 8 20, Block 17, Avalon DESCRIPTION: PID #19- 117 -23 -31 0106 SUBJECT: Side Yard Setback Variance to Allow a Conforming Addition ZONING: R -1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicant's property was given a 5 foot side yard setback variance in 1981 (see attached Resolution #81 -266), thus creating a nor- conforming lot. The non - conforming lot necessitates a variance for any further construction on said lot. The applicant's proposed addition does meet all required setbacks and would allow the applicant reasonable use of their property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends recoonition of the variance above and approval of the variance request for an addition to the existing dwelling on a non - conforming lot. NOTE This case will be heard by the City Council on September 25, 1990. 0 The abutting neighbors have been notified. 28NI 291 August 11, 1981 Councilmember Swenson moved the following resolution. 0 RESOLUTION N0. 81 -266 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE A 5 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE - LOTS 19 b 20, BLOCK 17, AVALON WHEREAS, the owner of property described as Lots 19 and 20, Block 17, Avalon, PID #19- 117 -23 31 0106, is requesting a 5 foot side yard variance for a garage, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of said variance, and WHEREAS, placing the garage on proposed west side of house would alleviate water problems, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE rITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council does hereby concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves a 5 foot side ; rd variance for the attached garage. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution wad duly seconded by Councilment Polston and upor vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted against the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Manager. s /Leighton Lindlan Mayor — z � /Z,- - A e . City Manager .&. _. we z z Aso CITY OF MOUND CI TY OF MOUND PART I I Case No. Date F i 1 ed__ _ Fee_ $50.00 VA RIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING a ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following info mat ion.) Address of Subject Property 1 0 Lott S 1 t- a V _ Block 1 Addition ( ,Vl _, PID No. ��C-11 Owner's Name ku If 4pL1 Day Phone L f 7�- Owner's Address 1 4 t � 5 �I )ny — 4e— Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone Existing Use of Property: ! lesd e" J _ Zoning District Has an application ever been made for zoning, varian onditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? es no If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) R Oc l (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) 1 certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any requlr , 3d papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound fc the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, ma ntaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date 2A 1 �o FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Date Council Action: Re soIut ion No. - -- — - -- -- - - -- — U� ,e 2&q 16 VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. =1naf 1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district ' which it is located? Yes ( ). No K). If no, specify each non- conforming VQr«ih c .e L atra Q 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 oo If no, specify ach 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 ( ) too shallow ( ) shape (� other: 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 OO . if yes, explain_ ___ 5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the re I ocat i on of a road? Yes ( ) , No K) . I f yes, exp I a i 0 7,950 VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. �9 _�_ = 0 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ). No (. ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected ?_ 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. r 8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PART III to property in 0 J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans, attachments, etc., must be submitted i 8- 1 /2 "xil^ 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: 1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: Mot(s), building(s), drIveway(s) /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. Ir "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. . 2951 r "+ r, • • • :0 I f �J • b \ I hereby cerEify•that. his is a / t trine aad correot roprssaltatwo of a surrey or the bouadaries•of Lots 19 aad ?A, Mock 17 AYalon, and the location of all ezisting-buiLd- 1 thttroor - It does not- 1purport to show other improvemtsr•or sacroech- l. Gordon 8. 4WffU Beg, soalet l" d 30► Alvin R. Rebder� Beg •>8.1329s ad* -f 6.1379 Land Surveyors and Plana,rs 0 1 Ina aatimr Long Lake, Minassota Grtifioatt of Sump. f Lots 19 w T. 17, boa N�pip Comta►, 1L +.nnssgta Z96Z ' 1h I -2L -24 77 25 24� 2'. 19 20 21 2223 to 25 26 27 28 t9 3C 31 u 33 34 " J A, f�• N - _ RICHMOND RD 2 ` coo ! 13 f 12 It 10 9 6 7 6 5 2 { " llp uj s1 2 0 21 22 23 25 26.27 28 29, 30 14 17 i 9 20 21 Z 2 �6 2� 7 Ip 3z9 �,xx+os DORCHESTER ; R U- " ' (WT • aS co 1 sA"s Q r N ( 1 (139 3 ?✓� 1 I S 14 13 12 11 to 9' D 7r+� S ')1 d 1 Z1 M fJ` 6,7 !S �/ / �2 o �' 4. A t K911 �1. (- - Ss i- - �, �.... .� . /o; rr s6 . > ,c T 4. rat. Z r tf i n re t� 1e 190:21 22 23 24 25 26 12 2 29' 30 13 14 ;s l 1� , to 1 20 21 2a 3 . �; 2 , o a• c, {jD`' (.�) / 4. Sol {�1 fy' �a X511 54� 13� • ' \. 3E aaI j MANCHESTER RD! ..... »;.� : ;' fr�r ` 39 / .. �s dt' I 15" 14 13 1 ft 10 9 �e I t s 1 ` - 9 ~ ; I 10' , 22 J \y • �� \` / 31"32 IC$ 1fl�\IIf"20,121 !22123124 25 2728 ?, 0, 11 �2 Ih10 tt ��7S e S- , t - 1 �• - 42 \` CUM@ERLAN , - a �•` , ~' `' ��°� ,��.: �� c�z '\ - - 1 1 1M��9 ,,• _ a 5 •t4�� 11` •� j sO al 42 33 F4 45 46 fT 4p 4 10 b 4 90 4 ��• I 9 50 '51 52 3 50 5 p111 � f • ° °, � . . ' 1 t0 1) i d 1 ,4 I til I 1�� �' J4r• •�' °` ' Nol l�yl° • - `o ,�� `._ >• 4 <- - �SL i � l � \ 8 ',,• •�.. 13.�' 17 / 1 45(7 ` 19 18 17 16 15 14 15 12 U N 9 8 `I IT ,�' 19 / p . - J ( 6 i o %fAI �, 2t cc 4 o a .z2 2 17p 7 a ®✓ 2( 1 � 1 1 8435 DO�d"iStE� e u ti�� :S`" ; 1651' �:,- �_�;� - ..• ' : ±l X110 u1'; 1 e ` 1,1 14 - --moo. 1 13 I T 16� 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 6 5 4 1 '70 2 • ,: -♦ IIf'6) 1 x1' s� -1 0 I R J 4 �g' , 4 W �h 15 a1) 3. T 24 r /� .s ` { 2 ) - J' }w 2± l�� 3 ao) Ci_�ie��� Ilo l� ° �.� ° 51 (19 ?4 3Q 23 2� `^ t 1 ( 1 22 :" v 23 2/6 2' �1., j ..� ti �16 i 1 . n A ;v 20 Z1 ..+K: S2 -� 17� rl ► r''' �!6 rz2 s'24 L 1 1 �' a• } 21 19 ! n,. i / ` 6(" '1 i9 :.� -► 1 n -; 8~ =3 �1� 54 2 cn i 7 ) �17(to * „ IN �o�P3C 2��_ _55 I 1 i FLJ .tt 8 fiJ /6 19 1 l .� Ira., �' y. 2 O.1 . 1c�O• 1N)4 �.. 56 \,�nl 4 7 , 14 i g (llf) �`tIy IS `3� / •� 4 1' ` 1 . - _1r 1 10 a / /� .,. ~ 4 341 � {2) ,I A 1111►� ° 57 -Q. 1 i OR L Ca)s f 5 n 12 ' 3 12 ��J IOv� e 6 >t♦ ti 1 ' 4(!M) , - 1 , 1 tl f1, •, gg ' I MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 10, 1990 d. Case No. 90 -934: Denis & Shelley r , ) rlon, Lots 1, 2, a part of 3. Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, ?ID #24- 117 -24 -12 0023. VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback. City Planner, Mark Koegier, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 26' x 28' detached garage on their property 8.5 feet from the front property line facing Avon Drive. The Building Of- ficial recommended to deny the variance request of 21.5 feet based on the criteria for variances that the variance requested be the minimum that would alleviate the hardship. Although there appears to be a hardship, and the grating of a variance may be warranted, it may be in the form of an attached garage. Some Commissioners agreed that the garage size was too large to warrant a minimum variance situation. The building envelope was discussed. Mueller commented that the lot is an odd shaped cor- ner lot which provides a hardship. The applicants commented that they prefer a detached garage ver- sus an attached, They prefer to have the garage placed 8 feet from the house Instead of the required minimum of 5 feet to have more room between the two structures. The reason they propose to set the garage back, more towards Avon, is because of the place- ment of the kitchen window. MOTION made by voss, seconded by Michael to approve staff recommendation for denial of the variance as requested due to lack of hardship and it is not a mini- mum variance situation. Motion carried 5 - 4 (Those in favor were: Voss, Michael, Clapsaddle, Thal, and Jensen; those opposed were: Meyer, Smith, Mueo.er, and Weiland). This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 25, 1990. Z?6Y (,I I cat NIM NI ) STAFF RECOMMENDATION DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official CASE NO.: 90 -934 APPLICANT: Denis & Shelley Dorton LOCATION: 5033 Bartlett Blvd. LEGAL Lots I, 2. a part of 3, Block 5, Shirley Hills DESCRIPTION: Unit B, PID #24- 117 -24 -12 0023 SUBJECT: Side Yard Setback Variance ZONING: R -1 Sin Family Residential BACKGROUND This is an odd shaped corner lot, Bartlett is the front yard, Avon is the side yard. The required setback on both streets is 30 feet The southwest propert; l i n e is the s i d e yard w i t h the required setback being 10 feet. The location as pro; lc,.,_ L ' by the app l i cants for the new detached garage results in a s, - yard variance request of 21.5 feet. It is the request of the applicants to build a detached garage in order to line up with the existing driveway and be able to retain the existing side window in the house. This window provides a desirable view, and light and ventilation for the home. In addi- tion, the applicant stated a detached garage would allow easy access to tha rear yard. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is to deny the variance request of 21.5 feat to the side property line based on the criteria for variances that the variance requested be the minimum that would alleviate the hardship. z, q,5!5 Staff Recommendati on Case No. 90 -934 Page 2 Although there appears to be a hardship and the granting of a variance may be warranted, it may be in the form of an attached garage slightly setback from the front line to provide for some architectural relief, and therefore, providing a minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. L� This case will be heard by the City Council: on September 25, 1990. The abutting neighbors have been notified. r� L� Z 85Gv El CITY OF MOUND PART 11 Cass Date F i l e d — 643_9n VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING s ZONI COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property Q�Qr Lot � i _ o� r c� a r _� � ` —_ _ B l o c k :S Sl�T Add t t i on , 1 < �� a� C�a r a � _ P I D No . Z4 - II I - Z 0 0 'Z 3 Owner's Name n% ss _S�i c��c� �nrio, Day Phone `171 -S3s6 0- (4'7y-6 Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner)__ Address _ Day Phone_______ Existing Use of Property: S, d enc e Zoning D i str i ct _ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, con itIonaI use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ye s /,(no) . I f yes, Iist date (s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution numbers) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I certify that al; 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 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 Si gnature Q-4 Date Q 3 J_E% FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: P l a n n i n g Commission '?ecommendat i on__ Date Council Action:- Resolution No. _._ -__— Date �80 0 VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. 1. Does the present use of the property Conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes Wf. No ( ). If no. specify each non - conforming use:____-____ 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback s� 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 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 ( ) too shallow ( V4 shape ( ) other: 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 (✓): If yes, explain 5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (✓)' If yes, • ZP6? VARIANCE APPLICATION Case No. q 0 -9 3 • 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? �.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 map site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. �1J, (�Qe(� 0� VAC Arc . C) m e ,,, 6 a �- \o__ A A c C (,k_ r ko \ 5 1 a 3- k v __ -- h L _� L 8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in fhp camp 7nnp_ nr fn fho onFnrr^amont nF fhic ^ - Ainnr, ro9 No PART 111 • SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans, attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8- 1 /2 "xll" 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: 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 lines: principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Iocation of: signs, easements, underground utilities. etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city sta.f and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 7,05 CERTI FICATE OF SURVEY. Pr d r • DORIAM RE OLA spore or � _ Parcel is Lot 30 except that part thereof described as followsc Commencing at the most Westerly corner of Lot 30; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 fi thence Southeasterly parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot�30 to the Easterly line of said Lot 30, thence Southerly along the Easterly line of said lot to the most Southerly corner of Lot 30; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to point of beginning, Block 5, SHIRLEY HILLS, UN(T B, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, in and for said County. I Parcel 2; Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 3, except the Southwesterly 10 feet thereof, Block S. SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT B, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Torrens Certificate No. 620959 AREA a 16,663 / - 1 SQ. V1. I 0 rant enaeuhomf , /0 tncYOlCh' ; y}� R4f11 � GENERAL NOTES ` W IZ O Q i '� g000 :s• - E RTI F ICAT E OF SU RVEY_. Prepared for: OCR IA N REST FEN Parcel it Lot 30 except that part thereof described as follower Commencing h+ at the most Westerly corner of Lot 30, thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot Hlft; thence Southeasterly parallel with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to the Easterly line of said Lot 30, thence southerly along the Easterly line of said lot to the *wet Southerly corner of Lot 301 thence Northwestorly along the i Southwesterly line of said Lot 30 to point of beginning, Block S, SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT S, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, County. in and for said Parcel 21 Lots 1 and 2, and Lot 3, except the Southwesterly 10 feet thereof, Block 0, EHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT B, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles In and for said County. Torrens Certificate No. 620909 AtEA • ts,ss! s�• /Y. ,OVA 1 •� 2y� � Q lo t r� I I Q 3 z Q r .� �9 tncree0 ); �t 4 • Fil•tl Wl t•n,tr �,� � , GENERAL NOTES 4 ornnncol Ins O rl8MA#o4k irn.• Tnn,imen/ T h. s s 4 P7 �urc- o� W , % n 60 W W er . w e_ LtoU-k& Oo C— 1 o Da drea����nc� louk;•.� b�� �h�S w ...c��w. AMC W, ow - \f C� - T h M a y b A f'Qaso n - �o �aC c c.ow U o y60 , rI � _fee 9z. zg100Y 91 1;01 Q o 1 °w t pt►\ it 91 ij )IbVd TV, Y ' ° r o w w 9� r -y'N 't - � o 0 7 � � � ` dl *• SZ LI •tip t• ;� _ . OZ o � qr '• ti Z ZI` \ � .r 9z �b -1 one' - 42�y� 3Q 1S SP i °� 04 az t�s >; ,\ n 't1a►i�� 3415 ail j�4n{{ ' �) y / (b ) VJ C9 ,N `, o .� r, g•, 1, / . t� ^ rt•. 'i \ O a T ' w '9 L • 'i tt t5 �Liti4 � / ZQ� `Y \ — — ` ALI ow F `mi 7 0 , I ?- tt ��ZI t1 ' I • �— Fez 'L o f �` , e � 4.' ;a ism • to ro. w a r j M Y AO Wi lat ' . 1011. 1 rr . /p 0 —..� l az - pl, f1f • 2 t vl .� 1 `� r.• I �l y rt1 • � 4. f S LOT co ' JS / I r 3 ' 3) f :Apo ; . • 0 it I61 of �� Ia. 1.2 S 71 4� e5 ••►•� .O.L�H a. � 1 1 •� • � ' i { / (F 1'41 It S' 2, ooh• i •,�97:- (r ,orb- - -- 3 f 2 ! A �� �m tea) `f n.. ' 1 ,, ' All S'F°•SaOC ` i � � C t' � r � �' C � tt . A ve t oo t -M t . / r LOT 2 0 3�4 Alk CITY of MOUND MOUND M1 NESO A 5361 1612) 172 .1155 DATE: September 13, 1990 TO: Park Commission (9- 13 -90) Planning Commission (9- 24 -90) City Council (9- 25 -90) FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director RE: DNR Application #91 -6051 Bayridge Road b Westedge Blvd. (Cty. Rd. 44) • The subject property in the Halstead Acres 2nd Addition is on private lakeshore. The Project Sponsor, Don Phillips, is requesting to dredge 800 feet of channel to an elevation of 923.6 (see Project Description). City of Mound property will not be affected by this work. pi - g 0 0 . , - - .,.�• ,.., s., ,.•.4'-- , r one r - s's :,I race ceUr naUo a� o n or nanr),cappec Varu$ P"O"E NO 0 s STATE OF �5s � � A I HIES©U EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO REGION WATERS - :200 VARNER ROAD, ST. PALL, KN 55106 FU Np 296 -7523 DNR PROTECTED WATERS PER.X:T A. NUMBER 2e REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND CO.`^f-r.KTs DATE: _ , - 1 9 ? i T0: VSccE- k�r1 h�ar�rt► �- M�e- WSJ - RON GvA►j►3cq C "rY or mcumi)- HENNEr!J 5wC0 LI"cM ZfU( Flom: CEIL STTRAUSS, AF ZA HYDROLOCIST A IAIri c, r-4 PA�i /1F N - pAvE 2A FlCRILC) WATERS AFFECTED to (Z i -15,5 ) ff� ACY('S tC(:z�fiU.� PROJE-T SPONSOR: j,��� NATURE OF WORK: fired q e- V)C� of Chdnre to '0 1 tt)afi-()n g 2 3 t o; b tom W; d4-h o f 15' W►-�h 3:1 SAde s0,DeE;. 30 da(lS X000 Z 00 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NA 0:b11 -U4 i1Fi ��t 4 ,. — it Rev. 10/89 PERMIT APPLICATION P A NO DEPARTMENT OF TO WORK IN PROTE4TED WATERS ON WETLANDS rMIAZOT/A 1111CLU01N to i DAN MI ❑C,C NATURAL RESOURCES ❑SWCD b. Please read instructions before attempting to complete this application O W D USCOE t. J Appl icant's Name (last, First, M.I.) Authorized Agent (it a pp lic able) Telephone Numberaa•F;: Hiaia,BlM Acres 2nd Ater&. Dull Priltlipe: tiil� GJ1 .,TI,t II. LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT (BE SURE TO INCLUDE SKE TCH SHOWING HOvi TO U ET TO TF : ) Government L• P Sy pon(s) i • SeotioNs) No .ow h No aoge Lq', B1 S bpivision 7 L,. lA cLa k cah � —CL Fire No., Box No. or Project Address County Pro,ecr wdlaffect ,Ike 0hef C.^..r i , lic -oil. Ina- eanumtbr iitllf'Giilr�3 I k no* n III. TYPE OF WORK PROPOSED (CHECK ONE) IV. TYPE OF PROJECT CHECK ONE) excavate O repair ❑ shoreline O shore- proteclion ❑ obstruction C dam j • fill O remove channel O harbor O bridge C other • drain , O abate O sand blanket O permanent dock O culvert (specityr • construct O other (specify) O riprap O wharf • install V. ESTIMATED MIDJECT COST $ 9,i;/(,tG.uti VI. LENGTH OF SHORELINE AFFECTED (IN FEET) D IAN. VOLUME OF MATERIAL FILLED OR EXCAVATED (IN CUBIC YARDS) 2,00 VN1I- BRIEF EXPLANATION OF PROJECT (EXPLAIN WHAT PROJECT CONSISTS OF AND HOW WORK WILL BE GONE) Jree'sttectlEX2 ; _ _ IX. PURPOSE OF PROJECT: (Explain !±y this project is needed) To itx;iaira Ltia) of fu „walel c:emd in 1 59 cut a Pf,�: -1 ram 1l: (�s) w � t ti:e � � ct wininers adjazait LO i:1W tcl CAA M&81111 ewes Lo l.aitZe. X.IEIMRONMENTAL IMPACT (Anticipated changes to the water and related land resources, Including unavoidable but detrimental eftects, I XI. I ALTE (Other alternatives to the action proposed) IN. ,A hereby make aMicairon bws4*0 b Mff4soU.Statlitesthapter 105 42 aril all supportrng for pet trill to work in or -0ecl the abo ve named brot "ec water(S) m accordance weth all supWing maps. plans, and other information Submitted with this application The Information submitted and slaterrir is made Concerning this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge Signature of Owner or Authorized Agent Da'► STAT t11111�St?t8 (QTY OF Ftlaritw-pin Signature of Leasee Dee Subscribed and swore to before me thirs — day of — �_ i t I � i .r..... Illy commission elrprrfla Signature of Notary PAIAI(.; d ,i BELL Nprunv PUBLIC SCOTT COUNTY COMMISSION EXPIRES r2&95 I. I I .. Distribution White: DNR 0 Blue: SWCD Green Watershed District Goldenrod City or County Pink. Army Corps of Engineers Casty Al :K)hc;ant A 1990 C1, Rf C+ Project Description ►�igrfR To re- excavate and remove earthen materials from the bed of Lake Minnetonka to elevation 923.6 sea level datum to reopen an 800' portion of the original 1200' channel dredged in 1959 under DNR permit 59 -19 (copies enclosed). To construct a channel having 4 bottom width of 15' with 3:1 side slopes a distance of B00' commencing at intersection of projected lot line between lot 3 Halsted 1st Addition and l.t 9 Halsted 2nd Addition and a line paralled to existing shore 25' from said shore. The proposed channel will follow both of existing channel approximately 25' lake ward from original shore. This permit also allows for eight (8) access spurs to each of eight lots of Halstad Acres 2nd Addition adjoining this project. These spurs will be 10' wide bottom with 3:1 side slopes and bottom depths at 924.6 sea level datum, and each will be 20' long measured from land ward side to new proposed channel and perpendicular to same. • Z8 7L 14J; 0 3 1 1I J 1 , f °11 f a RIDGE RD X11 �1� S4� J t •o Io' . 3ij 4 11! ' All 00 14 0 48 ,� ' � (• \ .� 14 ..•.,5 I �c� �, 6 ti Co d o - �� t 0. Ld �r1 • f o ;I ,�, �� / - t1? 1028 7 - dL ,O IQ 1 �o ,� • 4 �� 2� Uj 2 W �! C , o R •,,, �rvoce \ It 1 b 1 Scarf 11 0 6e re/np�.'G tl: /BDD e��• � �u�N R f � ISO 'A 2 .. _ i J 31 1.� o A � if 84 iilft Z, 2, - 1 6D BRIOGE R $ J 46 t L3 IZ sue► 1 , s . • q - 1 1 1. ' + (j9 * "y ' (45) B e y �� t oo r• -104-- w - 2. (� 8�r j Ic + ` e 9 ` ---- ( = ., 6 r J Q ���� �`' _ 1 bt 2 ,� - i 114 I J ^22 M if •,� �� _ ' stRDGEW00D`� 1 . c �66�eS. ! N0c3jw • fjQ.. mo o} �\ !� I St as S T . w IL 4L , � J ( NAB. ( 1967 Aerial Photo CITY 828. ? - Res of 33 i 1, gi. 51 C' R�D - —� l f r 04) 7 �.s, WIAllris�� • n �L FREMONT INOUSI Shakopee. Minn. 55 • n 1 A II �� �t N '0 01Z c ha i7/7 s 92 -�-, ' 92 3.6 ' n G n 0 i ZS!5 cross s e c ti0' -C O / G G 7* �.: �! j/ir. G �u/l c CL G GGf At, a /1 eaG/j ZO �O eGLG/! C- /Z ,,_#-h.o 930' 92 ¢. 6 N Q N cj Q ? N N � _W CD Q H � � C Z C H Z 0 2 0 W sc Q G LL w 9 20 .1 e7F, T/l�l''� �• N 30 1. 4 0 0 0 cl • RESOLUTION NO. 90- R 'SOLUTION TO APPOINT BOB PO'L,STON TO THE MOUND HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A FIVE YEAR TERM - TO EXPIRE 8-29 -95 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Bob Folston to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority for a five year term, to expire August 29, 1995. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor i Attest: City Clerk o vol 9 1 BILLS- - - - - -- SEPTEMBER 25, 1990 • BATCH 0091 233,501.57 BATCH 0092 111,753.37 • TOTAL BILLS 345,260.94 287 9 PAU 1 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9117/90 W02 CITY OF IQND TIME 13.36.46 YElE(JT INVOICE ME HOLD PREPAID CHECK NO. INVOICE LAMER DATE DATE STATUS WANT DESCRIPTIM ACCOIM N1118ER KM DECK t DATE 80549 PRE -PAID 899.81 UQ 11-7100-9510 9/17/90 9/17/90 899.81 JRw-CD 1010 899.81 30869 9/04/90 PRE -PAID 704.87 LIQ 71-7100-9510 9/17/90 9/17/90 704.87 ,Jitl -CD 1010 704.87 30898 9/11/90 IELIBOY CORPORATION VETQtOR TOTAL 1604.68 00888 PRE -PAID 3,773.00 CR UNION 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 3,773.00 JK-CD 1010 3773.00 30884 9/06190 CITY COINTT CREDIT UNION VENDOR TOTAL 3773.00 00920 PREPAID 48.75 REPLEN P/C-PQ 01-4140-2200 9/17/90 9/17/90 48.75 .JK-CD 1010 48.75 30665 9/04/90 PRE -PAID 25.57 REPLEN P/C -LIQ 71-7100-7100 9/17/90 9/17190 25.57 JRNL-CD 1010 25.57 30906 9/11/90 CITY OF SM VENDOR TOTAL 74.32 C1001 PRE -PAID 2,424.67 SIT 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 2,424.67 ,JK -CD 1010 2424.67 30676 9/06/90 PREPAID 113.59 AM SALES TAX 73 -3592 -0000 7,566.40 ALE, SALES TAX 71-3592-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 7,679.99 JNL-CD 1010 7679.99 30910 9/14/90 COMNISSIOtER OF REVM VENDOR TOTAL 10104.66 81170 PRE -PAID 666.66 RR LEASE TO 9/30 40-6000 -3910 333.34 RR LEASE TO 9/30 01-4320 -3910 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,000.00 ,JK-CD 1010 1000.00 30914 9/17/90 DAKOTA RAIL INC VENDOR TOTAL 1000.00 01219 PRE -PAID 161.16 17 CWTRACT HCILJ'S 81- 4350-3100 9/17/90 9/17/90 161.16 ,JUI -CD 1010 161.16 30867 9/04/90 DEBERT RUDOLPH VENDOR TOTAL 161.16 D1_ PRE -PAID 1,343.00 DENTAL 9/1 PR 01- 2040-0000 16.20 DENTAL-RETIREE 01-4190-1510 41.60 [MAL-RETIREE 01-4280-1510 41.60 DENTAL- RETIREE 01-4140 -1510 57.80 WITAL-RETIREE 7 1-7100-1510 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,500.20 ,JOL -CD 1010 1500.20 30891 9/06/90 DELTA DENTAL VENDOR TOTAL 1500.20 E1429 PRE -PAID 203.84 LIQ 71 -7100 -9510 59.20 MINE 71-7100-9520 4.07 DISC 71- 7100 -9560 9 /17/90 9/17/90 2°8.97 Y L -CD 1010 258.97 30272 9 /0A/90 PRE -PAID 569.21 L10 71- 7190-9510 0 0 9 / 30`43- 30 9 y Zk?� PAM 1 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/17/90 AP-0O2 -01 CITY OF MQND TIME 13.36.46 WN Ot INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK NO. INVOICE NMER DATE DATE STATUS NaW DESCRIPTION AMOUNT KM IMM (HECK I DATE 80549 PRE -PAID 899.81 LID 71- 7100-9510 9/17/90 9/17/90 899.81 JK-CD 1010 899.81 30869 9/04/90 PREPAID 704.87 LTD 71-7100-9510 9/17/90 9/17/90 704.87 JRK-a 1010 704.87 30898 9/11/90 BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 1604.68 00888 PRE -PAID 3,713.00 CR MINION 9/1 PR 01-2040-M 9/17/90 9/17/90 3,773.00 JK-CD 1010 3773.00 30684 9/06/90 CITY MNTT CREDIT UNION VE)M TOTAL 3773.00 CDM PREPAID 48.75 AMD P/C -PCL 01-4140 -2100 9/17/90 9/17/90 48.75 JK-CD 1010 48.75 30865 9/04/90 PREPAID 25.57 REPLEN P/C-1.12 71-7100 -2200 9/:7/90 9/17/90 25.57 JK-CD 1010 23.57 30906 9/12/90 CITY OF Pf)UND VENDOR TOTAL 74.32 C1001 PRE -PAID 2,424.67 SIT 9/1 PP. 01-2040-M 9/17/90 9/17/90 2,424.67 JK -CD 1010 2424.67 30816 9/06/90 PRE -PAID 113.59 AUG SALES TAX 73 -3592-0000 7,566.40 AUG SALES TAX 71- 3591-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 7,679.99 JK-CD 1010 7679.99 30910 9/14/90 COMISSIOER OF REVENUE VETNDOR TOTAL 10104.66 D1170 PRE -PAID 666.66 RR LEASE TO 9/30 40- 6000 -3910 - 333.34 RR LEASE TO 9/30 01- 4320-3910 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,000.00 JRK-M 1010 1000.00 30914 9/17/90 DAKOTA RAIL INC VENDO► TOTAL 1000.00 D1219 PRE -PAID 161.16 17 CONTRACT HOURS 81-4350 -3100 9/17/90 9/17/90 161.16 ,IRK -CD 1010 161.16 30867 9/04/90 DELBERT RUDOLPH VENDOR TOTAL 161.16 DIM PRE -PAID 1,343.00 DENTAL 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 16.20 CENTAL-RETIREE 01- 4190.1510 41.60 DENTAL- RETIREE 01-428D-1510 41.60 DENTAL - RETIREE 01- 4140 -1510 57.80 DENTAL - RETIREE 71-7100 -1510 9/17/90 9 /17/YJ 1,500.20 JK-CD 1010 1500.20 30891 9/06/90 Ml DMAL VENDOR TOTAL 1500.20 E1429 PRE -PAID 203.84 LID 71 -7100 -9510 59.20 NINE 71-7100-9520 4.07- DISC 71-7100 -9560 9/17/90 9/17/90 M.97 04L -CD 1010 258.97 30872 04/90 PREPAID 569.21 LIO 71-7100 -9510 O O 9 / 30 P4 s 30 • • is 2 0 � / 2 AP -0O2-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL 9/11/90 CITY CITY GF MOUND TILE 13.36.46 VENDOR INVOICE DUE Hu PRE-KID OEM 40. "NICE WBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMER NVUNR CHEM 1 DATE 11.38- DISC 71- 7100-9360 9/!1/90 9117/90 557.83 JRIL -CD 1010 557.83 30674 9/05/90 PRE -PAID 861.34 LID 71-7100 -9510 679.15 MINE 71-7100-9520 11.21- DISC 71- 7100 -9560 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,523.28 JRNL-CD 1010 1523.28 30901 9/11/90 ED PHILLIPS i SUNS VENDOR TOTAL 2340.08 F1711 PRE -PAID 301.40 AUG FRT 71-7100-96M 9/17/90 9/17/90 301.40 JRNL-CD 1010 301.40 30897 9/11/90 FRANCKS TRUCKING VENDOR TOTAL 301.40 G1 PRE - PAID 1,155.00 DE COMP 9/1 PR 01- 2040.0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,135.00 J K-M 1010 1155.00 30882 9/06/90 GREAT WEST LIFE ASM4IR4LE VENDOR TOTAL 1155.00 61911 PRE -PAID 21.80 HOSP 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 21.80 J K -CD 1010 21.80 30887 9/06/90 GROIP HEALTH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL 21.80 61972 PRE -PAID 132.76 LID 71- 7100-9510 101.57 MINE 71- 7100-9520 5.48- 2.73 DISC FRY 71- 7100-9560 71- 7100-9600 9/17/'N+ 0 117/90 231.58 J K-CD 1010 231.58 30870 9/04/°0 PRE -PAID 170.06 MINE 71-7100-9520 - 2.29- DISC 71- 7100 -9560 4.06 FRY 71-7100-9600 58.47 MIX 71- 7100-9540 9/17/90 9/17/90 230.34 JRNL-M 1010 230.34 30899 9/11/90 6RIGGS COOPER 6 COMPANY VEMiOt TOTAL 461.92 HIM PREPAID 39.16 LAND 22- 4170-3830 9/17/90 9/17/90 39.16 JRNL -CD 1010 39.16 30911 9/14/90 H % H INDUSTRIES. INC VEW TOTAL 39.16 H2145 PRF -PAID 288.46 BED 9/1 PR 01-2040 -MM 9/17/90 9/17/90 288.46 JRNL -CD 1010 288.46 30878 9/06/90 HENN CO SLFF% T t COLLFCT# VENDOR TOTAL 288.46 H2160 PRE -PAID 851.00 JULY BOARD 01-4110 -4250 9117190 9117190 851.00 JRNL-CD 1010 851.00 30894 9/11/90 HENN CO lREA9UR9 VENDOR TOTAL 851.00 IM M -PAID 512.90 i�W 457 OEF CONE 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 0 G%�1 /90 4/17/90 512. JRNL -CD 1010 512.90 30880 9/06/90 29 90 PAM 3 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/1//90 P-002-01 CITY OF MOUND TIW 13.36.46 ww IMICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK NO. INVOICE M DATE DATE STATUS ALARM DESCRIPTION A3[AIINT NLIMER AIblE1T CHECK I DATE ball RETIRVM TRUST -457 VDIDOR TOTAL `1..90 12304 PRE-DAID 91.98 ICNY1 401 9/1 FR 9/11190 9/17/90 91 94 JRNL-CD ICMA RETIRMIT TRUST -401 VENDOR TOTAL 91.98 J2511 PRE -PAID .'/39.20 9D M(TRACT HO RC 9 1 17M 9/17190 539.20 im'cD JIM TAFFE VENDOR TOTAL 539.20 .2579 PREPAID 844.20 LIQ 463.50 MINE 21.54- DISC 9111140 9/17190 1,286.16 Jft -CD P.E -PAID 1,247.52 !19 1,975.99 WINE 44.71- DISC 9/17/90 9il7/90 9,178.80 .lPNL J MM EROS MESALE LI# YDM TOTAL 4464.96 J2610 PREPAID 30.23 COFTEE It SUPPL 30.70 WINDEX °.31 SOAP 8.11 CDIYIES FOR MS 8.12 CRIES FOR MTOS 9/17/90 9117/90 86.47 JRIL-CD JIEILEE FOODS VENOM TOTAL 66.47 1.2752 PREPAID 83.67 AUG GASOLINE 9/17/SO 9/17/90 83.67 JRNL-CD LMATT'S SPRING PART( SPUR %%JOR TOTAL 83.67 L2817 PRE-PAIC 44.00 UNION 9/1 PR 9/17/90 9 /17r 44.00 JR L -CD LAM 04FORCEMENT LABOR CfR+ VENDOR ,JTAL 44.00 1.1930 PRE -PAID 690.02 AUG ALRO PARTS 20.54 AUG A RO PARTS 9/17/90 9/17190 71^ 56 JX-CD '_DWF1.1'S AlJ_fCMTIVE /IITC0' VEMV 70TPL 710.56 '#OSI PRE-PAID '0 724.?1 FIT 9/1 PR 9117/9 9/1119(+ 10,724. ?l 5-c-CD '4 METI E 9" - IfKT WNDM TOTAL 107" MX )O PPE • Pv ; 97.A Hn_ 9 1 PR ,7 O1- 2040 -0000 1010 91.96 3(kq91 9 /06/90 01 -431. , -3100 1010 s .:0 XIM 9 /04190 71-7100-9510 71-7100 -95,0 71- 7100 -9560 1010 1266.16 30871 9/04/90 71- 7100-9510 71 -7100 -9520 71 -7100 -9560 1010 3178.90 30900 9 , 1 11190 L 78- 7900-1200 22-4170-2700 01 -4320 -2200 01- 4020 -2200 S 01-4190-2200 1017 86.47 30903 9/1 22-4170 -1.210 1010 83.67 30843 9/11/90 01- 2040- 1010 44.00 30M 9/06/90 01- 4290 -2310 22.4170 -220n !010 710.56 30909 9/!3/90 01- 2040 -00()0 1010 10724.[1 30875 9/06/90 01-21 • , , PA PURCHASE -002 -01 JOURNAL DATE /17/yp CITY OF MOUND TIME 13.36.46 yv'a INVOICE DUE. HOLD N0. INVOICE NMER PRE -PAID DEN DAI DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCONT WMBER NOW DECK 1 DATE 9111190 9/17/90 97.84 JK-0 1010 97.84 30888 9/06/90 DEL CENTEP ►EALTH PLAN vi ".)m TOTAL 97.84 M31 PPE -PAID 2,376.00 AUG SAC 78- 2304 -0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 2,376.00 JUML -CD 1010 2376.00 30892 9/10/90 METRO MASTF CONTR(.l COMM[# VEW TOTAL 2376.00 M WI PRE -PA;D 268.00 DEF COMP 9/1 PR 01- 2040 -0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 288.00 JK-CD 1010 288.00 30893 Y /06/90 MN RE IREMENT SYSTEM VENDOR TOTAL 288,00 M3455 PRE -PAID 645.65 UNION 9/1 PR 01-2040-0000 9/17/9, 9/17/90 645.65 JRNL -CD 1010 645.65 30889 9/06/90 44 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 320 YOM TOTAL 645.65 M3500 PRE -PAID 46,024.00 2% INS-FIRE AID 95-9',100 -1400 9/11/90 9/17/90 46,024.00 JRNL-CD 1010 46024.00 30895 9/11/90 MOKI It RELIEF ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 46024.00 P3950 PIE -PAID 6,468.45 PERA 9 PF, 01 -2040 -0000 9/'7/90 9/17/90 JK -CQ 1010 6468.45 30877 9/06/90 P E R A VENDOR TOTAL 0 4030 6468.45 PRE -PAIi 539.04 PW 9/1 PP. 01 -2040 -0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 539.04 JK -CD 1010 539.04 30886 9/06/90 PHYS7CIAHS OF MN VENDOR TOTAL 339.04 04171 PREPAID 1.221.26 LIU 71-7100-9510 73.75 MINE 71- 7100-9520 25.20- DISC 71- 7100-9560 9/1 9/17/90 1,269.81 JRME -CD 1010 1269.81 30873 9/04/90 PREPAID 1,573.13 LTG 71-7100 -9510 344.90 MINE 71-7100 -9520 35.17- DISC 71 -7100 -9560 17.2° MIX 71- 7100 -9540 9/17/90 9/17/90 1,900.01 JK-0 1010 1900.01 31002 9/11/90 QUALITY MINE 6 SPIRITS VEW TOTAL 3169.82 84237 PREPAID 80.00 OED 9/1 PR 01- 2010-0000 9/17/90 9/17/90 80.00 JUK -CD 1010 80,00 30879 9/06/90 ArED & POND,LTD IENDOt TOTAL 80.M R4251 PRE -PAID 602.56 56 CONTRACT QRS, 01-4340 -3100 9/17/90 9/17/90 602,56 JRMI -CD 1010 602.56 30866 9/04/90 ROBEr E JOk" YEW TOTAL 0 602,56 z10 of PAGE 5 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/17/90 AP- CO2 -01 CITY OF MOUMD TIM 13.36.46 %ow INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID DECK NO. IMICE NMRR DATE DATE STATUS AMOURT DESCRIPTION ACCOLKT KIM AlQXT DECK t DATE 54381 PRE -PAID 130,747,34 PYMT #5-CITY HALL ADOTN 9/11/90 9/17/90 130,747.34 J:OL-CD SH;NGOBEE BUILDERS VENDOR TOTAL 130747,34 54511 PRE -PAID 508.92 CR lJNION 9/1 PP. 9/17/90 9/17/90 500,92 JTTL -CD STATE CAPITOL CREDIT ANION VENDOR TOTAL 508.92 54619 PRE -PAID 608,00 TKnS BY CITY SIGH 9117/90 9/17/90 608.00 JRYL -CD SLPM HILL TREE FARM VENDOR TOTAL 608,00 15100 PRE -PAID 53.64 AUG TOWELS 64.50 AUG RUTS 89.93 AIIG INTFOFMS 17.99 ALE 45 • ' -'O V 31J14IFORMB 9/17/90 9/17/90 31,., CD UNIIOG RENTAL SYSTEM VE)w TOTAL 317.99 95520 '% -PAID 6.00 CHAMBRJt MM 6.00 CHAPIO R MTG 9/17/90 9/17/90 11.00 01L-CD NESTOWA CHAMBER OF alM VENDOR TOTAL 11.00 16096 PRE -PAID 33.75 RUIN-DOCK FEE 9/11/90 9/17/90 33.75 JRNL -CD CAROLINE GUIST VENDOR TOTAL 33.75 16135 PRE -PAID 36.70 REFUND -EST BILL -DALE RD 9/11/90 9/17/90 :.'..70 JRHL-CD OILY FLATEH VENDK)R TOTAL .,.7C 16140 PRE -PAID 16.72 WITNESS FFE -GRAY 9/17/90 9/17/90 16.72 JtfL -CD ROFERT J OHN GRAY VENDOR TOTAL 16.72 TOTAL ALL VENDORS 233.507.5 30-6100-5000 1010 '30747.34 30903 9/12/90 01-2040-0000 1010 508.92 30885 9/06/90 01- 4320 -2200 1010 608.00 30912 9/14/90 01-4290 -2150 78- 7800 -2200 01-4280-2240 01- 4290 -2240 73 -7300 -2240 78- 7800 -2240 1010 317.99 30696 9/11/90 01- 4040-4120 01- 4140-4120 1010 11.00 30904 9/12/90 Bi-3160-0000 1010 33.75 30907 9/13/90 79 -1191 -0000 1010 36.70 30908 9/13/90 01-4140 -4100 1010 16.72 30913 9/14/90 o `1/ • 2 00-3' PAGE 1 OP-002-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 CITY OF M UND TIME 9.13.41 wxOR INVOICE OLE HOLD NO, INVOICE WBR PRE -PAID CHECK DATE DATE STATUS NDU(T DESU7iIPTION ACCOUNT NU16fR AMDU?M!T CHECK t DATE em 24.23 FILE FOLDERS 01- 4190-2100 1.47 TELS HOLDER 01 -4040 -2100 4.47 TELE HOLDER 01-4090-2100 4.47 TELE HOLM 01- 4190-2100 4.47 TELE HOLDER 01-4140-2100 9/19/90 9/19/90 42.11 JNL-CD 1010 AMO BUSINESS 0 Yom TOTAL 42.11 A0170 595.00 PL B -IP HALL 01- 4060 -3100 9/19/90 9/19/90 995.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ALEX MDLZER PL MB-MG YEW TOTAL 995.00 A0102 450.00 CABLING FOR COMPUTER 30- 6000 -3100 9/19/90 9/19/90 450.00 JNL-CD 1010 ALL SYSTEMS INSTALLATION VENDOR TOTAL 450.00 A0190 283.00 BI.AC.TOP OIL 01 -4280 -2340 9/19190 9/19/90 283.00 JNL-CO 1010 ALLIED BLACKTOP CO VENDOR TOTAL 283.00 A0300 545.00 TEST AERIAL TRICK 22 -4170 -2200 9/19/90 9/19/90 545.00 JNL-CO 1010 AMERIMJ TEST CENTER VE)VOR TOTAL 545.00 &21 30.00 OCT PARKING LEASE 01-4280 -4200 30.00 OCT PARKING LEASE 73-7300 -4200 30.00 OCT PARKING LEASE 78- 7800-4200 9/19 9/19/90 90.00 JRML-ClD 1010 BALBOA MN COPANY425 -0000 VEtOOR TOTAL 90.00 80640 5.50 AUG OXYGEN 73- 7300-2200 5.50 AUG OXYGEN 78- 7800-2200 5.50 AUG OXYGEN 01- 4290-2200 9/19/90 9/19/90 16.50 JR1L-CD 1010 BATWE COMPANY YEW TOTAL 16.50 son 6,560.00 AUD RECYCLE SEW 01- 4270 -4200 9119/90 9/19/90 6,560.00 JR L-CD 1010 BFI RECYCL ING SYSTEMS OF N VENDOR TOTAL 6560.00 r 600 44.52 PUG GARBAGE 01- 4280-3750 103.88 AUG GARBAGE 01- 4290.3750 65.72 AUG GARBAGE 22 -4170 -3750 9/19/99 9/19/90 214.12 JRML -CD 1010 BLACKODUTAK AND SON VETmU)R TOTAL 214.12 po 9 8 0 0701 81.03 PAPER ROLLS 01-4060 -2200 a0F ay PAGE 2 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 AP- 002-01 CITY OF NOM TIME 9.13.41 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK ID. INVOICE NPM DATE DATE STATUS NMOIM DESTFIPTION ALCOLKT Nl1W NW CHECK t DAY' 9/19/90 9/19190 81.03 JU -CD 1010 K ELECTIONS-MIDWEST REG[ YEW TOTAL 81.03 80730 821.02 RED ROCK 78- 7800 -2340 1,392.87 M.LFIELD ROCK 60 -6000 -5000 9/19190 9/19/90 2,219.89 JOL -CD 1010 WYAN ROCK PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 2219.89 00960 15.53 AUG HOW SUPPL 22-4170-2200 39.00 ALE HOWE SLPPL O1- 4340 -2200 6.77 AUG HOWE IM 01 - 4340 -2300 67.28 AUG HIM SUPPL 01-4320 -2200 5.61 AUG H71E SIPPL O1 4280 -2310 4.06 UPS-HATCH 01-4280 -3210 18.98 AUG HIM SUPPL 01 -4290 -2200 6.78 AUG HOWE SIPPL O1- 4290 -2310 5.79 ALE NOW SIPPL 73- 7300 -2200 84.93 AUG HIM SLPPL 73- 7300 -233D 22.68 ALE HIM SIPPL 73 -7300 -2300 6.69 AUG HDIE SUPPL 78 -7800 -2300 9/19/90 9/19/90 284,10 JtL -CD 1010 MAST TO COAST VENDOR TOTAL 284.10 00990 907.00 COlFM LEASE 01- 4095 -WM 468.00 COMPUTER MAINT 01- 4095 -3800 9/19/90 9/19/90 1,375.00 JNL-CD 1010 ILPUTOSERVICE INC VENDOR TOTAL 1375.00 D1170 1,333.32 RR LEASE TO 10/31 40- 6000 -3910 666.68 RR LEASE TO 10/31 01- 4320 -3910 9/19/90 9,19/90 2,000.00 JiNL -CD 1010 DAKOTA RAIL INC VENDOR TCTrk 2000,00 01190 44.54 RE STOCK FEE 73- 7300 -2300 9/19/90 9119/90 44.54 JRML-CD 1010 DAVIES WATER EOUIPMEM VENOtit TOTAL 44.50 01280 64.00 DICTAPHONE MAINT - -I YR 01- 4340 -3800 120.00 DICTAPHONE MAINT - -1 TR 01- 4190 -3900 9/19/90 9/19190 184.00 J1NL-CD 1010 DICTAPHONE VENDOR TOTAL 184.00 01332 10.00 CYL CHARGE 73- 7300 -2260 9/19/90 9/19 10.00 JRNL-CD 1010 OPC IhMTRIES, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 10.00 E1485 425.58 CLEAN FIFNACES -IP 01- 4060-3100 9/19/90 9/19/90 425.58 JRHL -CD 1010 • • • J 0101 03 -W 00'ZtL 06/61/6 06/61/6 OOlt- 008L-8L 331AUS 8011NV1' ld3S L9'06 004-00EL -EL 3311835 8011NV1' 1d3S X%a 00Zt- 08Zt-10 33IA83S 8011W 1d3S 99'09 011t-OZEt -10 33IA83S 8UIlW la 00'065 IZtzr 00'201 1V101 do" IV 13 SNO113300 0101 M -W 00 06/61/6 06/61/6 0000- 0611 -10 SSM- INOW - M WZ 040M 00'90'1 SZEZ1 99'LtOZt lVllll 80" 8381ISV3dl 03 NM 0101 m - % 0616116 06/61/6 OOZt-OL0t -l0 13d81NO3 SOM 0661 9S'LtO'Zt 0912N SZ'Zl 1V101 800]43A dONS 3NI10V1 T3SXBl 0101 83-1111' 971 06/61/6 06/61/6 00EZ- 084-10 In u'ZI OWN 06' %I 1V101 MM 3NI 'TWJ -3NO 31VIS MMM 0101 (O -7R!<` 06' %1 06/61/6 06/61/6 OSb£- OOEL -EL tam TM -340 X111 06 90619 18 1 9Z 7110180OT43A SNOl1V31WHO1VB4 0101 00-781' l8'9Z 06/61/6 06/61/6 OOZt- OOEL -£L 010V8 W1F108d 18 1 9Z OZB19 6£'OOZ 1V101 800N3A Si31SAS UTNA @i 0101 013 -W 6E'OOZ 06/61/6 06/61/6 OOZZ- 008L -8L 1NIVd 133110 L8'£E OOZZ-OBZt -l0 IMY 30M £9'It OOZZ- Ot£t -l0 iNIVd 30M £9'It OOZZ-OOEL-£L 1NIVd 31118 9Z'E8 OOLIi 00'111 1V101 800N3A AlINM35 UrU 0101 83 -7411' 00'111 06/61 /6 06/61/6 00l£-008L -8L Rd-A83S w6" 1711E 9L'LZ OOl£-OOEL -£L Ph-AM Wh" 11d1D 9L'LZ OOIE-06Zt -10 Rd-ADS WW AW 9L'LZ 001£- MZt-10 Ad-A83S NWIV 11N1D SL'LZ 09911 00 1V101 Sam 15181 1S8Ii OlOI 03-W 00'01 06/61/6 06/61/6 OZ19- OOEL -EL 9L 00 -S333 M O9'LS OZ19- 0009 -0E SL U) -S33i ON08 OS'LS lE9li 8S'SZt 1V101 800N3A 3NI 11MM IMIM16 31VO 1 10310 1N101V 83M IMMOV NDIldI83S30 IMUN Sll1ViS 31VO 31V0 8811 3310MI 'ON X1313 EIVd -38d M 310 3110M4I Waft WEV6 3111 ONl>C114 i0 1113 10-MO-dV 06/61/6 31V0 1VN8f10(' 3SV1'38f1d E x13 PAGE 4 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-0O2-01 CITY OF MOlJND VENDOR INVOICE ME HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION J i S CLEANING CO. VENDOR TOTAL 742.00 J2572 90.00 RESET STONES 9/19/90 9/19/90 9( 4) JK_CD JOHN J NILHELM VEND TOTAL K2651 9/19/90 9/19/90 KAR PRODCJCTS VETID(It TOTAL L2810 9/19/90 9/19/90 LANO EGUIPMENT INC VENOM TOTAL L.2940 9/19/90 9/19/90 LUTI TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL OW40 9/19/90 9/19/90 MASYS CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL Mm 9/19/90 9/19/90 MCCOMBS FRAM( ROOS ASSOCI• VENDOR TOTAL M3710 90.00 198.63 RISC NUTS,BCLT5 198.63 J K-CD 198.63 71.48 BOBCAT PARTS 1,060.69 REPAIR MOT 1,122.17 JRNL-CD 1122.17 1,290.00 TREE REMOVALS- ASSESS 1,290.00 JK-0 1290.00 170.00 OCT ENFORS RAINT 170.00 JO L-0 170.00 393.60 ALIG ENOR -KI 206.00 AUG ENOR- OESINUT RD 64.00 AUG ENOR- APRONS EST 126.00 AUA 00 -LWER 96.00 AUG ENOR-AIM AAW PARK 64.00 AM DIM- NDRNOOD 112.00 AUG ENOR -90 SEALCOAT 336.00 AUG ENIR- DENBIIIH-A SESS 1,588.00 AUG ENOR-GAB TANG CONTAM 126.00 AUG ENOR-FIRE STA ADDTN 384.00 AUG ENGR- STREET DEPT 4,177.60 AUG ENCR-C HALL ADDTN 970.00 AUG EMIR -MATER DEPT 1,056.40 AIIG ENR -SNR -LIFT STA 135.00 AUG ENR- WATERSIDE 528.20 AUG 90 -IP GARAGE 1,231.00 AUG 00 -DEPOT REHAB 1,567.20 AUG 00 -CBD LOTS 128.00 A1IG ENOR- MATERIAL STORAGE 13,293.00 JRNL-CO 13293.00 56.70 AUG HDWE SIJPPL 5.18 AUG HONE Sl1PPL 14.98 AUG HDWE SIJPPL 1.25 AUG ME SUPPL 583.80 DEHUMIDIFIERS DATE 9/19/90 TIME 9.13.41 PRE -PAID CHECK ACCOINT NUMBER AMOUNT CHECK # DATE 80- 8000 -3100 1010 01-4290 -2250 1010 01-4340 -2310 01- 4340 -3820 1010 01- 1190-0000 1010 01- 4095 -3800 1010 01-4190-3100 01- 4190-3100 01 -4190 -3100 01-4190-3100 01- 4190-3100 01-4190.3100 27- 5800-3100 26- 1190-0000 30- 6000-3100 22- 4170 -3100 01-428D -3100 30 -6000 -5000 73- 7300 -3100 78. 7800-3100 81- 4350-3100 30 -6000 -5000 30- 6000 -5004 40- 6000 -3100 60-6000 -3100 1010 01- 4280 -2300 78-7890-2240 78- 7800-2300 01- 4290-2300 30-6000 -4100 n • a 4 c� 5 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 �'CO2 -01 CITY Of PM TIME 9.13.41 Yom INVOICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK NO- INVOICE NO DATE DATE STATUS MOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOW Nl19dER AMOUNT CHECK MM DATE 9/19/90 9/.9/90 661.91 JRN.-CD 1010 WMVW HARDI E VENDOR TOTAL 661.91 KT7o0 48.05 TRAILER JACK 01-4340 -2310 9/19/90 9/19/90 48.05 ,AN. - CD 1010 NORrWA HTDRALLICS VENDOR TOTAL 48.05 mm 2,961.35 SUBSIiiEACE INVESTIGATION 73-7300 -4200 2,961.35 SIIBSIAFACE INVESTIGATION 78- 7800 -4200 9/19/90 9/19/90 5,922.70 JRIL-CD 1010 NOW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL. 5972.70 03896 82.06 BALING THINE 71-7100-2200 9/19/90 9/19/90 82.06 JRML -CD 1010 MW USA, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 82.06 03915 330.00 MDNING-ASSESS 01 -1190 -0000 9/19/90 9/19/90 330.00 JRN- -CD 1010 WrOGM ENVIRONMENTS, INC VENDOR TOTAL 330.00 P3959 508.03 ANTIFREEZE 01- 4290 -2250 9/19/90 9/19/90 506.03 JRN- -CD 1010 o r OIL, INC VENDOR TOTAL 508.03 P3993 107.20 DEDUCTABLE-89 BONN REPAIR 01- 4140-3810 9/19/90 9/19/90 107.20 ,APL -CD 1010 POLL BROW PONTIAC -K VENDOR TOTAL 107.20 P4031 221.75 OCT HOSP -M TMiWSON 01- 4140-1510 9/19190 9/19/90 221.75 AL-CD 1010 PHYSICIANS OF MN VENDOR - ITAL 221.75 P4049 30.00 9 -10 -11 EXTERM 71- 7100-4200 9/19/90 9/19/90 30.00 ,APL -CD 1010 PLIMM'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL 30.00 84199 82.65 REPLACE LTGNTS -IP HALL 01- 4060-3100 9/19/90 9/19/90 82.65 .APL -CD 1010 R.C. ELECTRIC, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 82.65 c i2QQ 100.00 BOND RE/EWk-NO;?M 01-4090-3660 9/19/90 9/19/90 100.00 JRPL-CD 1010 R L TOUNGOAHL h ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL 100.00 P4240 781.00 KENNEL FEES 01-4140-42'0 • i PAGE 6 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 AP-0O2-01 CITY OF ROUND TIME 9.13.41 VET INVOICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AlQW CHECK 1 DATE 9/19/90 9/19/90 781.00 JO L -CD 1010 IED-RAJ KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 781.00 54390 2,305.42 OCT REM 71 -7100 -3920 9/19/90 9/19/90 2,305.42 JRNL-CD 1010 SHMELINE PMA VENDOR TOTAL M.42 54430 2 PAPER 01- 4060 -2100 15.64 RELIEF INDEX CARDS 22-4170 -35M 9/19/90 9/19/90 17.64 JRNL-M 1010 SOS PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL 17.64 54440 3.50 AM CAR MASHES 01-4190 -3810 7.00 AUG CAR MASHES 01-4280 -3810 3.50 AUG CAR MASHES 01- 4040-3810 161.00 AUG CAR MASHES 01- 4140 -3810 9/19/90 9/19/90 175.00 JRNL_CD 1010 SPRING PARK CAR MASH VENDOR TOTAL 175.00 sw 404.00 DRIVR TRAIN-BOS,HJG,NIC,MEU 01 -4140 -4110 9/19/90 9/19/90 404.00 JOE -CD 1010 ST CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY VENDOR TOTAL 404.00 54630 23.39 AUG GASOLINE 01 -4040 -2210 687.85 AUG GASMINE 01- 4280 -2210 43.09 AUG GASOLINE 01- 4290 -2210 457.92 AUG GASOLINE 01- 4340-2210 188.27 AUG GASOLINE 73- 7300 -2210 191.49 AUG GASOLINE 78- 7800 -2210 1,053.17 AUG GASOLINE 01- 4140 -2210 9/19/90 9/19/90 2,645.18 JRNL -CD 1010 SPfRAMERICA VENDOR TOTAL 2645.18 T4716 63.75 TEMP HELP 01- 4270 -1300 59.50 TEMP HELP 73 -7300 -1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 123.25 JRNL -CD 1010 TEIPORARIES TO 00 VENDOR TOTAL 123.25 T4717 505.95 MOVE COMPUTER 30- 6000-3100 9/19/90 9/19/90 505.95 JRNL -CD 1010 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 505.95 r+790 1.69 PAD 01-4290.2310 9/19/90 9/19/90 1.69 JRNL -CD 1010 MM BROS CHEVROLET VENDOR TOTAL 1.69 16 190 1,885.00 AUG PLAN CONSULT 01.4190-3100 0 • • Z�,�y RAGE 7 FURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 AP-002-01 CITY OF HOUND TIME 9.13.41 Vr:NI m INVOICE ME HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK N0. INVOICE NO DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOW NUMBER AMOUNT DECK t DATE 9/19/90 9/19/90 1,883.00 JiK.-m 1010 WNREN- HALARD-STALLINIS VENDOR TOTAL 1885.00 wmo 2,720.00 RE90M COURSE 22- 4170 -4110 9/19/90 9/19/90 2,720.00 JTNL-CD 1010 W ONIA RIDGEVIEY HOSPITAL VE701QR TOTAL 2720.00 V%30 396.00 3 PTS BREAK 73 -7300 -3800 840.50 BEA IWOOD TAP 73 -7300 -3800 2,521.50 BEACWOOD TAP 78- 7300-3800 2,791.00 CARDINAL LN 78- 7800 -3800 1,353.00 CARDINAL LN -BILL MINNEGASCO 78- 1190 -0000 9/19/90 9/19190 7,904.00 JRNL-CD 1010 YIDMER INC VENDOR TOTAL 7904.00 1!5690 217.98 BLACKTOP 73- 7300 -2340 218.73 FILL SAO 73- 7300-2340 7 6.22 BLACKTOP 01-4280 -2340 619.36 CONEXTE SAND-PARKS 60- 6000 -5000 9/19/90 9/19/90 1,772.29 JK-CD 1010 IM KILLER i SOVS VENDOR TOTAL 1772.29 1!5700 3,081.00 AUG PROSECUTION 01-4110 -3120 9/19/90 9119/90 3,061.00 JRNL-0 1010 O VURST-PEARSON-tARSON VEN=i TOTAL 3081.00 om 409.88 LEASE 5052 01- 4320 -5000 75.46 FUSER LUKE 01- 4320 -2200 9/19/90 9/19/90 485.54 JtIL -CD 1010 XEROX CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 485.54 13850 381.25 CI.EANER,NAX 01- 4290 -2200 9/19190 9/19190 381.25 JUL -CD 1610 LACK'S INC VENOM TOTAL 381.25 16002 46.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/191% 9/19/90 46.00 JRNL-CD 1010 LEATRICE COOPER VEND(XR TOTAL 46.00 16004 99.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 99.00 JRK.-CD 1010 ANN SCHMINGLER VENDOR TOTAL 99.00 16005 89.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19, 89.00 JRNL -CD 1010 SANBARA SIDOERS VENiX1R TOTAL 99.00 i .. �J 00' 16 14101 2 mwm 3X11108 I VA 0101 (3-781' 00'16 06/61/6 `6/61/6 000- 0901-10 11/6 390r NOROM 00'16 ZZ091 00' OL 14101 111" 1131%1 1108 1N 0101 a3- 181' 00 06/61/6 06/61/6 00£1-0901-10 11/6 3W N0113313 00'OL IZ091 00'►9 14101 2dimm SM31M "IHS 0101 03-78!' 00'►9 06/61/6 06/61/6 OOCI-0901 -10 11/6 3W N0113313 00'19 OZO92 00'89 14101800N3& N3188,01H10lm OIOI 03-78!' 00'89 06/61/6 06/6116 00£I -M -10 11 /6 3OCkT N0113313 00'89 61092 00`99 7H01 111010& W - OM 3113ON4 0101 a3-w 00 06/61/6 06/6116 O0BI- 090►-10 11/6 3MW NOIL'1313 00'99 5 ►042 00 14101 11)043& 101SI1 W %3A 0101 03 -78!' 00'8Z 06/61/6 06/ "/G OOCI- 0901 -10 II /6 390(1' N0113M 00'6Z HOW 00'99 IhO1 2111113& NDSIlDB1I9 NOIM 0101 a3-781' 00'99 06/61/6 06/61/6 000-M-10 11/6 Mr NOIL3M 00'99 01092 00'01 14101 210@13& 131XM 1 0101 a3 -781' 00'OL 06/61/6 0616116 OOEI- 0901-lo 11/6 30(11 N0113313 00'01 z 109 00' 16 14101 210" NOS12Al3 183MV 0101 (13 -781' 00'16 06161/6 06/61/6 OOCI- 090*-10 11/6 Mr N0113313 00'16 11091 00 1ti101 NOmm aNr IDOAS 31130411 0101 a3-781' 00'99 06/61/6 06/61/6 000- 090 -10 11/6 3WW NOII3313 00'99 L0091 00'19 14101 HIMA NOSa30N4 VIM 0101 a3-w 00'19 06/61/6 06/61/6 OOf1- 0901 -IO 'i /6 3MT N0113313 00'19 90092 3140 I )0313 111101(4 H33ft IWM NOI1dlHOS30 11110W SI1141S 3140 3140 W& 3310&41 'ON X1310 al4d-3dd 0711 311Q 3310ANI UMN36 411'6 31111 aNI1Wl 3D U13 to- Z03 -dN 06/61/6 3140 14NMt10P 3S4HiNnd 8 3144 P41 9 PURCHASE JOURNAL DATE 9/19/90 AP- 02 -01 CITY OF MOUND TIME 9.13.41 VDIOM INVOICE RJE HOD PRE -PAID DM NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS NOW DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER AMOUNT CI{pC I DATE 66.00 ELECTION ,AJDGE 9/11 01- 4060.1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 ,FX -CD 1010 ELSIE WESSEL VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16024 66.00 ELECTION JLIDGE 9/11 01- 4060 -1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 JRNL -CD 1010 ARLENE GiLMORE VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16025 68.00 ELECTION JIM 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 68.00 JRNI-CD 1010 JEA*m JOINSON VENDOR TOTAL 68.00 16028 66.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060 -1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 JRNL -CD 101C EW BRANDENBURG VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 IW31 68.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 68.00 JRNL -CD 1010 KATHY OIAN VEIW TOTAL 68.00 16002 20.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1304 9/19/90 9/19/90 20.00 M-CD 1010 LY BOSTROM VENDOR TOTAL 20.00 16033 26.00 ELECTION JUDM 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 26.00 AL-CD 1010 GAIL DIPUIS VENDOR TOTAL 26.00 16062 284.23 i(TR REFUND -PD TWICE-BRIC,3ITON 79- 1191 -0000 9/19/90 9/19/94 284.23 JRPL -CD 1010 NOEL FREEMAN VENDOR TOTAL 284.23 16466 23.00 PLANTS- VETERANS PARK 01-4340-2350 9/19/90 9/19/90 23.00 JRNL-CD 1010 BONNIE BLAIR VENDOR TOTAL 23.00 16150 66.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 JRNL -CD 1010 LOIS BROWN VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16153 64.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 64.00 JRNL -CD 1010 FWYLLIS ORN VENUF TOTAL 64.00 16154 22.00 E1ECTIIN JJDGE 9/11 01-4r)kA -1300 0 z9gz PAGE 10 PURCHASE JOURNAL CFTE 9/19/90 AP-CO2 -01 CITY OF MW TI,E 9.13.41 VENDOR INVOICE OUE HOLD PRE -PAID CHECK NO. INVOICE WBR DATE DATE STATUS AlUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NINM AIU INT CHECK 4 DATE 9/19/90 9/19/90 22,00 J(NL -CD 1010 SUZANNE HICNiWE VENDOR TOTAL 22.00 16155 64 -U0 ELECTION ,JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 64.00 JRNL 1010 JEAN ROBINSON VENDOR MTAL 64.00 16156 66.00 ELECTION ,JUDGE 9/:1 01 9/19/90 V19/90 66.00 JRNL -CD 1010 CLIFFORD WILSON VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16157 95.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01- 4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 95.00 JRM -0 1010 BOB B YRNE S VOW TOTAL 95.00 16158 66.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 JRM - CD 1010 .LINE HESSICK VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16159 66.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 66.00 ,AHI -CD 1010 PHYLLIS RUDOLPH VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16160 66.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060 -13DO 9/19190 9/19/90 66,00 ,RNL -CD tm0 WIRCELLA HALL VENDOR TOTAL 66.00 16166 64.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-400 -1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 64.00 JRHI -CD 1010 BETTY STRONG VENDOR TOTAL 64.00 16168 50.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-40!0-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 50.00 JRM -CD H010 EDYTHE KIINIG VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 16169 56.00 ELECTION JUDGE 9/11 01-4060-1300 9/19/90 9/19/90 56.00 J M -CD i010 ELLA RICHTER VFNDOR TOTAL 56.00 TOTAL AL', VENig)RS 111,73.37 0 0 y�- w • • �� r3 WPLOM TEL: 338 -2625 a RESOLUTION 1990- Sep 21.90 9 :24 No.001 P.05 RDp -M A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A WAIVER OF MINNESOTA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. WHEREAS, the City of Mound is a city in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a full -time police department which aggressively enforces Minnesota criminal laws, including all of the recently enacted gross misdemeanors, and WHEREAS, the practice in Hennepin County of waiving the requirement to conduct the omnibus hearing on gross misdemeanors within 14 days has resulted in more expeditious and efficient procedures for dealing with the large number of gross- misdemeanors in Hennepin County, and WHEREAS, the proposed change to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of the Rules of criminal Procedure will require that the omnibus hearing be held within 14 days of the initial appearance, which will result In the additional appearance of the city prosecutor and city police officers, appearances which are not presently occurring under the rules now in effect, and . WHEREAS, the city believes that the criminal process now in effect in Hennepin county is efficient, and affords the defendant' all of the rights and process required by state and federal constitutions, and that the changes to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will not improve an already excellent court procedure, but will simply add unnecessary expense and cane load to an already busy court, and may in fact adversely affect the ability of the Hennepin County court system to deal with both civil and criminal case loads. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Mound: 1. The City of Hound is strongly in favor of a waiver from the 14 day hearing requirement in Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure for Hennepin County. 2. The City Manager is directed to send a copy of this resilution to the Criminal Rules Advisory Committee and the Minnesota Supreme Court. Mayor -- -- - - - - -- E City Clerk Council Mwmberc ir. Favor: Council Members Against: CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 9 -25 -90 #2 WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21,90 9:24 No.001 P.02 A TMOMAI WORST, VA CURTeS A PtAfteom, PA. JAM94 0 I-MiOw, P.A, TMOMA$ r. UwD[ww000, P.A. CRAIG M. MtoTt Roeta J. rt«owS LAW OFFICES WORST. PEARSON, L^RSON, UNDERWOOD & M ERTZ A VA&Tft944.1r IM91.V9,k6 •AO•ltG-OftA► A&6etlAT*%4 1100 FIRST SANK PLACE W9ST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 September 21, 1990 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Velts-MoMt lets) 32e tee PAR MUMoRs 4041 S]e lets Ra: City of Mound Dear Ed& On September 16, 1990, 1 attended a Meeting of the Suburban Prosecutors' Association. Also in attendance Was Judge Charles Porter of the Hennepin County District Court. The qubject of the meeting was the change to Rules 8.04 and 11.07 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, scheduled to become effective on January 1, 1991. Rules 8.04 and 11.07 relate to the omnibus hearing procedure for gross - misdemeanors, a hearing which under the rules should be held within 14 days, and at which time various pre -trial issues are taken up and decided, such as whether there is probable cause, whether certain items of evidence will be admissible, and the like. The rules have allowed this hearing to be waived and held at the time of the pre -trial conference. As you know, most cases are resolved at the pre -trial conference and the practical result of the waiver of the requirement to have the omnibus hearing in 14 days has eliminated the hearings altogether. If the cases were set for triad, the hearing was deferred to the day of trial, a time when all of the witnesses were required to come to the courthouse for the trial. This waiver procedure has been an extremely effective way to deal with the omnibus hearing. The waiver has been so effective, in firs, that we have never had an omnibus hearing before the date of trial where we had to call witnesses to testify. All of this is now scheduled to change. On January 1, 1991, the amended Rules 8.04 and 11.07 will do away with the waiver of the 14 day requirement. If there is to be an omnibus hearing, it must be held within 14 days. The waiver nas been eliminated. The judges and prosecutors believe that a defense WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21.90 9:24 No.001 P.03 WuRST, PIANSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD 6 MERTZ • Mr. Rd Shukle City of Mound September 21, 1990 Page 2 attorney's first contact with his client is usually at the first court appearance. They arrange to meet at the courthouse by telephone. The attorneyfs first exposure to the case is at that first appearance. This is too early in the proceeding to expect the defense attorney to waive the omnibus hearing. Bo everyone expects that these hearings will be demanded in most cases, and it demanded, they oust be held within 14 days. Witnesses will be required to testify. If witnesses do not appear, cases will be dismissed. If witnesses do appear, I would expect some attorneys to waive the hearing at that point and others to cross examine state's witnesses to see what they can find out. The Hennepin County public Defender has announced that he will request a hearing in every case. The Hennepin County bench expects these hearings to last on average 1 1/2 to 2 hours, and expects to assign 8 judges to conduct these hearings on a 5 day per week, d hour per day basis. There are about 6,000 gross misdemeanors per year in the county. Two thousand downtown, and 4,000 in the suburban courts. Under the present rule these hearings do not occur, or if at all, on the day of trial. So this requirement to conduct these hearings is over and above what is now being handled by the court system. Why is this happening? Is the system under the existing rule not working? The change is happening because the Supreme Court has indicated that it will not grant a waiver from the new rule to Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. Chief Justice Popovich has stated that he wants uniform application of the rules on a state wide basis. In reality, the change in the rule wont have a large impact on 85 of the 87 counties. Only Hennepin and Ramsey will have a dramatic change. The rule we now have works perfectly. No change is required. Defendants* rights are not being compromised. If he wants a hearing, he gets it but it happens on the day of trial. Why am I telling you about this? As you can well imagine, there will be an added burden on your resources to conduct these new hearings. First of all, the Court has indicated that the hearings must be held downtown, because the suburban court rooms are fully scheduled. This means more driving for your officers. Second, under the union contract, you will be required to pa the officers 2 hours at time and one -half when they are scheduled for these new hearings. There goes your overtime budget. Third, your prosecutor will be required to conduct these new hearings. How much extra time is involved? In 1989 and so far in 1990, there have been on average 3 gross uisdemeanors per month. If we have one officer for each hearing, this means about 72 overtime WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 21.90 9 :24 No.001 P.04 WURST, PEARSON, LAR S ON. UNDERWOOD & MfRTt • Mr. Rd Shukle City of Mound September 21, 1990 Page 1 hours per year. If the hearings run 2 hours, my time will increase about 72 hours per year. This is indeed an additional cost because I don't expect that any of the oases will be resolved at the omnibus hearing. To the extent that defense attorneys waive these hearings, these costs will be reduced. But at this point, I see no reason to be optimistic about the defense bar. These hearings could result in a 15% increase in prosecution expenses alone without considering the policc Overtime OkVense. I understand that Minneapolis has estimated at least a million dollar increase in its court budget. I am writing this letter for two reasons. First to explain the problem, and second, to let you know how you night address the problem politically. There is an advisory committee on tho Rules of Criminal Procedure that is meeting the first weekend in October. The Prosecutors Association agreed to ask all suburban cities to ask the rules committee to recommend to the Supreme Court that the new rules be waived for Hennepin and Ramsey counties. I also suggest that the Council adopt a resolution favoring a waiver of the 14 day rule for Hennepin County. I have enclosed a draft revolution which I suggest be adopted by the Council, and sent to the Rules Committee with a letter from Ed requesting a waiver for Hennepin County. The letter, together with 15 copies, should be sent to Phil Marron, L.A.M.P., 95 Law Building, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, requesting that the copies be distributed to the committee. I also suggest that copies be sent to each of the Supreme Court justices. I enclose a current mailing list for the court. Please let me know if there is anything more I might be doing on this. very, truly �1 ames' Larson JDL: lkg Enclosure .. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472 -3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544 -9511 EMERGENCY 911 September 25, 1990 TO: Ed Shukle KRule FROM: Len Harrell SUBJECT: Omnibus Hearing Change 1 7 -j I have been in contact with Jim Larson regarding the proposed rule change regarding the Minnesota Rules of Criminal Procedure for Hennepin County and am very concerned. To date, we have had approximately 150 court appearances for our officers since the first of the year. If only one half of these cases required an additional hearing appearance, the cost would be a minimum of $3,900.00 in officer costs alone. Additionally, there would be prosecutor and travel costs. I have attached letters from the county attorneys office and the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association. Both letters request that the rule change not take effect and are concerned over the effects the change would have in the system. Please convey to the council my concerns and support for the resolution prepared by `ir. Larson. • THOMAS L. JOHNSON PHONE COUNTY ATTORNEY , ?�' *�} C 0 1 6121346 5550 4 _ ti ~A IL • 'aA C >� OFFICE OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY 2000 GOVERNMENT CENTER M INNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55487 September 21, 1990 Chief Len Harrell Mound Police Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Chief: This is to follow up the discussion at the last Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association meeting. At that meeting I said I would send each Chief some background information regarding the Omnibus Hearing Rule that will go into effect on January 1, 1991. The new Rule is effective on that date unless the Minnesota Supreme Court acts to either defer the implementation date or to otherwise modify its current position. The new Rule change mandates a full Omnibus Hearing within 14 days of every defendant's first appearance for all felony and gross misdemeanor prosecutions. This includes a Hearing on all Constitutional and other legal issues (the so- called Rasmussen Hearing). Such issues now go through a Rasmussen Hearing only if the defendant does not otherwise enter a guilty plea -- something which happens in about 90% of all felony cases. To put some numbers on this, about 250 felony cases go to trial each year in Hennepin County. Only these cases are now subjected to a Rasmussen Hearing. However, we prosecute approximately 4,000 felonies each year. So, about 3,700+ cases which now settle without a Rasmussen Hearing will be required to have one. (A few cases will settle within 14 days after the Rulp change, but very few.) Each Rasmussen Hearing will require minimally the presence of the arresting officer. It may also require the presence of the investigating officer(s) and others as well. We estimate each Omnibus will take a full half -day. So, your department will have 1 -4 officers subpoenaed for perhaps as many as 3,700 felony cases where their appearance is not now necessary. (This number will, in all likelihood, be smaller than 3,700. But it is impossible to project how much smaller and even if it i4, say, 50% smaller, it is still significant.) It would be very useful for you to analyze the cost your city would incur because of the Rule change. Please note that the numbers above are for felonies Qn1v You will need to consUIL your city T. D. D. 612,348 fi015 HENNEPIN COUNTY 15 AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER FAX X6121348 2042 Chief Len Harrell Mound Police Department September 21, 1990 Page 2 • attorney to get gross misdemeanor figures. Then, a letter should be sent with your cost estimate, along with any other explanatory comments you would like to make, to: Frank Claybourne, Chair cc: Chief Justice Peter Popovich Supreme Court Criminal Rules Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee Minnesota Judicial Center 30 E. Seventh Street #2800 25 Constitution Avenue St. Paul, MN 55101 St. Paul, MN 55155 -6102 Obviously, speed is of the essence. The Criminal Rules Advisory Committee is scheduled to meet in October. It is critically important that this Committee recommend to the Supreme Court that it defer implementation or toss -out the Omnibus Rule now scheduled to go into effect January 1. As additional background for you, I have enclosed the letter the Hennepin County Chiefs of Police Association authorized be sent to Mr. Claybourne. Please contact Tom Frost (348 -5520) or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, THOMAS L. JOHNSON Hennepin County Attorney cc: Tom Frost [TLJLTRS]CHIEFS/CHIEFS MTG P.S. I just received notice that the Advisory Committee is meeting October 5 and 6 -- so, as I said, speed is of the essence. OR i The Heimcpi» Count Chief's u[ Police Assucia(ion r :•- pl nml lot l u , 1 W411 frank Clayhoulne, Chairperson Supremo Court Cr iminal Pules Advi c oimu i t t Pp 30 Ea-.t: Seventh Sti - pet - 1 20c11) St. Paul, M innecol a 9 :51 o I Dear Mr. Claybourne: 2 1 ' 1 1 1 c t Pl tPl 1 C w l i l l oll 1 - o PXIII'PCS: l isp iff 1 "he U-1111-p rurlty I'll infs 11f VoI i4•P ARC4447iat -i"I rPy .1l(I in#4 11W WIt - nl i:lI I•h1119P in t hp way fp l ally .11141 yr42cc n1 i sdPnln .1rulr 011111 i lluc 11na r i llgn a rP 11P I d ill IlentiPp 1 ll county. ify unanimous resolution of the Associaticnl mPlllbprship at its monthly meeting September 6, 1990, 1 was asked to send this letter requesting that the Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Committee reconsider this issue and recommend to the Supreme Court that the new Omnibus Bearing Rule, presently schpduled to be effective January 1, 1991, be rescinded. In considering this issue, we urge the committee to take into account the impressive record of the members of the Hennepin County criminal justice system in working together to eliminate criminal case backlog. At present, two - thirds of all felony cases are resolved before they are set for trial. Since January of 1990, the number of felony cases awaiting trial has dropped from over 300 to about 180. These numbers alone are significant, but with the history of 1,450 felony cases awaiting trial in Novemhor, 19It7, it is obvious that dramatic changes have occurred. Omnibus hearings involving live testimony now occur in about 250 cases a year. if the Rule change takes place and full. Omnibus hearings are scheduled 14 days after first appearance, members of the Hennepin County Public Defender's office have said they will demand hearings in all felony and gross misdemeanor cases. If demanded in all cases, it will increase the number of hearings to about 10,000 cases Even if demanded in only half tile c as es, it will require twenty times more hearings than under the present system. With each Minibus hearing i nvo I v i nq ona or more po 1 i c.P officers, the impact on the delivery of po l i cP sPry i ces and it .-, resulting effect on public safety is apparent. In summary, we urge the committee to consider the effect the • rule change will have on police officers' time spent in and awaiting court. Our agencies' ability to perform tilt- duties expo -,�ted by our citizenry will be reduced significantly. The current system has proven to be effective in res cases • Frallk c I aybourne, Cha i rpe1-s11n SuprPmp ('01 Cr i In i na l It if le-, All v i soi y Cc+nrlu i t top Septellll►ei 19, 1 Page 7 expPllit iol.sly wit.h."'t .11lvPleoly IfF"Llt illy -it hel 1A 1•llnunlr►tityIs or the defendant.'-- r ight.s. To sl-rap it ill favor (if null P c•osl 1 y all(] less Pff ic-ieA systelll seems ullwisP. Thank you for' your eonsideration, and wP trust that you will act ill the public's interest cons i der.i ny this import ant issue. Vol 1 1 - 11 1 y y .+lll s. Doll 0111od t Sher i f r of nPllnepi n County Secretary /'Treasurer IlQnnc+ pin County Chiefs of PO l i co? Assoc i at i oil DO: gk • cc: Members of Supreme Court Criminal Rules Advisory Comm.ittc -e Members of the Supreme Court Chief Keith Wall, President, ilentnepin County Chiefs of i'olirP Association • Supreme Court Advisory (.committee. Rules of Criminal Procedure 2800 Minnesota world Trade Center St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Judge Robert E. II(Iwea Judge Charles F. Cashman nPnry 11. reikema Judge Donovan W. Ft ank David Graven Judge Charles C. Juhtlsrnt John E. MacGi boon Judge lleiiry W. McCarr. , .Jr. Ronald 1. Meshbesher ,Judge Bruce C. Stone Paul Kp.nipa i riPii Pit i 1 i p Mar roil Pr ofPSsor Mayivii d F . V i rc i y Supreme Court of Minnesota 230 State Capitol Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Chief 31 . Justice Justice Justice Justice Justice Justice ustice Peter S. Popovich Lawrence R. Yetka Rosalie E. Wahl John E. Simonett Esther M. Tomljanovich M. Jeanne Coyne A. M. Keith LI • CITY OF MOUND 1990 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT AUGUST 1990 66.67% AUGUST YTD PER CENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- GENERAL FUND Taxes 1262190 0 552500 709690 43.77% Intergovernmental 780860 57705 443206 337654 56.76% Business Licenses 9950 230 3417 6533 34.34% Non - Business Licenses and Permits 86700 6896 43791 42909 50.51% Charges for Services 34800 1352 6467 28333 18.58% Court Fines 95000 7955 43460 51540 45.75% Charges to Other Departments 20000 1039 14390 5610 71.95% Other Revenue 49300 3721 8859 40441 17.97% 10TOTAL REVENUE 2338800 78898 1116090 1222710 47.72% LIQUOR FUND 900000 90393 611979 288021 68.00% WATER FUND 360000 26942 210057 149943 58.35% SEWER FUND 590000 46117 380527 209473 64.50% DOCKS FUND 62950 754 58807 4143 93.42% CEMETERY FUND 2000 1000 4400 -2400 220.00% 1, Fq � CITY OF MOUND • 1990 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES AUGUST 1990 66.67% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 AUGUST YTD 64245 PER CENT Liquor Fund BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- Council 63890 3395 43981 19909 68.84% Cable TV 10150 0 9024 1126 88.91% City Manager /Clerk 166310 12585 114440 51870 68.81% Elections 11400 54 1838 9562 16.12% Assessing 43320 17 425 42895 0.98% Finance 162030 12741 106476 55554 65.71% Computer 22150 1628 18218 3932 82.25% Legal 80900 4114 37127 43773 45.89% Police 717850 45017 502507 215343 70.00% Civil Defense 2750 77 597 2153 21.71% Planning /Inspections 245000 10482 81635 63365 56.30% Recycling 60670 177 49081 11589 80.90% Streets 382890 26656 251071 131819 65.57% Shop & Stores 61440 6021 43859 17581 71.39% City Property 84200 2785 48333 35867 57.40% Parks 148560 19441 91773 56787 61.78% Summer Recreation 11310 -3924 8435 2875 74.58% Contingencies 30000 5887 10043 19957 33.48% Transfers 122270 - - - - -- 10048 - - - - -- 80384 - - - - -- 41886 - - - - -- 65.74% - - - - -- GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2327090 157201 1499247 827843 64.43% Area Fire Service Fund 214290 14461 150045 64245 70.02% Liquor Fund 163450 12743 107982 55468 66.06% Water Fund 347930 21063 254339 93591 73.10% Sewer Fund 771560 58190 431232 340328 55.89% Cemetery Fund 3680 210 1779 1901 48.34% Docks Fund 62950 3001 60466 2484 96.05% i s Zif-6 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE • MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION September 1Q, 1990 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Ken Smith, Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Thal, Frank Weiland, Bill Voss, and Michael Mueller, Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, City Manager Ed Shukie, and Secretary James. The following citizens were also present: Mark Mulvey, Julie a David Willcox, Shelley E Denis Dorton. Glen Tilton, Catherine Moynagh, John b Michelle Olson, StacSr3 Tom Hintz, and Craig Hen- derson. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. MI NUTES: The Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1990 were presented for approval. Clapsaddle noted a change on page 2, second to the last paragraph, should read as follows: "He stated that economic studies show that there is a good opportunity for a large grocery store-- sach-a-s- -w-C-ab;- is-needed In the Mound area." MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to ap- prove the Planning Commission Minutes of August 27, 1990 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS: a. Case No. 90 -931: Tom & Stacy Hintz (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood Blvd.), Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addn., PiD #14- 117 -24 43 0005. VARIANCE: No Frontage on an Improved Right -of -Way. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Officials recommendation for this variance request. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling on a parcel which does not have frontage on an improved right -of -way. The Building Official recommended approval of the variance to grant a building permit on a lot without frontage on an improved street with the site plan being revised to be in conformance with the City Engineer's report and the City's Street, Sewer and Water Department recommendations. The City Engineer's recommendation stated :hat he would still like to see this property developed with the access and utilities from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, due to lack of easements and cooperation of adjacent property owners, this Is not possible. It appears the only logical way for this property to be served with utilities and access Is by way of Boxwood Lane. 289 (o Planning'Commisslon Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 2 The City Engineer recommended approval of the variance as requested, upon the following conditions: 1. Fire Department approval of the driveway; 2. Utility construction permit approval from Hennepin County; 3. Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services; 4. No furtheo subdivision of property, unless public access and utilities are extended from Chestnut Road. Greg Skinner, Mater and Sewer Superintendent, recommended ap- proval of the variance request, subject the following conditions: 1. Sanitary sewer Installed according to City Standards: a. Install manhole on Lynwood Blvd. over existing main. b. Install manhole at northeast corner of lot. 2. Install 6" DiP with hydrant at the northeast corner. 3. Replace existing gravel driveway with a minimum of 2 -112" of . blacktop. The Commission discussed the Fire Chief's statement: "Fire protection on Boxwood Lane is adequate for access to the house." Some Commissioners interpreted this as meaning that there is not adequate access for a fire truck, however, fire fighters can get to the house since there is less than 300 feet to a fire hydrant. Other Commissioners interpreted It as meaning that the fire truck can access the property via Boxwood. Mueller questioned, if Boxwood Lane is blacktopped, who will maintain, and who will pay for improvement? Koegler informed the commission that if the street was improved, the abutting property owners would be assessed for the improvement. The applicants commented that they do not wish for the road to be blacktopped, they do not want to create a burden for the other property owners. John Olson, an abutting property owner to Boxwood feels the street is too narrow. Mr. Olson also stated that he was told by the City in 1975 that Boxwood could not be improved, and the plan then was to improve Chestnut Road for access. The installation of sewer and water was discussed. Stacy and Tom Hintz, applicants, confirmed that they have no Intentions of sub - divlding�the property. 0 A private sewer and water line versus a City maintained sewer and water line with an improved street was discussed. 29` Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 3 MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Clapsaddle to approve staff recommendation. Note: we do not feel that using the information supplied. we are qualified to make a decision. Mueller and Jensen commented that they feel that using Boxwood for this property's access and utilities is short -term planning, and using Chestnut road for access and utilities is long -term planning. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Smith and Clapsaddle. MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to pass this variance request onto the City Council without a recom- mendation. Note: approval of this request would be a short -term solution to a long -term situation. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Thal and Smith. The City Engineer, John Cameron, arrived, and therefore, the dis- cussion of this case was put on hold. The Commission agreed to hear the other cases on the agenda before returning to this case. b. Case No._ 90 -932: Crate Henderson, 4435 Dorchester Road Lots 19 & 20. Block 17, Avalon. PID #19- 117 -23 -31 01,06. VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback - to Allow a Conformin Addl- tion. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5 feet to allow a conforming addition. Staff recommended approval of the I foot side yard setback variance. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Smith to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on.September 25, 1990. C. Case No. 90 -933: Catherine Movnagh a Glenn T11 Wexford_ Lane, Lots_ 3 - 13, Block 7, Seton. PID #24-117-24 0001. VARIANCE: Side Yard Setback to an Existing b!oncon- formina Lot of Record. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request as outlined in the Building Official's report. The existing struc- ture is setback 13.3 feet from Wexford Lane. the applicant Proposes to demolish the existing structure. They would like to rebuild in basically the same footprint, however adding a 26'4" x 30' second story, extend 2 feet more to the east, and extend 8 feet further to the north resulting in a 2.2 foot encroachment into the required 10 foot side yard setback. V9g Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 4 0 A practical difficulty exists by reason of the existing founda- tion location and topography of this lot. Staff recommended ap- proval of the variance of 2.2 feet to the required side yard set- back of 10 feet to a nonconforming lot. The applicant handed out a copy of his survey showing the build- ing envelope highlighted. Jensen commented that he does have a restrictive building envelope, therefore there is practical dif- ficulty. She also commented that the structure is located on a dead end street. Mueller suggested building towards the wetlands. The applicant noted that there are two large maple trees at the rear of the house. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Voss to approve staff recommendation upon the condition that the 8.3' x 7.5' shed be r- moved and the house be removed down to the foundation at first floor level and be rebuilt to meet current building code. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12, 1990. d. Cas No. 90 -934: Denis & ^._o_lley Dorion, Lots 1, 2, & part of 3, Block 5, Shirley Hills Unit B, PID 924- 117 -24 -12 0023. VAR IANCE: Side Yard Setback. City Planner. Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicant's request to construct a 26' x 28' detached garage on their property 8.5 feet from the front property line facing Avon Drive. The Building Of- ficial recommended to deny the variance request of 21.5 feet based on the criteria for variances that the variance requested be the minimijm that would alleviate the hardship. Although there appears to be a hardship, and the granting of a variance may be warranted, it may be in the form of an attached garage. Some Commissioners agreed that the garage size was too large to warrant a minimum variance situation. The building envelope was discussed. Mueller commented that the lot is an odd shaped cor- ner lot which provides a hlydship. The applicants commented that they prefer a detached garage ver- sus an attached. They prefer to have the garage placed 8 feet from the house instead of the required minimum of 5 feet to have more room between the two structures. The reason they propose to set the garage back, more towards Avon, is because of the place- ment of the kitchen window. 0 v6 9y Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 5 MOTION made by voss, seconded by Michael to approve staff recommendation for denial of the variance as requested due to lack of hardship and it is x not a mini- mum variance situation. Motion carried 5 -4 (Those in favor were: Voss, Michael, Clapsaddle, Thal, and Jensen; those opposed were: Meyer, Smith, Mueller, and Weiland). This case will be reviewed by the City Council on September 25, 1990. a. Case No. 90 -931: Tom 8 Stacy Hintz (Boxwood Lane / Lynwood Blvd.), Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addn., PID #14- 117 -24 43 0005. VARIANCE: No Frontage on an Improved RlQht- of -W3y Discussion on case 90 -931 continued. The City Engineer, John Cameron, confirmed that if a private utility service was installed, and the street was not Improved, It would be the applicant's responsibility to maintain the utilities. An agreement may need to be drafted to ensure that the responsibility remains that of the property owner, not the City. Cameron also confirmed that for one single family dwell- ing, a private service would be adequate. The Commission discussed the possibility of improving Chestnut Road. The abutting property owners, Mr. Mulvey and Mr. Willcox were both present and stated that they do not have the funds to pay of the improvement. Thal questioned the curve radius of the driveway , -: - - R,ice into Lot 23, it appears to be too sharp, about a 90 degree angle. The applicant confirmed they already planned on changing the entrance to lessen the sharp angle. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to deny the variance request for no frontage on an improved public right -of -way, reason being: this is a short -term solu- tion to a long -term problem. Motion failed 4 - 5 (those In favor were: Mueller, Weiland, Jensen, and Michael; those opposed were: Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Voss, and Smith). MOTION made by Thal, seconded by Smith to approve the City Engineer's. recommendation Including conditions 1 thru 4. Mot!an carried 6 - 3 (these in favor were: Clapsaddle, Thal, Meyer, Michael, Voss and Smith; those opposed were: Mueller, Weiland and Jensen). Ze erg Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 6 is Mueller, W-fland, and Clapsaddle commented that they feel this is not a solution, but Just a band -aid. Chester Road should be ex- tended to eliminate future variances, even I f it means condemna- tion. This case will be heard by the City Council on September 12, 1990. City Council Representative's Report Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of August 28th. She enlightened the Commission on actions made on zoning cases and discussion about the central business district parking. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer • Attest: ?"q0/ asg of metropolitan munic�alities RECT SEP 18 1990 BULLETIN September 17, 1990 TO: Mayors and Managers /Administrators FROM: Vern Peterson, Executive Director RE: TAB Appointments, Dues Increase approved, Annual Policy Adoption Meeting, etc. 1. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) NOMINATIONS: Ten positions on the TAB are reserved for city elected officials and the AMM harm the responsibility for nominating those officials. The terms are for tuo years and the AM Board will be acting on this matter at the October 4th. Board Meeting. The TAB is a very important advisory body and provides advice to the Metropolitan Council, Regional Transportation Board and MNDOT. one of its most important functions is to annually determine the FAU project funding priorities. It normally meets the third Wednesday afternoon of each month in the Metropolitan Council Offices. REcOMMENDATIONS/VOLUNTEERS WANTED: The AMM Board is soliciting recommendations for these nominations via this Bulletin. While a number of incumbents will be reappointed, there will be several new appointments and recommendations are needed from all parts of the Metropolitan Area. Recommendations should be in writing and submitted to the AMM Office, to the attention of Vern Peterson, by no later than October I 1990. 2. AMM ANNUM, pollCY ADOPTION MFETING IS SET FOR THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 1ST. The annual Membership Meeting to adopt the AMM's legislative program for 1991 is scheduled for Thursday evening November 1, 1990. The location has not been selected as yet but it will be a dinner meeting that will kickoff about 5:30 P.M. with a social • to get th meeting onsyourlcalendari later but we now. The policy adoption t g -1 Ogoz- 163 ;:- -,, iWSity avenue east, st paul, rninnesota 55101 (612) 227 -4008 Meeting is probably the most important meeting of each year and we hope that all 68 member cities will be represented on November 1st. The AMM policy committees have been meeting • since July and will be making their recommendations shortly. 3. DOES INCREASE APPROVED AT SEPTEMBER 6TH. MEETING: At the special membership meeting on September 6th. the resolution to approve the 1991 dues increase which will enable the Board to hire un additional staff person was passed by an overwhelming majority vote of the membership ( 8 ) specific amount of increase for each city due to this approval has been previously communicated to the city manager or administrator. The AMM Board appreciates the membership support and strongly believes it will enable the AMM to expand its mission on behalf of member cities and make its voice at the Legislature and Metropolitan Council even more effective. Together the Am works! 4. ANN RECOMMENDS CHANGES To METROPOLITAN COUNCILS 1991 WORK PROGRAM AND BUDGET: Continuing a 16 year tradition, the AMM has thoroughly analyzed and critiqued the Metropolitan Council's Proposed 1991 Budget and Work Program. The AMM comments and recommendations were presented at the September 10th. Public Hearing held by the Council for that purpose. A copy of the AMM critique has been included with the copy of this bulletin sent to the city Manager /Administrator. The Board wanted to make each city aware of our recommendations. This AMM critique was developed by the 22 member Metropolitan Agencies Committee under the direction of Chair Sharon Klumpp and approved unanimously by the Board on September 6th. The AMM critique is only five pages long and we hope you will take time to read it. The AMM is the only organization that annually analyzes and critiques the Met Council's Budget and Work Program. 5. MISSIS51"PPI RIVER COORDINATION: The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Coordinating Commission created by 1988 Federal Law sponsored by Rep. Bruce Vento and Sen. Dave Durenberger had its first public meeting September 14, 1990. During the next few weeks study subgroups are being established to gather data and start the process that will lead to a comprehensive river coordinating plan targeted for completion by the end of 1992, containing elements which may control the public and private use of the Mississippi River. The effort involves a number of Federal Agencies and will lead to federal involvement to some degree in river and abuting property activities. On the positive side because of the federal designation, there will be federal. grants available for various -2- • 2 4o�> types of development. Local elected officials on the full commission include: Tom Dimond, Councilmember, St. Paul William Nee, Mayor, Fridley William Saed, Mayor, Inver Grove Heights Dennis Schulstad, Councilmember, Minneapolis Lu Stoffel, Mayor, Hastings The eight subgroups to study and gather information are as follows: 1. Intergovernmental Coordination/Management Framework /NPS Role. 2. Recreation and Open Space /Tourism /Surface Water Use. 3. City Planning /Land Use Changes and Development Multiple Use Management /Resource Utilization Compatible Economic Development. 4. Commercial Navigation. 5. Natural Resources (Wetlands and Upland Habitat, Water Quality, Threatened and Endangered Species). 6. Cultural Resources Management. 7. Identity Visual Quality. S. Interpretation. AMM Staff testified at the meeting on September 14th. We suggested that the commission hold a meeting soon with all affected Municipalities abuting the river, as well as, notifying each about serving on the study subgroups. If you are interested contact one of the elected officials named above or: Norman J. Reigle, Superintendent National Park Service P. 0 Box 65456 St. Paul, Minnesota 55165 - 0456 Phone: (612) 290 -4160 The federally mandated commission could have far reaching impact on the use of the Mississippi River and Development along the river within cities abuting the river. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed to Mayors and Managers /Administrators only. We would ask that it be distributed to city councilmembers as well. Thank you. • -3- Z Hof CRITIQUE OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL'S PROPOSED 1991 BUDGET AND WORK PROGRAM SECTION I. GENERAL COMMENTS. 1. The ANN notes with interest the paragraph in Mr. Benz's letter to (page 1) Chair Steve Keefe which reads: 'Preparing this Work Program and Budget has been more difficult than in recent past years. The constraints of revenue limits, and reductions and rising costs have resulted in this proposal for a Work Program that is less ambitious than in the past few years. These same factors, projected over the next three to five years, strongly suggest that the Council must focus very specifically on those areas of greatest importance and decrease programing in those areas that are less essential. This proposal recommends that we have fewer staff, decrease some services and target our work in carefully chosen policy areas.' We are also aware that the proposed budget and work program are based a tax levy that contains a small symbolic cut (about $95,000) from the maximum allowable levy. The AM does not have sufficient information to comment on the advisability of making what we consider to be a symbolic cut but if the Council is going to continue to have the revenue constraints as noted by Mr. Renz then it is very important that the Council use criteria that makes practical sense in determining yearly programs and activities. We offer the following as a guide: A. The issue or concern being address is significant to the well ? of the metro area. B. r lncil intervention or activity will make a real difference or h"ve an impact. C. The Council effort is not a substitute for state level activity nor does it duplicate state level efforts. D. The Council is the most appropriate agency to intervene or perform activity. 2. The AMM is cognizant of the continuing trend that property taxes as a portion of the total revenue available to the Council has now reached 60 + % or $8,289,314 (pages 4 and 48). The growth of local revenues does afford the council more flexibility in determining the yearly work program anc. activities. We also think it suggests that the Council should be very selective in determining its priorities and the activities to be undertaken. So that 'stakeholders' and interested parties such as the AMM can better understand and make more informed comments with respect to the Annual Work Program, the Council should categorize the strategies (pages 14 -38) as to whetter an activity is required, optional, has dedicated funding etc. We are aware that a supporting document was provided to the Council's Managems.-it Committee which separated the strategies into four main natev,cies'. R =reav ;red by law, regulation, or other commitment; DF- dedicated fund ng; PN- practical necessity or 0-optional. This information should be contained in the Work Program /Budget document -1- • Zq',56 4. The six major priorities as noted on page 13 and elsewhere seem to address the major problems and non- revenue type issues that concern most Alai member cities. We have somewhat of a vague uneasiness about Goal 7 (Human Investment Framework) since it is hard to measure accomplishment in this area. TL- council has put alot of resources into this goal over the past t. ee years but there is little evidence of concrete, meaningful progress based on the page 21 summary. In general such of the emphasis and activity in this area would be better handled at the state or county levels in our judgement. We also have concerns with the number of problems remaining in the solid waste management area in view of the tremendous resouces the Council has poured into this program over the past several years. • In our comments last year, we noted that the ratio of 'support staff' (Community Services, Administration and the Chairs Office) to the total staff was over 40% and this, seemed high. We asked the Council to examine that relationship. We note that the 1991 proposed staff complement contains seven fewer FTE's (207) than in the 1990 complement of 214. Based on our analysis and comparison of the 1990 and 1991 budget documents, it appears that five of the seven FTE's eliminated come from the support departments. The AMM believes that choice is appropriate. 6. The AMM is very pleased by the increased amount of information that is contained in the 1991 document as compared to previous years. The amount of financial detail provided including information on the pass through funds, reserves, debt service, etc. is very beneticial. We also appreciate the inclusion of information which shows the progress or expected progress of carryover priorities. The 1991 budget and work program document probably contains more useful and understandable information then any previous annual budget document we have examined. SECTION II. PROGRAM SPECIFIC COMMENTS • -2- Z poly itself for the 'stakeholders' to see. The AM has requested this information in previous years but believes it is even more essential now due to the higher reliance on the local property tax to fund the Council's budget. 3. We note as mentioned on page 13 that all six priorities for 1991 are the same as the 1990 priorities. As a matter of fact five are carried over from 1989 and four go back as far as 1988. During each of the last two years, the AM has suggested that when a program or priority is carried over from a previous year, there should be a brief summary or listing of the accomplishments /progress that was made in the previous year. We are pleased that the Council has accepted our recommendation and has provided such information for each priority. (pages 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21). 4. The six major priorities as noted on page 13 and elsewhere seem to address the major problems and non- revenue type issues that concern most Alai member cities. We have somewhat of a vague uneasiness about Goal 7 (Human Investment Framework) since it is hard to measure accomplishment in this area. TL- council has put alot of resources into this goal over the past t. ee years but there is little evidence of concrete, meaningful progress based on the page 21 summary. In general such of the emphasis and activity in this area would be better handled at the state or county levels in our judgement. We also have concerns with the number of problems remaining in the solid waste management area in view of the tremendous resouces the Council has poured into this program over the past several years. • In our comments last year, we noted that the ratio of 'support staff' (Community Services, Administration and the Chairs Office) to the total staff was over 40% and this, seemed high. We asked the Council to examine that relationship. We note that the 1991 proposed staff complement contains seven fewer FTE's (207) than in the 1990 complement of 214. Based on our analysis and comparison of the 1990 and 1991 budget documents, it appears that five of the seven FTE's eliminated come from the support departments. The AMM believes that choice is appropriate. 6. The AMM is very pleased by the increased amount of information that is contained in the 1991 document as compared to previous years. The amount of financial detail provided including information on the pass through funds, reserves, debt service, etc. is very beneticial. We also appreciate the inclusion of information which shows the progress or expected progress of carryover priorities. The 1991 budget and work program document probably contains more useful and understandable information then any previous annual budget document we have examined. SECTION II. PROGRAM SPECIFIC COMMENTS • -2- Z poly I. Page 3, Paragraph 3 And Page 21, Strategy 7D Comment: The AMM supports the *spinning off' of the arts program as we have advocated that action for several years. 2. Page 4, Paragraph 2). Comment: The AMM supports the symbolic gesture of levying less than the allowable levy. Cities have the "tightest" levy limits in history and your *sharing of the pain* is welcomed. 3. Page 15, Strategy IF, Water Quality Management. Comment: This is a very sensitive issue because of the many possible 'turf' questions. We strongly recommend the establishment of a local officials ad hoc advisory committee to work with the Council on this strategy. Such committee should be formed very soon. 4. Page 17, Goal 4, Solid Waste Management. Comment: As noted in general comment 4 we believe the progress has been slow in this program and many problems are not being addressed adequately. We do not object to the staff reduction in this program but urge the Council to give serious consideration to supporting the establishment of a regional solid waste commission to address concerns that are not being addressed adequately through the current structure. 5. Page 19, 1991 Housing Strategies. Comment: The AMM is very supportive of the Council's effort towards helping to provide housing for low and moderate income people. We especially support strategy 5C (neighborhood characteristics) • and the council's intent to assess the impacts of the Council's policy on dispersing affordable housing. The AMM is pleased that Housing has once again become one of the Council's top priorities. 6. Page 20. Goal 6 (Metro HRA) Comment: The AMM continues to strongly support the Metro HRA and its pattern of cooperation and partnership with cities in addressing housing needs of low and moderate income persons. 7. Pages 22 and 23, Goal 9 and 10. Comment: The AMM believes the Council should take a very close look at these goals. There are problems with the health care area and certainly within the Criminal and Social Justice Area. However, these are not regional systems in any sense of the word. If additional efforts are needed in these a:eas and they may be, the work should be concentrated at the state level. We do not believe these goals meet the suggested AMM tests for Council effort as discussed in general comment 1. 8. Page 25, Strategy 12A, Infrastructure Fund Concept. Comment: The AMM does not oppose the 'examination' of such a concept but we want to participate in such a study because cities -3- • ZA91 are having major problems dealing with local infrastructure funding needs. is Page 25, Strategy 13A, Policy Plan Implementation. Comment: The AMM is not necessarily opposed to issuing regional bonds for the regional park system but we raise this issue as a question of equity. In effect, if these bonds are paid off through a levy on property vithin the Seven County Area Metro Area, Property tax payers are paying for a regional system that takes the place of a state system in the metro area plus we also pay our share for the state parks in outstate Minnesota. 10.Page 27, Strategy 15B, Special Studies. Comment: The AMM questions what the real purpose is for the conduct of these fiscal studies and papers. Several similar studies and examinations are being or have been conducted at the state level with respect to the financing of local government. Is the Council looking at it from a different focus and perspective? Who will benefit from such Council examination and what are the perceived uses for such information? Is it a cursory type examination or will real new 'ground be plowed'? Will this examination include an analysis of the impact of the export of tax dollars from the Metropolitan Area on the ability of this area to maintain its high quality of life and sustain economic development? The AMM urges the Met Council to better define the purpose, scope and focus for the fiscal studies before it begins such effort. 11.Page 49, Table 4. Question: What is covered in the line item 0 'members expense - misc.' that is not covered in the other three member's expense line items? 12.Additional activities that should be considered for inclusion in the 1991 Work Program. A. This region is often singled out as a area with a high quality of life and one that really works! Perhaps some study or analysis should be conducted to determine what it is that makes this region perform so well so that we can keep it working. Not critical necessarily and this could be done over a longer period of time or postponed until 1992. B. A number of political jurisdictions in Hennepin County under the auspices of the Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization (HECO) have been pursuing the concept of fostering an 800 megahertz trunked radio system for all public safety agencies within Hennepin County. HECO believes this system might have merit for all of the metropolitan area and has asked the Metropolitan Council to get involved. The AMM believes that this system and other existing communications systems as well should be evaluated. We believe it is appropriate for the Met Council to add this item to its 1991 Work Program. zoo r SECTION III. CONCLUSION The AMM is once again pleased for the opportunity to have participated • in the Council's budget process and the cooperation and assistance provided to us by the Cour ^il staff. We especially thank Dave Renz, Marion Angelica, Marge Hols, Roger Israel, Pat Pahl and Barb Stromer who took the time, including their personal lunch hour, to meet with the AMM's Metropolitan Agencies Committee. The meeting was very informative and beneficial to committee members in gaining a more thorough understanding of the budget and work program. From a process and format standpoint, the 1991 Budget and Work Program document does convey a lot of information to interested parties. We believe it is well done. -5- • r� Zgoq MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK a OPEN SPACE COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1990 Present were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Tom Casey, Neil Weber, Shirley Andersen, Brian Asleson. and Cathy Bailey. City Manager Ed Shukle, Park Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Deli Rudolph and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was: Council Representative Phyllis Jessen. The following were also present: Jim Glasoe. Chair Byrnes called the regular meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes The Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of August 9, 1990 were Presented for changes and /or additions. Casey noted a change on page 2, under "Tax Forfeit Property ", last sentence, should be amended as follows: "After a long discussion, it was the -Comm+ s- sfon determined that they a malority of the Park CommisslQn would prefer to retain this procedure as a policy, rather than an or- dinance, since it works well as is. Casey was not in favor of this determination. 10 The secretary noted another change on page 2. 1st paragraph, in the 3rd sentence, the following should be deleted: "at the Sep- tember 13th Park Commission meeting." MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey to approve the Park Cortmisslon Minutes of August 9, 1990 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. Report on Summer Parks & Recreation Program from Community Serv- ices by Jim Glasoe. Jim Glasoe first reviewed the lifeguard program. Glasoe stated that Chester Park Beach was the least active beach, and that this beach is not an appropriate swimming beach with Al & Alma's boats being docked at each side. Wychwood Beach and Canary Beach also had very low attendance this summer. Mound Bay Park Beach and Centerview Beach had the highest attendance. Lifeguard chairs were discussed, the Dock inspector suggested ob- taining director chairs with "Lifeguard" printed on the back, this would project a more professional image. Glasoe then reviewed the Parks Program and handed out copies of forms, schedules, and fliers used throughout the year to help summarize events and activities offered. 0 47to Park Commission Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 2 Attendance at the parks was reviewed. as follows: Swenson Park 27.7 Highlands 19.5 Philbrook 15.4 Three Points 13.2 Belmont 12.9 Rovina Parks Avalon 9.0 Tyrone 7.3 Pembroke 2.2 Seton 0 The average attendance is Byrnes stated she wants to see more kids using the parks. Using more advertising next year was discussed. Tax Forfeit Properties. • Casey commented that it was too premature to ask if these parcels should be released for auction since the Park Commission has not established criteria for green space yet. He had the following concerns, comments and questions regarding the release of these tax forfeit parcels: 1. Is there a time constraint to release this property? 2. He is In favor of placing conservation restrictions on such properties. 3. is it the City's policy to release tax forfeit parcels for sale ,just because they are buildable according to the zoning code? 4. Parcels in the Devon addition should be retained as green space due to the lack of it in this area. 5. If this property was maintained as park property, who would pay, City or taxpayers? Casey suggested, if the surrounding neighbors were in favor of having this property maintained as green space, couldn't the City assess them for the cost of the parcel? Weber debated Casey's opinions stating that the City already has plenty of tax forfeit properties, and that it is not good public policy to keep them. L-1 Ldfll Park Commission Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 3 Bailey questioned Casey what the benefits are for having green space? Casey stated his own reasons, as follows: I. Provide a habitat for flowers, native plants, animals, birds, etc. 2. Mound is too dense, it needs open areas to bring people closer to nature. 3. Green spaces give people a peace of mind, freshness. 4. There are other uses for green space other than human uses: plants and animals have rights too. Weber agreed that green space and nature areas are nice to have, but they require management. This is an urban situation. people discard garbage, and people do not appreciate rag weed. To manage and maintain these open spaces requires money. We cannot depend on the neighbors to manage these areas. A plan needs to be developed implementing a funding program. Weber commented that the City Council will need a reason not to release these properties. NOTION made by Weber, seconded by Byrnes .:o recommend that the tax forfeit parcels be released for sale. Mo- tion carried 4 to 3 (those in favor were: Asleson, Weber, Andersen, and Byrnes; those opposed were: Casey, Bailey, and Schmidt). Casey commented that Mound is losing more and more of its upland property to housing development, and wetlands is not a justifica- tion for open space, if that is all we have. 1991 Proposed Budget. Park Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the 1991 Proposed Budget. When the budget for the cemetery was being discussed, Bailey com- mented that she would like for persons who reside in Mound for a long time (most of their life) and then move away (to a nursing home such as Twin Birch) to be allowed to pay the "resident" fee for a cemetery plot. Staff commented that if they were to allow this, it would be difficult to regulate. The City Manager explained that the Council will hold public hearings for the budget on November 20th and 27th. • Zq/ Z Park Commission Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 4 • DNR Dredge Application #91- •6051: Halstead Acres 2nd Addn The Commission did not have any comments on this particular dredge. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Bailey, to have staff write a letter to the DNR requesting criteria for processing dredge applications and information on the Impacts of dredges as Cell Straus stated she would supply for us. Motion carried unanimously. Casey rommented that he has already written the DNR two letters and he has not received a response. Nature-Co servation Areas Byrnes commerted that the tour did not present a good showing of the one nature area the city has; it was overgrown with weeds and the sign was not visible. Asleson requested to see a copy of the City Attorney's Opinion on Nature Conservation Areas, he commented that this may give them a better direction on how to proceed with implementing a nature conservation area program. MOTION made by Cr - 3y that the Park Comrission agrees that the nature iervation area we do have needs legal protection. DL :,) lack of z second, motion failed. Casey also commented that he asked the City Council if iey want nature conservation areas in Mound, but he never rLceived a definite answer from them. He explained the legal protection he Is lo:.king for is to keep the property from being sold; the use of this nature conservation area could be changed at anytime. MOTION made by Asleson, seconded by Bailey, to recommend that the existing Nature Conservation Area in Devon ad- dition, Block Ii, Lots 13 b 14 be preservf.d in its cur- rent state until a Nature Conservation Area Policy is enacted. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made by Casey stating that the Park Commission wants more nature conservation areas. Weber stated he would second the motion if it was amended to say that the Park Commission wants to preserve more open space in the City. Casey was not in favor of the amendment, therefore Weber withdrew his second. Z�i3 Due to lack of a second, the motion failed. Park Commission Minutes Septebmer 13, 1990 Page 5 Commissioner Anderson was excused from the meeting. Weber suggested that the Comm i ss i on refer to the C i ty Couric I I 's recommendation of August 28, 1990. He commented that the Park Commission needs to resolve if open spaces in the City are worth preserving as nature conservation areas. Asleson commented that he is willing to be part of a subcommittee to organize a program to implement nature conservation areas. No other Commissioners offered to be on the subcommittee. Abutting Dock Sites The Dock Inspector, Jell Rudolph, reviewed his memo dated Septem- ber 12, 1990 regarding abutting dock site holders who paid no fee In 1990. The issue was discussed, and it was determined that the priorities as listed in City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 8 and Subd. 9 regulates this problem. Bailey explained, as stated in Subd. 9, "All applications, . . . received after March 1 shall be subject to late fees . . . and will be placed in a third priority category." This also applies to abutting dock holders. There- fore, if an abutting owner does not pay his fee by March 1, they would then become priority #3 rather than priority #1, and their dock site could be assigned to another individual. The Park Director, Jim Fackler, stated that they have never en- forced this for abutting dock holders in the past. And, if an abutting site is granted to another individual, that individual must be made aware that he could be bumped the next year by the abutting owner, since he would be first priority. Staff con- firmed that the abutting owners will be notified that these codes will be enforced for the 1991 boating season, and thereafter. Proposed Amendments to City Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses Since approval of the Dock Location Map for 1991 is soon upon us. it was determined that this is the time to up -date City Code Sec- tion 437 as needed. The Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph, presented his suggested changes. The Commission reviewed the proposed changes, and approved them with modifications. Staff is to sub- mit these changes in draft form for review at the October Park Commission meeting. Casey requested that a copy of the DNR's response to the cutting of vegetation below the 929.5 be included In th- October packet. • ,7 9 /",V, Park Commission Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 6 0 Dock Inspector's Report Dell reviewed statistics from the 1990 season. Dell recommended the elimination of five dock sites for the 1991 season, as follows: 1. Site #30010 & #30030 (Norwood Access). This area has become unusable due to low water, silt, etc., and it would be too expensive to dredge for Just two docks, vacant now. 2. Site #30270 (Inwood Access). There are presently two sites (1 vacant) in this area now and are too close together to meet setback rules. 3. Site #50685 (Brighton Commons). This site is directly in front of storm drain and very difficult to access. Site holders could be transferred to a vacant site (#150565) 4 sites away. It would also allow more room between the 13 sites in this area. 4. Site #04020 (Sunrise Landing). This site infringes on the setback rule or the private property on one side and If it is noted to avoid this it will partially block the boat" landing. Site holder would have to be assigned a new site. We could add a new site at the end of Three Points Blvd. (#20930). MOTION mane by Bailey, seconded by Asleson, to approve eIImInatIon of the dock sites as recommended by the Dock Inspector. These changes will be noted on the Proposed 1991 Dock Location Map. Motion carried unanimously. Deli Rudolph then informed the Commission that he is resigning, and his last day will be October 15, 1990. He thanked everyone concerned for the privi;ege of serving as Dock Inspector for the past seven seasons. Letter from_ DNR denying funds for fishing pier proposal at Mound Bay Park. Staff confirmed that a letter would be sent to the DNR requesting that the City be considered for funding in 1991. City Manager's Report City Manager, Ed Shukle, updated the Commission on the construc- tion of City Hall, including the status of the gasoline con- tamination in the City Hall parking lot. He also updated them on the such issues as the Downtown Study and Central Business Dis- trict Parking. 0 Z9l5 Park Commission Minutes September 13, 1990 Page 7 Shukie informed the Commission about Steve Burke's resignation from the Park Commission, and suggested they wait until the end of the year to interview for a replacement. Park Director's Report Fackler updated the Commission on completed and pending park im- provements. All of the signs Identifying the City parks are now Installed. Adopt a Green Space Update Chair Byrnes informed the Commission that they had about 10 people show up at their meeting on September 10th who are inter- ested in the concept of adopting a green space, a planter, a park, etc. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Bailey to adjourn the Park a Open Space Commission Meeting at 10:57 p.m. Mo- tion carried unanimously. Z�il� nLL SEP 2 01990 C ITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Otfic* On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka REC'U' SEP 2 01990 September 19, 1990 Re: LMCD Plan Mayors, City Council Members and Managers The City of Orono remains opposed to the LMCD long -range management plan in its present form. A copy of our response to the LMCD is attached for your information. We believe that this plan remains of great concern to all of the lake communities, despite the fact that in the revised draft the LMCD has, in our opinion, clarified its intentions, better organized its proposed plans of action, and made every effort to explain its intentions, which may have been misunderstood from the original draft. We believe they have attempted to respond to the concerns expressed by Orono and other communities, but, the disagreement between us on the general philosophy and anticipated outcome of implementing the plan remains unresolved. While we have no desire to interfere with the decisions of each of you on whether to support the plan, we ourselves do not believe it should be supported. We urge you to familiarize yourself as much as possible with its terms and the philosophy underlying the plan, and to take conscious action to instruct your LMCD representative about your wishes before September 26th. Whether you ultimately decide to support or reject the plan, we would also like to say to you that Orono regards this event (the consideration of the LMCD plan) as a strong reminder of the inter - dependence of our lake communities and of the necessity of the community representatives to keep in close and if possible, harmonious touch with their neighboring communities and affairs. We are in receipt of the letter from the City of Wayzata dated September 14th. The idea expressed of a meeting on the subject to the LMCD Plan is an idea we had ourselves incorporated in the actions at our City Council meeting of September 10th, as some of you may have seen in the local press. we believe that a meeting such as proposed in Mr. Gisvold's letter is a good idea. for /7 JRG /tln BUILDING & ZOSING - 473.7357 ASSESSING Sincerely, ames R. Grabek, . Mayor of Orono ADM ISIS IRAIION A FINANt t: - 473 -7358 FAX - 4734)510 Pt HI K %ORKS - 473.7359 • CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay, Minnesota %323•Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 19, 1990 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Attn: Gene Strommer. 400 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Strommen: We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the LMCD in responding to our earlier comments, and in giving time and attenticn to Orono's concerns. while we find the second draft of the LMCD to be much improved in clarity and organization, Orono however, cannot support the LMCD plan in its present form. The substance of our disagreement remains unchanged. Our opposition continues in the general areas of concern outlined below. First, the plan appears to concentrate the 0 LMCD's focus away from environmental protection and preservation and on to implementation of lake use goals desired by the Metropolitan Council and DNR. In other words, the plan still appears to be rot a plan for the LMCD but an over -all plan for some other agency to implement. Orono believes that some of the plan's goals are contrary to the legitimate environmental and aesthetic interest of the lake and communities which surround it. For instance, it accentuates land use development on the lake for recreation without considering its effect on the lake. While discussed in the responses to Orono's comments, the plan still does not specifically incorporate: 1) a definition of Metropolitan Council's role in plan review; 2) the process for changes in the plan that may require review by others in the future; or 3) how actual or •ilieged differences between the plan on the one hand and LMCD actions and ordinances on the other are to be resolved legally. Inherent in the plan is the view that it is impossible to establish the maximum permissible number of boats on the lake at either the current level or any other greater level of use. Given that view, the approach of increasing restrictions while allowing continued access conditioned on increased enforcement until the boats on the lake increase from the present level of 1:8 useable acres (1:10 acres) to 1:5 useable acres is not likely to prove successful. Nor will it improve the quality of the lake or the user satisfaction level. Currently, over 50% of the users complain of some fornt(s) of danger of annoyance. The fixing of concentrations on other lakes in the state removed from population centers appears to be 1:10. Someone found it ei:URUfA&E,- � ?73�ake that det� �i � Ft*Gt c_t� "l S se lakes apparvi t tc ',Skky- n3 ASSUSsrvG MX -1 `w LMCD September 19, 1990 Page 2 of 3 Neither does the plan assure that the Metropolitan C Hennepin County, or others will in the future agree t a u ffW response required by increased boater concentration should be the same as that envisaged by the LMCD or its constituent communities. The plan seeks to change both the emphasis and the structure of an organization that has been stable for 23 years. Instead of the legislatively - sanctioned system of checks and balances derived from granting the powers shared among agencies concerned with the lake, the proposed plan calls for legislative action. There is real risk that the legislature will alter the LMCD structure and authority in undesired ways once it is involved. Orono believes that the creation of an LMCD power of review and comment on land use decisions traditionally reserved to the cities will have two unfortunate consequences: first, the pressure of redevelopment will cause monentum toward the least restrictive standard of communities within the plan. Orono is among the most restrictive in lake shore development and does not wish to dilute its restrictions explicitly or by implication. Second, we belive this will add additional time to the variance process, or in the alternative, additional and unnecessary staff expense for the LMCD. Orono is opposed to changing the governing body of the LMCD by adding additional agency members. The impact of these members on LMCD decisions would be disproportionate to their numbers. And currently it appears to Orono that particularly in the Shoreland Management Area, LMCD is either trying to become or is unconsciously becoming an instrument of the DNR. Orono also does not favor increased taxes for the LMCD for the Purpose of carrying out the proposed plan. The concept tit IT-everyone-ca use the__1ake everyone should pay for it has obvious appeal. But, unless the funds are to be spent for an agreed -upon purpose which existing agencies have not and cannot carry out, the funds should not be sought. In summary, Orono believes that the LMCD study hap evolved into a good identifier of issues vitally important to the lake communities. It is not, however, either satisfactory or definitive in the proposed solutions. And the consequences of the proposed solutions are unknown, but appear inimical to the future of the lake and even to the LMCD itself. • zqlq LMCD September 19, 1990 . page 3 of 3 For the foregoing reasons although ideas are excellent if they can be carried its representative against the plan in encourage LMCD to table considerati disagreements can be resolved and urges i" in that stance. many of the individual out, Orono will direct its present form and to on to see if further rs sister cities to join City of Orono J mes R. Grabek, Mayor tln 0 • �qzo