1979-03-13 CC Agenda Packet CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
CM 79-86
CM 79-88
CM 79-89
CM 79-90
Mound City Council
March 13, 1979
City Hall
7:30 P.M.
1. Commercial Dock License - Halsted Heights (Continued) Pg. 691-696
2o
Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 651-690
A. Subdivisio~ of Land - Lot 23 and Part of Lot 22, The Bartlett Place
B. Subdivision of Land - Part of Lot 28, Auditor's Subd. 170
C. Subdivision of Land - Lots 3, 4 & 5, Block 12, Dreamwood
D. Non-conforming Use/Lot Size - Lot 5, Block 19, Shadyw0od Point
E. Front Yard Variance - Lot i & Part of Lot 2, The Bartlett Place
F. Sign Variance - Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights
G. Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use - Lot 16, Subd. of Lots
1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood
H. Street Front Variance, Lot 1, Block 3, Driftwood Shores
I. Garage Site - Tax Forfeit Lot
3. Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit)
Licenses Renewals
A. Cigarette Pg. 650
B. Garbage & Refuse Collection
Pg. 649
5. Payment of Bills
6. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 601-648
7. Committee Reports
Pg. 697
· . ~ ~ 3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 13, 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-92
SUBJECT:
Addendum to Council Memorandum 79-90
Garbage & Refuse Collection License
The following renewal has been received.
Lake Sanitation
1 Truck
Leonard L. Kopp
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 13, 1979
IN~OR~TION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-21
SUBJECT: Use of Building
Congressman Hagedorn plans on having meetings in various Cities in the
Second District at set times with people who wish to talk to him.
He plans on being in Mound on May 22nd and July 10th and asked if there
is some place he could use to meet in the evening between 7 p.m. and
9 p.m.
Both dates are Tuesdays when we have Council meetings, so I offered the
Manager's office as a place for him to meet.
If there is no objection from the Council, these arrangements will be
completed.
Leonard L. Kopp
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 12, 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-91
SUBJECT: Addendum to Council Memorandum 79-86
Commercial Dock License - Halsted Heights
Attached is a copy of a letter received relative to the hearing
on the Commercial Dock License.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CURT PETER$ON, CITY ATTORNEY
ALAN FASCHING
6750 llalstead Ave.
Mound, MN 55364
MARCH 7, 1979
MARINA ON HAL~TEAD BAY
Following are some items that everyone should be cognizant of con-
cerning the marina on Halstead Bay.
Interpreting the non-conforming use concept the following information
· surfaces. The non-conforming u$e is normally based upon the level of
activitg (or use) of the propert~ rather than what is physically present
there in terms of structures. The word use in the term non-conforming use
should be defined as the use or activity level that takes place ina par-
ticular place. As aa example, we could use that of a motorc!lcle/snow-
mobile shop that was classified as a non,conforming use. When the operator
dropped part of his operation--motorcgcles--the levelof use (or activity)
was reduced. Although, the physical structure still remained the use had
been reduced and could not be increased at a later time.
The use or activity level at the propert~ on tfalstead Bay has been
operated at the 5-6 boat level for the past several years. Therefore,
any number of boats above this would constitute an increase in the non-
conforming use in a residential area.
A non-conforming use is an activity that is in an area in which it is
not compatible. It can and should be phased out in time. The operation
propose~ in this area is incompatible with the surrounding uses.
The pictures that were submitted earlier show the typical use during
the 1977 season. Also, the neighbors can verify what level of activity.
was carried out last season and prior to that.
Again, thank you for your Consideration in this matter. Hopefully,
we will not see any increase in the past level of activity and ideall~ we
should see the activity eliminated.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BUREAU OF MEDIATION SER'~ICES.
VETERANS SERVICE BUILDING
SAINT PAUL 55155
PHONE 612-296-2525
IN THE MATTER OF:
INVESTIGATION AND CERTIFICATION OF
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES~ APPROPRIATE UNIT
AND EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE:
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Bloomington~ Minnesota
-and-
City of Mound, 'Mound, Minnesota
-and-
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees Union
Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota
CASE NO. 79-PR-658-A
UNIT DETERMINATION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF EXCLUSt\rE REPRESENTATIVE
On Monday, March 1~ 1979, at the Regency Plaza, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, a hearing was held pursuant to a petition filed by
Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., Bloomington, Minnesot'a~
requesting determination of appropriate unit and certification
as exclusive representative for Certain employees of the City
of Mound, .Mound, Minnesota. At said hearing all interested
parties were provided an opportunity to present testimony and
evidence pertinent to the questions raised by the filing of the
petition.
At the hearing the parties agreed on the list of eligible
voters and the appropriate unit. The unit, as agreed to by the
parties, is an appropriate unit. The parties further agreed.
that if the Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees
Union Local No. 320, Minneapolis, Minnesota~ were to file a
disclaimer of interest, the employer, knowing that the petitioning
organization in this instance had the majority of the employees on
signed authorization cards, would be willing to have the Bureau of
Mediation Services issue a certification of exclusive representa-
tion to Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc., without benefit of
an election. Such a disclaimer of interest has been received by
the Bureau.
Therefore, as Director of the Bureau of Mediation Services~
State of Minnesota, I hereby find that the unit~ as agreed to by
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ~®
Page 2
Case No. 79-PR-658-A
Unit Determination and
Certification of Exclusive Representative
the Parties, is appropriate, and further find that Law Enforcement
Labor Services, Inc., is the exclusive representative in the fol-
lowing unit of essential employees:~
Ail supervisory employees employed by the City of Mound
Police Department whose employment service exceeds the
lesser of 14 hours per week or 35 percent of the normal
work week and more than 100 work days per y..~ar,., excluding
~11 conf. idential emp$oyees and the Chief.of Police.
PEO:el
Leonard L. Kopp (2) (Includes Posting)
Fred Jatonen
Local No. 320
Dated at St. Paul, Minnesota,
March 5, 1979
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 8~ 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-86
SUBJECT: Commercial Dock License - Halsted Heights
The hearing on the dock license for the Mobile Home Court was con-
tinued until March 13th. The Mobile Home Court and docks exist as
a non-conforming use in an A-1 Residential area.
Attached is a letter from the owner of the. property and a statement
of his intentions regarding this property.
Also attached are:
1. Copy of note from Frank Mixa's Office
2. Copy of letter from Vivian Massuch, 6701 Haltead Avenue
Leonard L. Kopp
GOD SAID 17
I BELIEVE IT
THAT SETTLES IT'"
DICK
THOMPSON
HOMPSON
REAL ESTATE
CURTIS INOTEL--DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS
338-3641
Mar~ 6, 1979
TO THE FOLLOWING GENTL~ O~ TH~ MOIE[D OITT COUNOIL (regard/ng the co~cil meeting ~mi~ ~
T~ Lo~sen, Ben Withhart, ~ 13th)
~bt. Polston, ~d ~rick, ~_
~r~n Swenson, Leo~ Xo~,,..~.~- ~ ~,> -~
We ~ve ~ sever~ meeti~s now rega~g the M~ t~t W~17 & ~el~ ~e to o~ ~ operate
on ~ste~s 3~ - - license~ for 22 boats. W~n ~ wife a~ I p~se~ s~e last year, alo~
with the Mobile Home P~k, we honest~ thought (according to the ~ssella themselves), ~at it
was sorts ~ ~to~tic th~. T~t th~ ~ ~w~s ~ i~ as a ~r~ with a non-coloring
use pe~it, ~ it wo~ J~t ~ss on to the new o~er, seei~ they wo~ ~ it the s~e w~.
(~at is, - not to exceea 22 slips). 3ut I tho~ht - ~w t~t boat sizes ~ve ch~e~, w~ not
cut the pe~it f~m 22 to 1~, cle~ ~ the 1~ aro~d there, ~d Just ~e it look better all
the w~ aro'~ ~t the te~c~ity b~t ~ was t~t al~ I~m cu%ti~ it ff~m 22 to 1~
Division
Chapter 23 - Page 22
-~ S/~ECT~2N~.20 Non-Oonformin~ Us os, Provisions aud Llmitat ions
a. The lawful use of a buil~Ing~6r premises ,as of December 20, 1945 may be
continued, alth~,gh such use ~nform to the provisions hereof.
Such use may be extended through the building provided no structural
alterations are made therein other thau those required by law or ordLu-
anco, or as may be necessary to establish conformity. If such non-
conforming use consists of a substantial building and is discontinued
for two years or more, any future use of the building must be in conform-
ity with the provisions of this ordinance. However, if any non-conform-
~. lng use of lands on which there are no substantial buildings is discon-
.._tinued for any length of time any future use of the laud must be in
with the provisions of this ordinance.
conformity
b. No billboards or signs shall be erected in the residential district or in
the multiple dwelling district. Billboards and signs in other districts
shall be constr.,cted in accordance with the provisions of the Building
Code. This provision shall apply to signs attached to, or painted on,
the walls or roofs of lmaildings.
Ne filling station, public garage, or gasoline distributing station sh~11
be located within three hundred feet of a school, church, hospital,' or
other public meeting place having a seating capacity of more than fifty
persons, provided that this limitation shall not apply in that part of
the Commercial District or the Industrial District abutting and adjoin-
lng Ba~view Boulevard and extending easterly and westerly from the center
line of Bayview Boulevard a distance of not more than two hundred feet
and extending also from the Southerly line extended, of Lynwood Boule-
yard to the southerly line, extended, of Lot 14, McNaughts Addition, nor
shal~ these regulations-prohibit the continuance of any such existing use
of premises by reason of the later erection of a church, school or hospi-
tal (Ord. -
d. For the purpose of insuring reasonable visibility in the residential and
multiple dwelling districts, it is provided that no structure may be
erected or any vegetation maintained other than %rees trimmed to a
height of eight feet above curb level, and shrubs and hedges trimmed be-
low a height of three feet above curb level, for a distance of forty f~et
from the intersection of the property line of the two streets.
e. For the purpose of insuring reasonable visibility in the commercial dis-
trict it is provided that no corner building shall project past a line
drawn between points, one point being ten feet along the property line
from the intersection of the two property lines on the corner, and the
other point ten feet from said intersection, but at right angles to the
line along which the first point was measured.
f. In the event that a neighborhood commercial center is established in a.
residential ~rea, the-set back line of the adjoining residential district
sh.11 be extended through the commercial center, and any building con-
structed there shall observe these set back lines.
g. Any building which is partially d.maged or destroyed by fire, earthquake,
C - 1 - 1961
Fee is attached
Village response
LAKE MINNETONKA
402 East Lake Street
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
47[5-70]$$
License Yes~ 1979
CONSSRVA/ION DISTRICT
No. of boats 22
Boat Density Index -
Can be =eached at phone
~. 338.-.,36~.
APPLICATION FOR NEW OR REV~ ~B MULTIPLE DOCK AND/OR MOGRING LICENSE
Dick & Marie Thompson
(P~int or type owner's name)
~32 $.E. 6th St. Minneapolis 335-36~1
(b~'e=' S' ~ess)
the oEe~ of l~d in the Ci~ of
~iness m~e: L~e Mi~eto~ ~rt~ ~ Mobile Home Park (~ ~ffe~ent f~ ~e~)
: 6639 Bartlett Blv~ k72-3110
(S~ee%~eSs) ' - . . (~&ne) '
~vey (or plat) Dock cons~uction detM1 sheet
Pe=mit ~ licenses m~ ~so be =eq~ed ~ the ~icip~i~ ~d ~om the
~nnesota Deponent of Nm~ Reso~ces (fo~ ~m~ent docks).
Data:
3.
4-
5.
6.
in which the multiple dock is located, and the M.D.N.R.
Type of application (check): P~ivate , Commercial ~' Multiple
Dwelling .. ., Club .. , Other (explain)
The maximum numbe~ of boats stored in the water at docks is ~9~---- .'
The maximum number of boats stored in the water at moorings is .
The maximum numbe= of motorized or sail boats d~ystored for Lake use is ~ ~
Public liability insurance: Amount $ Company .
All requi~ed permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained f~om the City
Yes No
(Continued)
Page 2
LAKE
MINNETONKA
CONSERVATION
DISTRICT
Commercial and othe=s, where applicable, l~rOVide the following additional
info~mation:
7.
e
Check the nature of se=vices and parking p~ovided;
a) Boat sto~age ~ No. cf parking sp~ces
b) Launching ramps. ' ...... ~'~ .... "
c) Sales "
d) Service "
e) Boat rentals "
f) Restaurant "
h) Parking not requd~ed
Reason:
Sanitary facilities are pmovided: Yes
Total
NO ~,
Boat toilet pumping service is Drovided: Yes
All applications:
(number of units)
No/ .
Base fee ............. $
availability units @ $3.00 +
Total fee enclosed
I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are
t~ue and correct statements and I understand that any license issued m~y be re-
voked by the District fo~ violation of the LMCD Code. I consent to permitting
officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable
times to investigate and to determine whethe~ the Code of the District is being
Title ,~' .
lo/78
Relationship to Owner
U
Per~ Dock Inspector Don ]~her - 1/ou~_d. (2-~-$-'/9) ,
sLuce he has had that Jo~'~(2 yrs.) there h~s
always bee~ 2 docks here (along with a LNOD
official)who inspected same with Don Rather, &
altho~ Russells could have had a 3rd dock up,
he only put up 2 (During the last 2 yrs. answer).
& they went out 72' amd 82' respectively, dud were
approx. ~" across, - which the below ~rawinge are.
So the d~awi~gs below are exactly what the Russelle
had for the last 2 years, ~er dock Inspector
Don Rather (even tho,~ Russells could have had 3 docks)
iL MINNETONEA M~&RINA &
~ HOM~ P.~
AREA 1 - Hal~te~ Ba~
1979
Fee is attached ~_'t gg~;7
~: £~Village response~_~ ~
' LAKE MINNETONKA
,.,,.,t..o. 402 E~t L~e S~eet
W~zat~, ~nnesota 55391
47 -703
License Year
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
No. of boats -~
Boat Density Index
Can be reached a~t phone
Application for Multiple Dock and/or Mooring Area License
RENEWAL WITHOUT CHANGE
('name of owner)
(add~ess)
certify that no changes are to be made in the "dock use area" or the number of
boats sto~ed for Lake use, of the
' (ad. ess) '
d~ing the y ~ ~Y se~on; that the maxi~ n~ber of boats to be stored at
docks is ~ ~, at moorings is ~, ~d ~ysto~ed for L~e ~e is ~ ;
that the locator map, s~vey (~ plat), site pl~, ~d dock cons~uction det~l
on file with the Dis~ict for l~t ye~'s ap~ication, will be applicable to
the license being applied f~; ~d that I will obt~n a new license from the
L~e ~nnetonka Conservation Dis~ict before.-m~ing ~y chases.
(phone numbe:~ ) '
I further certify 'that- the -~nfo~mation provided herein and-all attachments
hereto are true and correct statements, and I understand that any license
issued may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD Code.
I consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the
premises at all reasonable times to investigate and to determine 'whether the
Code of the District is being complied with.
Date
Base fee ............. $ 10.OO
~ availability units @ $3.00 +
Total fee enclosed $
Authorized signature:
Title:
Relationship to Owner:
2/?8
q-
~ 3
-I .
/,'? ?~_
~7q
177(.
lq? ~.~.
DOCK CONSTRUCTION DETAILS FOR:
CREPEAU DOCKS
· A method for 'installing and removin9 that doesn't cause breakage and wear~ making it necessary to
replace parts each year.
m Section joints or connections can't be wood to metal or they will wear, rot or break out.
· Set screws can be no smaller than one-half inch in diameter or they will rust and snap.
· Posts have to be driven into the bottom so that the dock cannot move or tip over. (This is caused by
plates or discs which set on the bottom).
· The actual dock bracket has to be a single fabricated piece from post hole to post hole or you will
get side sway which will cause bending and breaking.
· .. why put up with these Problems when you can buy a Crepeau Dock and eliminate them
BELOW IS A DISECTED SECTION OF OUR DOCK FOR YOUR COMPARISON . . .
~ / j~ / Non-skid cedar decks interlock
I / ]l-.~ / on top of steel framework to
I~ll_~.,--~---~ p,ovide a walking ,urface.
1-1/2 ibnrca~k:ntd'S2°i~e~':~ee;l~abr'cated Sc°a~enel ~e/cl2 ~hh bP:gpel'/;sIde
Ne×t se~ion bein9 floated .~ >'~ lJ J il AH dock posts are driven until
into position. ~'I,~/../ ~ ~. ~ ~ they are solid.
Ii
The dimensions of the material used in the construction
of the Crepeau Dock is as follows.
Cedar boards 1"x8"x42" long with fir 2x2's separating
the cedar deck boards from the steel structure and a
fir 2x4 8' long in the center, as per drawing.
Yours truly,
Tom Rockv~m
FISHING/SWIMMING
BOAT SLIPS
Once a Crepeau Dock is installed you actually have "one piece" of steel driven solidly into the bottom. Any
pull on any part of the dock is absorbed by the whole dock and not by one section or at the section joint.
COMMERCIAL DOCKS
"EXPECT THE BE,
PSON
REAL ESTATE
THIS SlG~ IS A ~1 by 81 SCOTCNLITE PANEL
that is actually within an inch of the
ol& Martint s Resort sign which is between
2 steel posts ~nd on chicken wire. It is
· lmost identical in size, except that the
chicken wire fence is over 9t long, & this
new one is $' long. The chicken wire
is closer to the ground - practically sits
on the ground, whereas this new sign is on
wooden posts & 2 to 3 ft. off the ground,
& the reason for this, is that not only is
it at least noticeable, but the people in
that first mobile home still has a nice
view, and if it were leer, they would not
have that view. So the sign isn't as big
as the old chicken wire sign, only higher
off the groun&, and the sign is far, far
more attractive than the old one.
;'i'G
SIIOd¥~NNIY~ N/V~OINA~OQ- ]~lOH
11 ~A~117~t8 I
11 OlVg 6709
.... ~': ' from ~'he desk of
, FRANK MIXA
ON ~KE MINN~ON~ IFIDIAN ~UR1AL
534] MAYWOOD ~OAD TELEPHonE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 {Gl2) 472-Z155
6635 Bartlett Blvd,
Hen Rsrich oi~ the I>iCD and I inspected your dock today and found the following
violations.
1. You must furnish us a copy of letter from your h.eighbor and also apply
for a variance regarding your 10' set back,
2. You must secure all Liras Lo the dock.
'3.
Any malarial along the shorelin~ must be removed to avoid possible
washing into lake.
Furnish us with a new drawing of dock layout: showing new 10' set back
on south property line.
}4ost important of all, you have not as of this date made application
for license ~Hth the City of ~ound. You already have 2/3~s of your
total docks in and we are still waiting for you to file for license.
6. No fire extinguishers on your docks.
Our Ordinance allonge you 10 days from date of this letter Lo comply with above
to avoid any penalties,
Res pectfully~
Don Rotber
Dock Inspector
D~/jcn
V. A. Massuch
P.O. Box 134
Mound, Minnesota
55364
March 3, 1979
Mr. Leonard Kopp, Mound City Manager
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Mr. Kopp:
Please consider the following information in any decision granting a multiple
dock lincense to Lake Minnetonka Marina and Mobile Park.
Intended commercial use of land zoned residential.
ie: Collecting revenues or fees for boatS, trailers and camper units stored
in water and/or on la~d both summer and winter.
The dock structure in 1977 was a single ramp 36" wide extended into the lake 80'
perpendicular to the shoreline. This dock moored (1) 20' pontoon boat, (1) row boat
and (2) fishing boats.
The dock structure in 1978 was two ramPs each:36" wide. One dock located 10' from
the west property line'extended into the lake 80' The second dock 71' in length
was located approximately 30' from the east property line. These docks moored
(4) pontoon boats,.(1) fishing.boat, and (1)~row boat.
In May of 1978 Mr. Russell, the owner at that time, requested my permission to
install the second dock 10' from my east property line. I gave Mr. Russell
permission for the 1978 season only. For this consideration, Mr. Russell agreed
to remove from his property several derelict boats and other abandoned items,
and try to improve the appearance of his property.
Mr. Russell assured me I would not encounter any problems with customers using
his docks. However that was not the case. Mr. Russell who lived at the location,
tried to Control the people using his facilities but he was not always available
when problems arose.
ie: #1 Adult males using land and lake for sanitary facilities because of the
lack of any such facilities being provided.
#2 Litter removed from'the bo~ts.'and'left'on"land as there were no litter
containers provided.
#3 Loud noises and abusive language at all hours of the day and night.
Page. Two
·
#4 Complete disregard for neighboring residents privacy or personal property.
#5 Parking in my driveway blocking the entrance, also using the driveway
for turn around.
This was not the environment I thought existed when I invested in this home.
It is not the conditions in which I wish to raise nly 12 year old daughter.
We have several other problems that exist on this location that should be corrected.
ie:#1 (3) buildings in severe hazardous condition.
#2 Signs located along County Road 110 indicating commercial business.
! would hope we could all work together in correcting these problems.
Although I believe Mr. Thompsons intentions are probably good, I do not feel
that any level of commercial activity is compatible with this residential area.
Respectfully,
Vivian A. Massuch, owner ~
6701Halstead Avenue
Mound, Minnesota 55364
CC:
Tim Lovaasen, Mayor City of Mound
Curtis A. Pearson, Attorney, City of Mound
Leonard L. Kopp, Manager, City of Mound
Henry Truelsen, Inspector, City of Mound
· Council Members, City of Mound
Robert D. Polston
Gordon Swenson
Donald Ulrick
Ben Withhart
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 6, 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-88
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Minutes
Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes. The following items
require Council action:
Item
1. Subdivision of Land
Lot 23 and E. 1/2 of Lot 22, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
Possible appeal. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
request to divide the lot into two parcels.
Parcel A would have 9,653 square feet.
Parcel B would have 6,784 square feet.
Subdivision of Land~
Part of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision 170
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Com/nission recommended the division of the land into two
parcels:
Parcel A - The easterly 100 feet of the westerly 160 feet of
Lot 28 - 38,007 square feet.
Parcel B - That part of Lot 28, Aud. Subd. 170 lying easterly of
the westerly 160 feet thereof, and lying westerly of
the easterly 70.00 feet thereof. - 23,689 square feet
The Administration concurs providing the house is moved as indicated
by the applicant.
Subdivision of Land
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 12, Dreamwood and Lot 6, Block 12, Dreamwood
Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet
The Planning Co~mnission reco~nended the division into the following
parcels:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 12 - 6,400 square feet
Lots 5 and 6, Block 12 - 7,360 square feet
The owner of Lot 6 is buying Lot 5 from the owner of Lots 3, 4 and 5.
The Administration concurs.
Non-conforming Use/Lot Size
Lot 5, Block 19, Shadywood Point
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
3-13-79
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-88
Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2
Item
4.
The lot is undersized having only 6,250 square feet. The Planning
Commission recommended he be allowed to remodel his home and that he
be allowed to move the house so it meets the side yard requi'rements.
The Administration concurs.
Front Yard Variance
Lot 1 and W. 10 Feet of Lot 2, The Bartlett Place and Part of Govt Lot 1
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended approval of a 2 foot front yard vari-
ance for construction of a deck. The Administration concurs.
Sign Variance - Possible appeal.
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the request.
Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use
Lot 16, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood
Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended approval of existing .4 foot and
3.45 foot variances on the side yards so the existing structure can
be remodeled providing no further encroachments be made on the side
yard. The Administration concurs.
Street Front Variance
Lot 1, Block 3, Driftwood Shores
Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended a 5 foot street front variance.
The Administration concurs.
ll~./Garage Site
Lot 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point
The Planning Co~nission recommended that the subject tax forfeit lot
not be sold as a garage site for Lot 13, Block 2, across the street.
12. Subdivision of Land - Item withdrawn.
~eonar~ ~.. ~opp ~
MINUTES OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 26, 1979
Present:.
Chairman Russell Peterson, Commissioners Gerald Smith, Margaret
Hanson, Harriett Dewey, William Renner, Lorraine Jackson and Gary
Paulsen; City Manager Leonard L. Kopp; City Inspector Henry Truel-
Sen and Secretary Marge Stutsman.
MINUTES
Jackson moved and Hanson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
February 12, 1979 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Board of Appeals
1. Subdivision of Land
Lot 23 and E. 1/2 of Lot 22, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka
Ben Magdon present.
Smith moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend denying the request
for subdivision of land. The vote'was unanimously in favor. Reason:
Proposed parcels would be undersized.
Subdivision of Land
Part Of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision 170
Steven Tessmer present.
Smith moved and Hanson seconded the motion to recommend the approval of
the subdivision of land as requested. Discussed. Owner proposes moving
present home to Parcel B. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Subdivision of Land
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 12, Dreamwood
Ron Gehring was present representing Frank Tusler. Mr. Gehring owns Lot 6
and will purchase Lot 5 to be combined with Lot 6 if division granted~
Discussing building without any variances.
Smith moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the sub-
division of land as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor.
4. Lot Size Variance/Non-conforminq Use
Lot 5, Block 19, Shadywood Point
Bernard Badtke present.
Jackson moved and Renner seconded a motion to recommend that request be
granted to raise structure and move structure over, putting basement under,
so that side yard requirements are met.
Jackson moved to amend motion to include stipulation that shed be moved to
meet setbacks. Paulsen seconded the motion. Vote on amendment was unani-
mously in favor.
The vote on the motion as amended was unanimously in favor.
Planning Commissio ~tes
February 26, 1979 - Page 2
Front Yard Variance
Lot 1 & W. 10 Feet'of Lot 2, The Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka and
Part of Govt. Lot 1 of Section 23, Twp. 117 N., Rg. 24
Timothy Ashenfelter present.
Dewey moved and Jackson seconded a motion to recorm~end approval of a 2 foot
front yard variance. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Sign Variance ~ / 'i~.
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights
Thompsons not present.
Smith moved and Hanson seconded a motion to move to the end of agenda.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Chestnut Road Right-of-Way '~--~ ~.i~_~ ~ ~/~7~7~ ~~'~'~3
Hanson moved and Dewey seconded a motion to move to the end of agenda.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Special Use Permit - Muffler Replacement Shop
Request. withdrawn prior to meeting.
Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use
Lot 16, Subd. of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp &Lindquist's Ravenswood
Roger Woodruff present.
Hanson moved and Smith seconded a motion to recommend approval of a .4 foot
variance and an existing 3.45 foot variance with the stipulation that no
further encroachments be allowed. The vote was unanimously in favor.
10.. Street Front Variance (For 1772 Lafayette Lane)
Lot i, Block 3, Driftwood Shores
Rodney Wilkens present. .
Dewey moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend that a 5 foot street
front variance be approved, in view of the fact that this is only variance
needed from City. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Note: Applicant has letter from the Minnehaha Watershed District.
11. Garage Site
Lot 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point
Hanson moved and Renner seconded a motion to remove from the table. The
vote was unanimously in favor.
Hanson moved and Renner seconded a motion to recommend that Lot 17 not
be released for sale. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 26, 1979 .- Page 3
Sign Variance
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights
Smith moved and Hanson seconded a motion to reco~unend denial of sign
as it exists, because it doesn'~t meet code, The vote was unanimously
in favor.
Chairman asked for suggestions on follow-up on this sign and including
having Planner make signs a discussion item.
Chestnut Road Right-of-Way
Smith moved and Jackson seconded a motion to approve concept of Chestnut
Road extension. The vote was. unanimously in favor.
12.
Subdivision°f Land
Lots 4~5~14 & 15 (Parcel A) Lots 10,11,12 & 13 (Parcel C), Block 9, Seton
Ron Gehring present with request to add 10 feet of Parcel C to Parcel A.
Smith moved and Rennet seconded a motion to recommend approval of request
for adding 10 feet on Parcel A from Parcel C. The vote was unanimously
in favor.
Oath of Office'
Commissioners present were sworn into Office as Planning Commissioners.
Adjournment
Renner moved and Dewey seconded a motion to adjourn. The vote was unanimously
in favor, so adjourned.
Attest:
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
AGENDA
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 26, 1979
City Hall - 7:30 P.M.
Minutes of the February 12, 1979~Meeting
Board of Appeals
1. Ben Magdon, 5441 Bartlett Boulevard
Lot 23 and Eo 1/2 of Lot 22, Upper Lake Minnetonka The Bartlett Place - Map 8
Subdivision of Land
Steven Tessmer, 5319 Bartlett Boulevard
Part of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision 170 - Map 8
Subdivision of Land
Frank Tusler (PrOperty address - 1709/1721 Eagle Lane)
Lots 3,4 and 5, Block 12, Dreamwood - Map 2
Subdivision of Land
Bernard D. Badtke, 5021 Woodland Road
Lot 5, Block 19, Shadywood Point - Map 2
Non-conforming Use - Lot Size
5. Timothy Ashenfelter, 5573 Bartlett Blvd.
Lot 1 & W. 10 Feet of Lot 2, "The Bartlett Place" Upper Lake Mtka &
Part of Govt. Lot 1 of Section 23, Twp. 117 N,, Rg. 24 - Map 8
Front Yard Variance
Dick & Marie Thompson, 6635 Bartlett Blvd.
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights - Map 10
Sign Variance
7. Chestnut Road Right-of-Way (5936-5942 Chestnut) - Map 4
8o
Merle Dean Bensley, 2316 MOntcl~ir Lane
Lots 12 and 13, Part of 14 and 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A - Map 5
Special Use Permit - Muffler Replacement Shop
Roger Woodruff, 4870 Edgewater Drive
Lot 16, Subd. of Lots 1 - 32, Skarps Ravenswood - Map 5
Side Yard Variance - Nonconforming Use
10.
Rodney Wilkens, 1759 Lafayette Lane
Lot 1, Block 3, Driftwood Shores - Map 2
Street Front Variance for 1772 Lafayette
11.
Garage Site (1943 Shorewood Lane) Tabled at Jan. 29th meeting
Lot 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point - Map 2A
MINUTES OF
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 12, ].979
Present:
Chairman Russell Peterson, Commissioners Gary Paulsen, Lorraine
Jackson, Bill Renner, Harriett Dewey, Gerald Smith and Margaret
Hanson; Council Representative Gordon Swenson, Councilmember
Benjamin Withhart, City Manager Leonard L. Kopp, City Planner
Charles Riesenberg, City Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary
Marjorie Stutsman
MINUTES
Renner moved and Jackson seconded a motion to accept the minutes of the
January 29, 1979 Planning Commission meeting as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor.
The City Planner conducted the workshop. Copies of "Local and Regional
Planning in Minnesota" by Gunnar C. Isberg were distributed. Also handed
out material and schedule for tenative workshop meetings.
Major issues confronting the City were identified and discussed. List
attached. Planner to work up questionnaire on issues for citizen parti-
cipation. Discussed land uses, lot sizes, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
Smith moved and Renner seconded a motion to adjourn.
mously in favor. So adjourned.
The vote was unani-
Attest:
12, 1979
MAJOR ISSUES
(Discussed at Planning Commission Meeting)
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Environmental quality - protection of resources
A. Lake (Lost Lake, Lake Langdon, Lake Minnetonka)
B. Wetlands
C. Vegetation.- forest
D. Coordination with other Cities
E. Topography (Retaining walls)
Housing
A. Low Cost
B. Elderly
C. Crowding of housing stock
D. Housing mix
E. Quality of housing (standards for existing housing)
F. Redevelopment (Ways to improve housing)
CBD Redevelopment
A. Roads
B. Business mixture
Land use compatibility
A. Buffering land use
B. Elimination of commercial spots in residential areas
Code
A. Language (common sense)
B. Information dissemination
Trails/Recreation
"Junky" yards
Industrial Growth/Tax Base
Reuse of School Sites
Public Services
A. Efficiency
B. Availability (Streets, Sewer etc.)
Overall Growth/Image (City Growth Management)
Transportation - Impact on Land Use
A. Parking/Access
HUD Funds
Potential of Regional Shopping Center (Impact)
CITY OF HOUND
Mound, Minnesota'
TO: Councilmember
FROM: Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Board Of Appeals - Mound Zoning
Ben Magdon, 5441 Bartlett Blvd.
Lot 23 and E. 1/2 of Lot. 22, Upper Lake Mtka The Bartlett Place
Subdivision of Land: This subdivision is non-conformance' width subdivision
ordinance; Both parcels will be undersized and we'feel.:~iS,iS'hot'compar~
"able of in continuity with parcels in,the area.
Steve Te~smer, 5319 Bartlett Blvd.
Part of Lot 28, Auditor's Subd..170
Subdivision of Land. This subdivision would meet the requirements of the
subdivision ordininance, no objections.'
Frank Tusler (property address 1709/1721 Eagle Lane)
Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 12, Dreamwood
Subdivision of Land. This subdivision is in compliance with subdivision or-
dinance. No objections.
Bernard D. Badtke, 5021 Woodland Road
Lot 5, Block 19, :$hadywood Point
Non-conforming Use - Lot size. This property is zoned A-1 residential, 10,O00
square feet. Lot sq. footage is 6,253.75 or 3,746.25 ft. under-sized. The in-
tent is to lift the existing structure, move it to conform to the 10 ft. side
yard requirement and install it on a new basement. Can see no problem in allow-
ing permission to expand thig .existing non-conforming use.
Timothy Ashenfelter, 5573 Bartlett Blvd.
Lot 1 & W. 10 ft. of Lot 2, The.Bartlett Place, Upper Lake Minnetonka
Front Yard Variance. Property kequire~ ~-lake fron~ variance. Due to the unique
topography of this structure and the abutting structure, I can see no problem in
allowing variance Of .2 feet for the proposed, addition.
Dick & Marie Thompson, 6635 Bartlett Blvd.
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Halsted Heights'.
Sign Variance. No Comment.
Chestnut Road Right-of-Way (5936 - 5942 Chestnut)
This proposed right-of-way would improve land use availability for residentia.l
building sites that is now inaccessible.
Merle Dean Bensley, 2316 Montclair Lane
Lots 12 & 13, Part of 14 & 15, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A
Special Use Permit - Muffler Replacement Shop. If the Commission recognizes
there may not be adequate parking for the two uses of property I would'like to
suggest the probability of recommending a possible contract parking agreement
with fee owner of Property, Mr. David Babler.
Roger Woodrt~ff, 4870 Edgewater Drive
Lot 16; Subd. of Lots 1 - 32, .Skarps Ravenswood
Side Yard Variance - Non-conforming Use. Proposed ~ddition will require.4/lO ft.
variance existin9 structure, house, requires variance of 3.45 ft. Would like to
suggest acknowledging existing structure non-conformance and require 5 ft. side
yard of proposed addition. ~
Board of Appeals - Mound Zoning continued:
page two
10. Rodney Wilkens, 1759 Lafayett~ Lane
Lot 1, Block 3, Driftwood Shores
Street Front Variance. requires 5 ft. street front variance, double front lot
can comply to other required setbacks. Probable subterraine problem is reason
for the street front setback variance to keep structure as much as possible on
solid ground.
11. Garage site (1943 Shorewo6d Lane)
Tabled at January 29th meeting.
Block 7, Lot 17, Shadywood Point.
Note small enclosure showing ownership of abutting properties as requested by
City Planning Commission.
HT/dd
Henry Truelsen
Inspector
'
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
LAND
FEES
PLAT PARCEL
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
To be divided as follows:
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From Square feet TO
Reason: x
' ... (sig~natur~) A ~ .
Applicant's interest in the property: ~ ~.~ ~ . z~.~,
Square feet
972-, 3
DATE
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, ocan explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSIOt~J RECOMMENDATION:
Denying the request because proposed pa, rce~
would be undersized.
L
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
LAND
FEE $ '~ ~ ~--'")0
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
To be divided as follows:
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
(signature)
Applicant's interest in the property:
TEL. NO.
DATE
,'-t -'; a -gq?o¢
This application 'must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
A~p..o=ov~l o~ the subd±v±s±o~
land as requested,
DATE Feb:
26¢
1979
FOR:
hat par2 6f Lot 28, .Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, ~,linnesota lying easterly of
esterly 60.00 feet. thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 70.00 feet'thereof.
arcel A
he easterly 100.00 feet of the westerly' 160.00 feet of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170,
ennepin County, F1innesota.
arcel B
hat part of'Lot 28, Aud~tor"s Subdivision No. 170, Hennep~n County, Minnesota lying easterly of tk
esterly 160.00 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 70.00 feet thereof.
'oral Parcel
'hat part o'f Lot 28, Aud~tor"s Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Flinnesota lying easterly of th:
lesterly 60.00 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 70.00 feet thereof.
'arCel A
'he easterly 100.00 feet of the westerly 160.00 feet
lennepin County, Minnesota.
of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170,
'a rcel B
'hat part of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 170, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying easterly of
'esterly 160.00 feet thereof, and lying westerly of the easterly 70.00 feet thereOF.
; TY O?
A
ION FOR SUBDIVISION
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
AND
FEE
FEE OWNER
PLAT
PARCEL
Location and complete legal description of properly lo be divided:
To be divided as follows:
,' c e / '¼." --Zo
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER~ IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From , Square feet TO
Reason:
Applicant's interest in the property: (~ cc) vt ~./~ ~- ~.c,-'~' ~ ~'-c~
F~ ¢~iThis aPPlicati°n mum be signed b'alltheOWNERs°fthepr°perty'°ranexplan-
~, ~ [~ ation given why this is not the case.
~NINGiCOMMI%ION RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the
Square feet
NO.
subdivision of land as requested.
DATE Feb. 26, 1979
i ,
CAROA'RFLLE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
6440 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
941-3~30
LAND SURVEYOaS
EDEN PSAIRI.=, MINN. 55344.
· '1
//
!
/'
/
!
/
.
. o /
6,73
APP LICA TION FOI~rARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
FEE $
ZONING
A-1
NAME OF
APPLICANT
BERMAR~ D. BA~K~
PROPERTY
ADDRESS ~021
PLAT.
Woodland Rd..
PARCEL '77.60
Address 5021
WOODLAND RD.
Te le phone
Number A72-A93
LOT ., , 5 BLOCK
ADDITION 8hadywood Point
INTEREST IN PROPERTY_ OWNER
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Address
Telephone
Numb e r
VARLANCEREQUESTED:
FRONT
YARD
J ACCESSORY
FT. BUILDING
SIDE
YARD [ FT.J
LOT SIZE
REAR
YARD
J
LOT SQ.
FT. FOOTAGE,
NOTE:
FT.[
6,250'
N. C. U.* or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
RAISING H~USE
1, Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to ~ot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
Z. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
locations of ali buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
by extending survey or drawing.
3--. Attach letters from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
request.
AND PUTTING BASEMENT UIfDER IT TO
MAKE IT SPLIT LEVEL. IT WOULD ALSO BE MOVED TO A DISTANCE 8F TEN FEET
FROM THE EAST LOT LINE.
! : .,/.:"'"',, A,~ !bu~i~,~g permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
~ 3q~moUnfifL resolution or variance granted becomes null and void.
FI8 t ~ l~lances are not~ansferable.
Signature
0/
I PL^Nm COMMXSSiO A I '
' N RECOMMEND T ON That request be granted to razse structure
and move structure over, putting basement under, so that side yard requirements are met;
with stipulation that shed be moved to meet setbacks.
DATE Feb. 26, 1979
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO..
DATE
;:-'non-conforming use ~,7~
y~lj I,'~YI,'VG ~, EAIGIN~C£R,I,NG CO..
SURVEY -FOR, BERNARD BADTKE
.Lo.~ .5, Block
19, SHADYW00D
~POINT, according to the ~ecorded
Plat thereof, Hennepin County,
5linnesot~.
(~12) 545-554.4 '.:." .' -:
10700 HWY. 55 WEST, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 554.41 ' '~.. :'.
:'o" - Denotes Iron Monument
Scaie: 1" =
I hereby certify Ihat Ibis survey, plan, specification or report was prepared by me or
Under my direcl supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer
and Land Surveyor ,ufl:~,.er the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date:Feb, 13..1979 _Reg. Uo..
UJ'am,-s H, Parker ' . .
~7o
DRIVEWAY
t~nU
0oo
HQ
OHO
bJtd
DRIVE,'fAY
--t
APPLICATION FC~VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
FEE $ ~.O~.
ZONING
PROPER T~_q
PLAT G i ~} O PARCEL
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
BLOCK
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Addre s s
Telephone
Numb e r
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
YARD FT BUILDING
SIDE J
YARD FT, LOT SIZE
REAR] [ LOTSQ.
YARD FT. FOOTAGE
NOTE:
N. C. U. * or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
FTJ
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
Z. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
locations of all buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
by extending survey or drawing.
3--. Attach letters from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
request.
DATE ~e-~.. "7 /q'~c?
permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
olution or variance granted becomes null and void.
~re not~ran~fer~h~e.l [ ~
f- ':
r~ ~ ,,Si~gatur~* ~
That approval of a 2 foot front yard
variance be made.
DATE Feb. 26, 1979
COUNCIL ACTION:
RESOLUTION NO
DATE
*non-conforming use ~ ~. ~7
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp
City M-~nager
City of Mound
5341 M~ood Road
Mound~ ~ 55364
MoUnd, Minnesota
February l3, 1979
Dear Mr. Kopp:
This letter will confirm our conversation this date concerning the
Application for Variance of our neighbors to the East of our propez~y
Mr. and Mrs Timothy Ashenfelter, which they propose to submit to the
Council for approval later this month.
~ne aPPlication which they have shown us is for approval of a six(6)
foot variance, which provides for the construct%An of porch 12'X12' and
.also decking in fro~tof the proposedporch. ~a~s plan would require s
two (9) foot variance for the porch, and an additio~al(4)four feet to allow
for the construction of the decking.
Mrs C~8 ~n~ y have ~areTul].y s:~ ~ . .....
con~ ~¢~er~: this m~.t'ter ~ ~eel they
should be permitted to construct the porch which requires a two (2) foot
variance, but the request for the additional four(4) feet should be disapproved
for the following reasons:
i. The lakeview from the east den window of our home would be °bst_~ucted,
which is detrimental as explained under number two below.
2. ~okeshore properties are valued on two main points which are lake access
~nd lake view, in addition to replacement cost less depreciation~ and other
factors. Any constr~mtion even though minor at first by granting a variance'
could have more drastic implications etc.(closed in porch, extending construction
by future owners to variance limits.) Const~action which effects lake view
has an effect on property value.
3- ~ne Mound Council has demonstrated a keen awareness to the importance of
not granting acceptions to these important requirements except in rare instances
to protect and preserve the value of lakeshore homes and lots, on which our
taxes are based.
Since we will not be able to attend the council meeting later this month
I am sending this to you ss suggested to present our views at the Council
meeting, which is: LI~T VARIANCE TO AI~OW ~ (2) FEET OI'~Y.
In closing, we would like to state ~e have a very fine relationship with
Mr & Mrs Ashenfelter, and we are pleased and happy with their plans to update
their present home~ and we feel the Mound City Council ·should approve their request to
the extent of a two(2) foot variance. We feel sure it is not their intent to
obst~-~ct are view of Lake Minnetonka, and a slight revision of the proposed plan
should prove satisfactory to all concerned.
cc Ashenfelter ~_~--~"-JOitl~ R. GOOD VIRGihI~ M. GOOD
APPLICATION FOeARIANGE SFEE $ .4 ~ O O .... -.,, .
Redident~J[ wi~h a special
CITY OF MOUND ZO~NG IN~ P~i~
01d ~t~'~ ~ort - a o~ed by W~ly ~d Helen ~ssell 6635 B~tlett Blv~
PROPERTY Lots i 2
ADD~ESS Halsted
NA~E OF
APPLICANT Di~ & Narie Tho~oson PLAT PARCEL
Address
INTEREST IN PROPERTY
~32 S.E. 6~ St. Minneapolis ..LOT BLOCK
Telephone
Number )38-3651 ADDITION
We are the Contract for Deed bl~rers - and the W.C. Russell's are
the Fee Owners
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) W.C. RUSSELL$
Address Rt. 3 - Box 177 - Carthage, Mo. 6~836
Telephone
Number (417)
VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE:
FRONTI [ ACCESSORY [
YARD FT. BUILDING FT.
SIDE FT.]
YARD [ FT.[ LOT SIZE
REAR[ [ LOTSQ.
YARD FT- FOOTAGE
N. C.U.* or
OTHER (describe)
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
2. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
locations of all build!~-~_~_~j_v_-:~_~_v~
r e que s t. ~_ ,~--,~-~
iClTY OF:
REASON FOR REQUEST' There b~s alwa~rs been a sign where we put our new one~ as the former
s~gn said -"NARTINS RESORT" ,' and our sign is "IdkKE MINNETONKA ~kRINA AND MOBILE HOME PAPCK". All we
did'was to put ~ a much more attractive sign. Ted C-anzel of Mound did it for us. We asked him if
we needed'permiss'io'n, e~c. 'and he said -"I 'don't see wk~. There has always been a sign there"..
And the sign is .~ b~r 6~. I guess I just took it for grauted that TED GANZEL knew hi~. business &
knew what he was talking' about. Again, like I said- the sign is a tremendous improvement there.
I could al,,,ayS h~.ve ,T,~ri ~-a~,e! ~.~ke ~t 8_e~..~ b,_~t, it ~eem9 _~o foolish when thi= one it- ~u ~"~provcment.
A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
council resolution ~varia ~n~. e~g~ranted becomes null and void.
Variances are not a $fe flr
APPLICANT , ,'~ ~'/(~'~-/~(,"~'~ DATE 2/13/'9
PLANNING COM1V~iSSION RECOMMENDATION Denial of .sign.
DATE Feb. 26, 1979
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO
DATE
*non-conforming use ~ C q '
APP LICA TION FO~rARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF
APPLICANT .~~, -~__. ~4PO~_~c/~-~
FEE $ ~ 6. 6%
ZONING. ~ ',2~ ,, ,. ,
PROPERTY -- ~3,.,..~ , //} ~
PLAT
~ ' BLOCK 7~ ,, '
TelephoF~
FEE OWNER (if other than applican0
Te le phone
VARLkNCE REQUESTED:
NOTE:
FRONT
SIDE
FTJ
REAR LOT SQ.
YARD , F T. FOOTAGE, ~2 ~
N. C. U. * or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
~_. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approXimate
locations of all buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
by extending survey or drawing.
3--. Attach letters from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
request.
il ~ 39 ~ A building ipermit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
v~9~i~o '1 restilution~ or variance gr~anted becomes,,, null and void. --
Variances,are n~ transferable.~/ ~ I~ -- i/
~ ~ ---~ d """'-- ~~ ~.~ '7
...... S~gnat~e
PLANNING COMIVIISSION RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of a .4 foot variance
and an existing 3.45 foot variance with the stipulation that no further encroachments be
allowed.
DATE Feb. 26~ ] 979
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO...
DATE
;':-non~conform. lng use L & 3
u 0
0
~ E
0
4--1
0 r-
00"
.40.
APPLICATION FO ARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF O [ [ ~"
. APP',IO NT
' '~ 'Telephone
INTERmST IN PROPERTY (~ ~ ~ ~
FEE OWNER (if other ~han applicant)
Address
FEE $. , ,--,T
ZONING_ ..~.--/-
ADDRESS
PLAT &/5~?~'~ PARCEL
,,LOT I BLOCK
ADDITION
Telep ITY OF MOUNO
Numbe ~- , , ...........
V_A RiAMCE REQUESTED:
YARD I~T.I BUILDING
SIDE
YARD [ FTJ
NOTE:
[ FTol
LOT SQ.
N. C. U. * or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
on property and abutting streets.
2. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
locations of all buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
by extending survey or drawing.
3_. Attach letters from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
request.
A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
council resolution or variance grant_e~l, be~null and void.
Yariances are no~tra~/ )~_~ F~ /¢/ /99?
APPLICANT ~ ~ SiTMure~ DATE , . .
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION That a 5 foot street front variance be
approved.
DATE Feb. 26, 1979
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.~
DATE
*non-conforming use 6 6 [
Fi',t of
for
of Lot i, Fi'.;ck 3, Dr!?twood Shores
}~,eancO:hi Co~.mty, Ylnr-oso
CJ
Ce-_.~tt !'i¢~. te of
i hero,by certi.Cy that this Is a 'grua c. nx cor~:,_.~ -~f~ ~+"~'~
and t,h~-) location of n!! e;~iz'tln8 buildings, if an/, thoroo.;:. It
Scale: 1" = 50'
0 : ~rort ' ":r
i;?~ L'
{.Lo.
TO WHOM IT }ikY CONCERN:
We, Mr. & Mrs. Steckel, as owner and resident of LOT 2 BLOCK 3
Driftwood Shores, Mound, Minnesota, have examined the attached
documents showing the proposed dwelling for the Wilkens on LOT
1 B~OCK 3. We have no objections to the construction of said
dwelling.
TO WI{OM IT ~tAY CONCERN:
We, Mr. & Mrs. Pitsch, as owner and resident of LOT 3 BLOCK 2.
Driftwood Shores, Mound, Minnesota, have examined the attached
documents Showing the proposed dwelling for the Wilkens on LOT
1 BLOCK'3. We have no objections [o the construction of said
dwelling. .
D ~ql~~ ~ ~0 OD
COMPILED DY TITLE
.... cz ...PANY OF ?,~tNiYZSOTA
ROAD
%' ~ I
j Block 7, Shadywood Point - Plat 61980
P~rcel 3425 Lots 15 & 16 belong to Lydia Heil (Have dwelling on property)
Lot 17 - Tax Forfeit
3425 Lot 18 - In name of E. C. Wilson (Deceased)
3520 LOt 19 - In name of Patricia Winkelman, Daughter of E.C.Wilson
(Dwelling on this lot)
PPLfCATION FOR VARIANO
VILLAGE OF MOUND
INTEREST IN PROPER YY
FEE OWNER {if other than applicant)
ADDRESS
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY
FEE $
TEL NO.
F'l
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT. YARD SIDE YARD
.. . ~/ · · . '/ . . . : -: .
.. -. . ~ .
/.: ....
and streets.) - . _r u,ld,ngs on th. properly and on
APPLICANT_ ~ ~ ~/~~~ ......... ~ ...................... : ...........
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
]~o a~%ion ~aken,
-DATE 3-25-76
COUNCIL ACTION
RESOLUTION NO.
DATE
A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE APPLIED FOR WITHIN 1 YR. FROM TIlE DATE
OF THIS RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL .AND VOID.
I
Book
1,9
-7
cO
oP
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 9, 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-89
SUBJECT: Cigarette Licenses
Cigarette licenses expired February 28, 1979.
have been received:
Apco Station
National Supermarket
PDQ Food Store
Surfside, Inc.
The following renewals
Leo~ard L. Kopp '
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 9, 1979
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-90
SUBJECT: Garbage & Refuse Collection License
Garbage & Refuse Collection Licenses expired February 28th.
The following renewal has been received:
Blackowiak & Son
3 Trucks
L~onard L. Kopp
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 6, 1979
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-19
SUBJECT: Diseased Trees
Attached is a list of payments due residents for removing diseased
trees.
These items will appear for payment on the list of bills.
cc: City Clerk
ON LAKE MiNNETONKA
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
INDIAN BURIAI~ MOUNDS
TELEPHONE
(63.2) 472-1155
March ~, 1979
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Kopp
Tree Inspector
Rebates for Diseased Trees
The following.people have removed diseased trees on their property in full
compliance with City and State Laws. Please submit this list to Council.
Respectfully,
Chris Bollis
Tree Inspec'~.or
CITY OF MOU~]D
MOUND, MINNESOTA
LIST ~ 6
Nm~E
Ted Jameson
"David Linnet
Lewis W. Ely
Phil HauDcn
Robert Melin
'Evangeline Burke
ADDRESS
2021 Arbor Lane
1890 Shorewood
5900 Sunset Rd.
5248 Sulgrove
1797 Jones
5912 Bartlett
NO. OF TREES
2
TOTAL DBH
75"
66"
34"
74"
44"
31"
DCLLARS
$15o.oo
$132.00
$68.00
$148.oo
$88.OO
$62.00
TOTAL $648.00
3-13-79
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
March 9, 1979
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-20
SUBJECT: 1979 Hennepin County Community Health Services Subsidy Plan
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Director of the Hennepin County
Community Health Department relative to "Summary of the 1979 Hennepin
County Community Health Services Subsidy Plan".
A copy of this Summary is on file at the City Office, if the Council
wishes to read it.
Leonard L. ~KopP \ 6/ ~
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 9, 1979
Interested Part[es
Mark McGarraugh, Director,
Health Department
Community"' k,~~.~~
"Summary of the 1979 Hennepin County Com-
munity Health Services Subsidy Plan" and Notifi-
.cation of Development of the 1980-81 Plan
Enclosed is a summary of the 1979 Hennepin County Community Health Services
Plan which has been approved by the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners.
The 1979 Plan includes the plans of the five municipalities qualifying for a direct
share of state subsidy funds (Bloomington, Edina, Minneapolis, Richfield, and St.
Louis Park)' and the plan of Hennepin County Government on behalf of the other ~tl
municipalities. The summary includes a description of the community health
Services policies and programs, distribution of subsidy funds to the municipalities
and distribution of subsidy funds to programs and services.
Hennepin County and the five direct share m. unicipalities staff and advisory
committees are beginning the process for development of the 1980-81 County-wide
Community Health Services Plan. Public meetings on the preliminary plan will be
held in August, and the final plan will be submitted to the Hennepin County Board
of Commissioners for approval in mid-September.
in the development of the 1980-81 Plan, the following assumptions have been made:
· Although the funding level for the Community Health Services Act for the
next biennium (1979-81) has not yet been set by.the state legislature, we are
assuming it will be at least the same as in the past with possibly some
increase.
2. Due to inflation, costs of existing community health services programs will
..... increase by at least:eight.Percent
Thgrefore, depending on legislative action, new money may
community health programs.
be available for
If you have questions about the 1979 Plan or the planning process for the 1980-81
Plan, please contact Lisa Roche', Health Planner, 348-5239.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 7, 1979
Urban County Participants
Hennepin County
Final Entitlement/Year V (1979)
The accompanying letter from the HUD Area Office dated March 2, 1979
establishes subject entitlement at $4,119,000. This amount has been
allocated to each Urban County participant using the formula in the
Joint Cooperation Agreement. The allocation is presented on the
attached table.
For purposes of the Year V application which must be presented to the
Metropolitan Council and State Planning Agency April 3, 1979 for A-95
Review, the preliminary planning entitlement will be used and identified
as such.. During the 45 day A-95 review period the Urban County program
will be revised to reflect the final entitlement and included in the
application presented to HUD on May 18, 1979.
Each participant is asked to notify Hennepin County by May l, 1979 how
their allocation of the entitlement will affect the program. The most
expeditious way to accommodate the final entitlement is to adjust
programmed activity budgets, preferably making up the difference in one
activity.
New activities would require the full exercise of the program development
process including public hearings by the participant and the appropriate
Planning Area Citizen Advisory Committee. If the new activity had been
subject of the public hearing/s already held by the p~rticipant, it would
be necessary only to be hea, rd by the PACAC.
In any event, the Hennepin County Board will hold a public hearing on the
revised Year V Urban County program prior to submittal to HUD. The
hearing will likely be held May 15, 1979.
cje
/.,,'./3
Ri~GION V
300 5outh Wicicer Drive
Chic,,io, Illinois 60606
DEPARTMENT O"F HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AREA OFFICE
6400 FRANCE AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55435
March 2, 1979
RECEIVED MAR 5 1979
IN REPL. Y REFER TOt
5o6C~
Dale Ackmmnn, County Administrator
Urban Hennepin County
2300 Government Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
Dear Mr. Ackmann:
1979 Entitlement Amount
~=79~UC-~7~0001
U~ban Hennmptn County
I am pleased to inform you that Urban Hennepin'County's firm 1979
Community Development Block Grant entitlement amount has now been
calculated. The County's final entitlement amount for 1979 is
$4,119,000.
This letter confirms the verbal notification of Urban Hennepin
County's 1979 entitlement amount to Bob Isaacson, Office of Planning
and Development, on February 28. If you have any questions, please
call Mary ¥oule of my staff at 725-4726.
Sincerely,
Thomas T. Feeney
Area Manager
cc: Bob Isaacson
TARGET ALLOCATION
1979 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG ENTITLEMENT
Participating Final Preliminary Planning*
Community Entitlement Entitlement Difference
Brooklyn Center (I) 325,483 300,000 25,483
Brooklyn Park (III) 279,886 260,000 19,886
Champlin (III) 64,133 60,000 4,133
Corcoran (IV) 36,700 30,000 6,700
Crystal (I) 309,543 285,000 24,543
Dayton (III) 27,433 26,000 1,433
Deephaven (V) 36,330 33,000 3,330
Eden Prairie (II) 71,918 65,000 6,918
Edina (II) 268,394 250,000 18,394
Excelsior (V) 30,769 30,000 769
Golden Valley (I) 149,767 140,000 9,767
Greenfield (IV) 15,940 17,000 (1,060)
Greenwood (V) 5,561 5,000 561
Hanover (IV) 3,707 3,900 (193)
Hassan (IV) 16,311 15,000 1,311
Independence (IV) 30,398 28,500 1,898
Long Lake (V) 8,526 8,049 477
Loretto (IV) 3,707 3,900 (193)
Maple Grove (III) 71,547 66,500 5,047
Maple Plain (IV) 11,863 ll,400 463
Medicine Lake (III) 11,121 8,000 3,121
Medina (IV) 28,545 27,000 1,545
Minnetonka (II) 281,369 261,000 20,369
Minnetonka Beach (V) 7,785 7,200 585
Minnetrista (V) 34,105 31,644 2,461
Mound (V) 97,126 90,000
New Hope (I) ll~ ~'"'------'----~------~
Orono (V) 58,943 54,500 4,443
Osseo (III) 42,632 40,000 2,632
Plymouth (III) 129,748 125,000 4,748
Richfield (II) 352,174 330,000 22,174
Robbinsdale (I) 139,387 ' )32,000 7,387
Rogers (IV) 10,380 9,500 880
St. Anthony (I) 45,227 42,000 3,227
St. Bonifacius (V) 8,156 7,500 656
St. Louis Park (II) 382,943 375,000 7,943
Shorewood (V) ~L,_4]3_1__ ........... 44,000 3,451
Spring Park (V) 18,535 ...... ]-7~0 1,335
Tonka Bay (V) 19,648 18,000 1,648
Wayzata (V) 31,140 28,500 2,640
Woodland (V) 4,448 7,200 (2,752)
Hennepin County 411,900 375,000 36,900
TOTAL 4,119,000 3,849,745 269,255
Planning Area I 1,157,728 1,080,252 77,476
Planning Area II 1,356,798 1,281,000 75,798
Planning Area III 626,500 585,500 41,000
Planning Area IV 157,551 146,200 11,351
Planning Area V 408,523 381,793 26,730
*The preliminary planning entitlement was conservatively set at $3,750,000.
amount was intended to be used only as a guide and therefore the allocation
based upon it was understandably exceeded by several participants.
This
OPD/I)PU 3-6-79
l.'-/ I
WILLIAMS/O'EIRIEN ASSOCIATES, INC. ARCHITECTIii / PLANNERS
March 7, 1979
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Mound City Hall, Roof Leak Problem
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESO
Dear Leonard:
This is to confirm our discussion today regarding the roof
leaking problem.
We were not aware that a void of one-half to one inch in
width had opened up along the edge of the bottom of the
skylight. According to the description we received today
there was no more than a butt joint between the new sloped
roofing and the lower edge of the skylight. With no flash-
ing or overlapping joint and sealant, it is no wonder that
a leak developed.
We understand that your staff has made a patch by filling
the void and that it is fairly watertight so we feel that
it would be best to wait until the snow is gone and an
adequate inspection can be made.
The roof edge along the top of the skylight was modified also
and the problem is probably the same. That would account
for the fact that no serious leak occurred along the top
edge until after the sloped roofing was installed last
summer.
I am sending a copy Of this to Mr. Pearson as he should be
kept up to date. We will look at the roof as soon as the
roof is fairly dry.
S~ncerely, · ~
/~ice Prey JWO/kp s~dent '
cc: Mr. Curt Pearson
Williams/O'Brien Associates
45 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
. ' . . -~ .... -; .., . , ' ~. ,: - ~..~..._; .~ ..~' {~. - ,,,~ ,- .
':"::0' ,~-'-.~ ';~,':~ '~Z:"d,'.~";'~:'~%'~:"r~q/"~.,;'f.';;:.?~ ',':::~' '.? )'::"';.:"'-~ "9;':~':'~'~"?='':' ~:"":"';~:~:~'-': .','-: .... .: , ~' : ,
· ~ ,'- '--- .-:,> . '. '-';~-'.,- .-~-~:;"','. L...':..: :,.... ·-"};~';-.- '<',:- ,:.-::..-,~ .; )-~,:, .~<'.-,~ -2'-~-~ .'~ .... ' :~ -..-:~ -.:.--'~ '-: '
Whe~.dock renters o~ Excelsior ' l~rgest percentage increases with :;--:~I the taxpayers. Those who use the
open their 1979 dock permit applica- : rates ~oaring 66 and 75 percent. Last docks should pay for them."
floe letters, they will be in for a mild. ':year, bouy renters paid $75 bat this : :- Past increases have res(flted ia
surprise. The par.k-board, r_ec6.m:~-:summer that has been upped to $125 '-.diminishing some of the demand for
mended:, and. the city council ap- ;-with slides,increasing from$20 to$35. - . docks. But becaus~ of the rising popu-
p~roved, dock rata.increases o! up to - ;-.,:.'..lncreasbs · for-:the- commercial .'larRy of boating, Crow doesn't an-
75 per cent,, with a-residential dock,.~, docks, following much discuSSion by..'-:.ticipate.any long-term effects [rom
~mping 3;1 per cent."'_':'.~'.ii~.., ,f'~ ~.i.-:..i the council, .were- approved at ~600 the increase:' : . ::. ,.-:~..~.-.~ .t . ..
This rate increase y~as de~edi" "per'side for two'd0eks, and the ck~s--:~ '-.'.:Application3P. werb' p~t In the mail
necessary,':accordii~g to Lueille ute' of the:third hecans~ of its sub-. last week, with last year's renters
Crow, Excelsior councilwoman and ':standard:dondition. According to _' having first'choice.. They have until
representative to the park board, be-.~ Cro_w,, the future of the third d6ck ' April 1 to reply befoi-e the rentals are ' - r.:-~ ,.~ : -,
cause past ~:ates have .barely b~e~' :hash t been decided with the park' :opened to non-residents within the 278
covering the 'exPense's a~soeiated "board looking into the possibility: o[" Scho61 District.; .:' .' '-"~-' ".?: '-
'Mththedo~ks. ....-.i~,'.':'.'. ":.:'?.~pgrading'it. -:,' .... . ..'...:) ~"~' ' ...... "' .... "':'"' ~ .'-~ ..... -
In an e[fo~ to make' ~he'd0~ks pay ~: '- These increases'are necessary, ' { ~
for themselves, rates'for a residen-.-:.'says Crow,' "its been two o~ thre; ~ i,
rial dock will be upped to $8 perhn~r""years s~nce the last rate hikes and ~ ~0~' lx
f~t with a 15 foot minimum. With this. ;',durin~ that time I've compared our '~ n .,/~ k
~mmum, the. rate for alS foot boat rates wR~other mumcipaht~es and ~ [qJ'; "~ ~ / ~:."'." ~:~:l
will. morease from las~ year s $90 to found ours to belower..... .... ~
~I*0' th;s summer The rates are for ' ' She says the docks have barely c~ ~
The meeting ',vas called to order by Chairman An~ra..vs at 8:18 p.m.
Tuttle moved~ z,'[cC].ure secon:ted that the Januaz~/ minates be approve:l. Ail
votes aye.
k~cClure ~',.nd ~ttle inforz.~ed the Oo~mission that member John ,Ta]_,~ron
:ecoepte~ an appointment to the ~,'[innetrista Plannin6' Commission.
Umler Old ]2u~[na',~s~ An:-lr,~:/s reiue:~;tel a rej:;ort on t'_~e liurn~.m Riggers Annu::~,l
Er:~akfa:~t ach~lu]c~,t for 5:':tard~,y, Fobru:~,ry 17, from 8;30 to 10 a.m. at Our L~.dy
r, Er.e:-:,t '~al of for'.: on the ticket ~ales. Ap2ro,~ir:t~t:~]y 40 RSVi~$s hav:~ b:~en
:,'e]c.~: -~ an:! i[~tr..~.].uoe ,,'ithhart ,','h~ ~,-ould introduce the panelists. Tuttl~
to make n.:-~r,e i:.l':~ue~:, for the hea.~ t'~.ble.
?u2tl~ reported briefly on the discrimination complaint th:~t has been file~
the 2ttnte Human 2ights Commission in rej.':~.r~ to emplo~n~nt procedures of School
,/277. The f,~c% finling committe:~ meetin~ scheflul~'t for febr~t~ry 1~ was postponei,
at th~ request of O[strio~ /7277, ~nd is re-~che~iulet for Third, da.y, 2larch 1, at 1 p.m.
An~re':~s appointed Anderson ~o serve .vith. T~ttle on the grievance committee.
An:trows raporte~ she att~n:~et ~, recent Zounff council meetin~ an~ presente'[ the
council '//itk a copy of "Human Ria'hts No-F-~,ult Grievance 'e.n~ Charoe Processin~ [Janual".
Un!~r ~e:/~ ~siness~ [2cCI_ute teac] thr~e letters of cerumen[eriCh red:'~r:~in~
?n~' fir:;t at:~t~.ff r'~!ut~]e~ :~,c::sl~ted :-~, fir:;t place a./;:~rl fcr O'mer~l i.~ills fror. ",.,nzt~d'
'":y f:,,:' o~,t,.t:mtin~' m.~t~ri:~]:~ u~:e~ in l~.t f'~.~il':.; Unite[ .,ky [,hn~ 3zive. The
,,...:,,].~re rnove:~ to aqjourn, aye vot
CITY of MOUND
March 6, 1979
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Mr. Richard J. Dougher~y
Chief Administrator
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
350 Metro Square Building
7th & Robert Streets
St. Paul, MN. 55101
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
Thank you for your letter of March 1st regarding'the big increase in
sewerage flow. This 'disturbs us also. In fact, our Engineer, McCombs
and Knutson, has been talking to your people about putting a meter on the
interceptor that comes from Minnetrista and Shorewood, on Shady Island and
Enchanted Island. After the rains last summer, Lake Minnetonka rose and
it was our uhderstanding that the sewer line and manholes were under water.
We don't want to pay for all the infiltration from the interceptor since it
is not metered.
As to our own lines, we are in the process of televising the lines and
repairing all broken tiles~ etc. The City of Mound hopes to install black-
top and concrete curb and gutter on all streets in the next 3 to 5 years.
Last year, we constructed about a third of the streets. Prior to construc-
tion, we televised the sewer lines in the streets to be improved and re-
paired all broken and doubtful sewer lines.
The street program for 1979 is larger than the 1978 program and at the next
Council meeting, the Council will approve a contract to televise'the sewer
lines that are in the 1979 program. All leaks, etc. will be repaired. By
the time the streets are finished, we will have completed inspection and
repair of all sewer lines.
In addition to the repair of the'lines, we have a preventive maintenance
program that keeps.the system in good repair. As such,~ the sewer crew .does
all it can to stop infiltration; such as putting plugs in the manhole air
covers, patching leaky manholes, looking for roof drains, etc. No doubt
there was some basement drainage that went into the floor drains as people
got water in their basement from the 6% inch rain and the Sunday rain of
over 2 inches within one hour. Ou~ crews have tried to keep a close watch
on roof drains being connected to the sewer and we. don't think we have any,
but we will continue checking.
Mr. Dougherty, we do appreciate your interest and we will be looking even
harder to find the infiltration points, but we plead with you to check into
the submerged interceptor at the end of the Island, in Minnetrista and Shore-
wood, so we will not have to' have a big discussion about this when the new
billing costs come out next summer.
Leo~ard L- Kopp
City ~.]anager
LI,K/ms
METROPOLITAn
w,q/'TE
(ON~
(OMMIsTION
March 1, 1979
Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Mn. 55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
~SO fflE?O SOUARE BLDg.
7T~ & ROBERT/TREET/
sari[ PAUL MN 5510t
61~2 "2~'2.842:
This letter is to inform you of the wastewater flow volume from your
community in 1978 and its impact on operating the Metropolitan Disposal
System. The Commission has determined the actual waste water flow
volume from your community to be 431 million gallons (MG) in 1978.
The total wastewater flow volume collected and treated in our facilities
did increase considerably in 1978 (91,503 MG) from the flows in 1976
(84,700 MG) and 1977 (85,307 MG). This increase in flow is in part due
to increased population served by the system and in part due to increased
wet weather wastewater flow volumes. It is the latter increase that
concerns the Commission in that these flows cause a peak flow condition
which did exceed the capacity of our interceptor and treatment facilities
in some areas. These conditions not only increase the operating
costs of the system, but also makes it very difficult for the Commission
to collect and treat a wastewater and meet the NPDES permit limits.
In 1978 there were a number of rainfall events which resulted in over
two (2) inches of precipitation. Most communities in our service area
received several of these precipitation occurrences and many communities
experienced problems of impoundment of surface water drainage due to
inadequate natural and artificial (storm sewer) drainage systems. As
a result some separated sanitary sewer systems together with-combined
sewer systems were subjected to receiving this surface water inflow.
This inflow originates from: (1) surface water drainage into inundated
manhole openings; (2) yard and roof drains connected (intentionally
or unintentionally) to the sanitary sewer; and (3) foundation or
sub-soil drainage connections to the sanitary sewer°
It is requested that you furnish the Commission with information regarding
identified problems of infiltration/inflow (I/I) experienced in your
community in the past year and what has been done to reduce or eliminate
this problem. It is important that some effective program to remove
all inflow and excessive infiltration sources be undertaken as soon as
possible. This I/I program status and other information should be provided
at an early date and also be part of your comprehensive sewer plan.
Your cooperation in this regard is appreciated. If you have any questions
in this regard, please write to us.
Very trul,y/ours,
~i~p~rd Jo Dougherty
Chief Administrator
RJD:RAO:nc
900 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359
March 3, 1979
Mr. Leonard Kopp, Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Blvd.
Mound,' Minnesota 55364
Subject: Disbursement of Local Planning Assistance Funds
Dear Mr. Kopp:
I am pleased to transmit Mound's check for 1978-79 Local Planning
Assistance Grant funds to help your community in carrying out its
planning program in response to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
Also enclosed is an executed copy of the Agreement Amendment for
these funds.
Since your community's initial 1976-77 grant was less than $3,000,
we disbursed the full amount to you. However, since your new
total grant amount of $4,665 from both 1976-77 and 1978-79 is
greater than $3,000, we now must hold back 10% of your total grant
amount. Therefore, this check is in the amount of $2,148, which
is your 1978-79 allocation of $2,614 minus 10% of your total grant
award ($466). ~his~ ~.e..~,~i~n~.i~n.g.~l~O~/o_~lze_.dis.b~s~,~d~o_~y.~a.~.~.~n
yo~b~.~h~..Fh,~e~..~.=~i~.~mp~~ ~e~'~_~p~_~ ~9~ thi~
~port Wa~~~~--g'~o y~u, but z~ need ano~her~
give m~ a call and I wili~aeB~__you one. ~
~~~ ............. ~ SincerelY,
~ glnoa 'l'omase~
GranCs Coordinator
LT:im
Encs.
cc: Tim Lovaasen, Mayor
C'roated to Coordinato the Plar~ning and Develop,ne,:t of the Twin Cities IM~.'.ropolitan Area Conxprisii~fgT-
Carver fSountyoD~kott~ County ;3 Hennopin County o Ran~sey Cou~xty O Scott County O %Va~hington County
uo. 7820
FIRST mm~m~Nz TO
gRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN~-THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
A~ND THE
CITY OF MOUND
WHEREA~, the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter' referred to as the "Council," and the
City of Mound , hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee" have previously
e~tered'"int0 a qrant agreement for a local planning assistance grant, Metropolitan Council
Contract No. 7820, dated Fabruary .7 ., ., 197 8 , hereinafter referred, to as the
"Agreement," and
W~H~REAS, the Counoil has awarded $ 2.614 in 1978-79 entitlement funds to the Grantee
from funds appropriated by Minnesota Laws 1977, Chapt~er 455, Section 19, Subdivision 3, for the
preparation of its comprehensive plan required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that the above-referenced agreement shall be amended in
the following particulars:
1. Paragraph lA is amended to read as follows:
"The Council shall pay to the Grantee, in accordance'with the schedule set forth below a
total grant amount of $ 4.665 . Grant funds shall be made available to t~he
grantee as follows: $ ' '41199 , immediately upon execution of this Agreement.
$ 466 ... , upon' satisfactory evaluation by the Council of the funded port. ion
completioh reports submitted by the Grantee pursuant to Paragraph 4B of this Agreement."
2. Paragraph lB is amended to read as follows:
"B. The Grantee agrees that of the total cost of carrying out the work programlset forth
in Grantee's application for grant assistance, Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part
hereof, no more than 75% shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement, and
tha-t no more than 100% shall be financed by grant funds awarded by this Agreement plus grant
funds from other sources of financial assistance."
3'. Paragraph iD is amended ko read as follows:
"D. The Grantee agrees to comply' with all provisions of the Metropolitan Council "Application,
Award and Disbursement Guidelines for the Administration of Planning Assistance Grants,"
hereinafter referrech to as the "Guidelines" dated October 26, 1978, and dated April 1977,
which are hereby incorporated by reference into this Agreement and made a part hereof.
4. A new Appendix A, identified as "Amended Appendix A" and attached hereto and made a part
hereof is substituted for the Appendix A of the original Grant Agreement.
5. A new Appendix B, identified as "Amended Appendix B" and attached hereto and made a part
hereof, is substituted for the Appendix B of the original Grant Agreement.
Except as hereby amended, the provisions of the above-referenced contract shall remain in force
and effect without change.
L~ WITNESfi WH.~. REOF, the parties hereto ha'ye caused this Amendment to be executed on this
day of -~. ~ ./~.~ ~ ~%~. ~ 197~.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL
FORM AND ADEQUACY
Metr~fpolitan Council
· Chairman '
GRA/gTEE
CITY OF MOUND
Title: MayOr
./o32.
METRQPOLITA~COUNCIL
COMMUNITY GRANT APPLICATION
City of Hound
1. Name of Community . .
2. Name of Local Com~-t Person ~an_J_e_v~s~1;.y.-- ? ! ~+3ner
Telefahone Numbe~ 472-1155
3. Wod~ Program
APPENDIX A
Suit;~ :300 Me,re Square B g, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
Leonard L. Kopp, City .Manager
Outline d.~e majo~ ~ and L~e total c~a-~ of those ~k~ which mu~ be und~ken ~n ord~ :o 0~oara or u0data the ~m~nitv's
~momh~ plan a~i~ to im ~ ~t~. and ~re and ado~ i~ Official C~ntrob. ~e outline should foll~ the
fo~ s~wn on the ~ of tis aooli~tton fo~.
See attached
C~ampletian Oate
EstJmeted c~mpletion date of the Work PrOgram ~ta~~ Dece~er 1979
Indicia wh~ thi~ ~rk program reft~ the ~ =f u~ating a ~iously pr~r~ plan and, if so, d~ibe to what e~ the
~lan{sj will be utiliz~ in d~o~ing the ~mmuniw'= Comomhensi~ Plan.
The wore progra.m wi i] encompass an upda:~ of/Hbund'~ Comprehensive
Plan that reflects :he foundation of the co~unity~s growth.
List amounts and soutc~ of ouz$ide assistance.
CDBG Funds undetermined
Revenue Sharing - undetermined
Special Fund Reeluemal
If the (~mmunity wlshe~ to apply for a posen of the So.iai Fund: (1) d~ibe the exi~ing or proDos~ met~oolitan fe~re or
~vi~ th~ exi~ within or near your ~mmuni~ tb~ inm~ the to~t co~ to the ~mmuniW of gre~ring or u~dng its
~m~fl~si~ plan ~lattve tO o~w ~mmun~es: (2) do.merit as b~ ~ po~ibie how the f~re ar ~iviW relates ~o t~e funding
~da (V C 3 of the Guidetin~j and h~ it in~ your ~;and (3) ~e the amount ~u~ and ~ndi~e whom th~ a~un:
1. To d~velop a Comprehensive Plan to accomplish the goals of Iow and ~derate
income housing through implementation of housing objectives.
2.. To develope a housing strategy relative to :the needs of low and moderate
income families within the City of Hound
]. The amount requested is S2,500.00 to further implement the work program task
documented in IA
Grant AmourS{s) Refluest~d:
a. Communk'y Comprehensive Planning Fund.. entktement
b. Inventory Activity Fund en~f:lernerrt
¢.
Special Planning Probteme Funds rec~uest~d
TOTAL*
Attaint a copy of the re~otution by the governing body transmi~ing :his a~olication.
· Total grartt amount request~:l. O,'us a~i~ranca from the counties out of the County AssistanCe. ~o Free.anteing Orow;i~ C.=nter~
Fund or Inventory Activitie~ Fa~d. may not exceed 75% of the total cos~ of the work program, or the to;al cost :o community.
CITY OF MOUND APPENDIX A (continued
Work i~ram Totmi Cost of Perfor~ned
Maj~ Tasks: Major Task: I by: 2
A. I~o~3
~. D~o~ ot
~. ~u~ $2,250.
Staff
A. In~nto~3
B. D~o~ of
Staff
3. Par~ and Op~n S~
A. I~a~3
Hou~ng
S~,000. Staff
O~ci~ .~I,
TOmI C~ of Work P~m $15,000. ] Staff
O~ideA:~ (4 - 0 - I ~4A
I
I
C~ ~ ~m~nity
1Includes all co~ defined as included in the total cos; of the work program..
21.earl pemon(s), Farm(s} or agency(s) resoomible for the performance of t,'le maior tasks of tP.e work ;:~rogram.
If indefinite a; present, provide your best e~irna~ian and indicate that: .;; is ten~tive.
3For commun;tie~ [hat are eligible for Inventory Ac~.ivit~, Grant entitlements, specify (1) the eligible ac-dvi;ies
~o be under, ken, and (2} [he cas~ to the community.
CITY OF f4OUND
APPENDIX B
FUNDED PORTION OF THE ;-~ORK PROGP~2~!
List below.; the work proqram major task(s) which will be funded by
the total grant award of $_~,$~I..0~ ~O~ . If only a portion of
a major task is to be funded, list the specific activity(les) and
cost (s). ·
· '4aj 0~ "~ask'(s) or'
Activities to be Funded' " Cost
I. Land Use Plan
Development of Policies and Plans
A. Land Use $2,250
B. Housing 2,250
II. Facilities Plan
Development of Policies and Plans
A. Transportation 2,000
B. Sewer Policy · - - ~-,000.
III. Implementation
Development of Policies and Plans
A. Capitol Improvements 2,500.
B. Housing Implementation 4,000.
Total Cost of Funded
Tasks or Activities $15,000.
Less Other (.-)
Financial Assistance -0-
Cost Funded
Remaining
by Local Planning ·
Assistance Grant
*~.!ust'be e.cual to or greater than the total grant a%-;ard.
Estimated comp!eti-cn~date of the above major tasks and
=- ~... _ ~--s . .~ December 1979 .
(/~S0~DN.~ ~fG N.~D~f
6£6I 'gI qo~N 'X~ps~nq.r.
6L6I 'L qD~N
5e
AGENDA
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
March 15, 1979
Call to order; present, absent, staff.
Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting, 2/15/79.
Approval or amendment of March 15, 1979 agenda.
Hearing of permit applications:
ae
77-145. M. Grady, Permit Extension for Shoreline Work at
19995 Cottagewood AvenUe, Carsons Bay, Lake Minnetonka -
Deephaven.
79-12. City of Spring Park, Storm Sewer Construction, County
Road No. 15, Bridge Over Seton Channel of Lake Minnetonka -
Spring Park.
Co
79-13. W. Kruger, Lake Setback Variance for Garage Construc-
tion, 5680 Christmas Lake Point - Shorewood.
79-14. R. Radde, Sanitary Sewer for 2 Lots Southwest of County
Road No. 82 and Hillendale Street Intersection - Shorewood.
Fe
79-15. Builtwell Construction, Grading/Drainage Plan for
Two-Four Townhouses, Inglewood Avenue - St. Louis Park.
'79-16. Korunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, Inc., Grading/
Drainage Plan for 7-Lot Subdivision at Pleasant View Road and
County Road 17, S.W. Shore of Christmas Lake - Chanhassen.
Ge
79-17. L. Stuhler, Road Construction for 4-Lot Addition Near
4789 Vine Hill Road - Deephaven.
He
79-18. T. Wright's, Grading/Drainage Plan for Parking Lot
Construction, 3310 South Highway 101 - Minnetonka.
79-19. Red Owl Stores, Inc., Cooling Water Discharge into
Minnehaha Creek by Lake Street N.E. and Blake Road - Hopkins.
79-20. Ridgesquare Developers, Inc., Grading/Drainage Plan
for Shopping Mall at 1940 Plymouth Road - Minnetonka.
79-21. Centurion Company, Grading/Drainage Plan for 32-acre
Subdivision North of Highway 7 and East of Edgemoore Drive -
St. Louis Park, Hopkins.
79-22. W. Moe, Culvert Extension at 1220 Loma Linda Avenue
- Orono.
Correspondence.
e
Hearing of requests for petitions by public for action by the
Watershed District.
Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney.
A. Treasurer's Report - Mr. Russell.
Engineer's Report - Mr. Holmquist.
(1) Headwaters Control Structure
(2) Hydrologic Data Report, 1978
(3) Permit Numbering Correction
(4) Lake Minnetonka Monitoring - LMCD Participation.
(5) Waterways Maintenance and Repair Fund Summary.
Ce
Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber.
(1) Creek Improvement Project
(a) Agreement with Hennepin County.
(2)
Annual Report
(a) Mailing List Revision Recommendations.
Unfinished Business.
A. EPA Grant Fund Termination.
New Business.
Adjournment.
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BOARD 0F MANAGERS OF THE
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
February 15, 1979
The regular meeting was called to order on February 15,
1979, by Chairman Cochran at 7:50 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall,
Wayzata, Minnesota.
Managers Present:
Cochran, Lehman, Palmatier, and
Russell.
Manager Absent: Williams.
Also present were board advisors Holmquist, Jandro
and Peterson.
~prova! of Minutes
The minutes of the regular meeting of January 18, 1979,
were reviewed. Following discussion it was moved by Russell, seconded
by Lehman, that the minutes be approved as published. Upon vote,
the motion carried.
Pinetree Pond- Water Levels
Louie Florek, a resident of the City of Plymouth, appeared
before the Board of Managers to inform them of action taken by the
City of Plymouth which has resulted in significantly lower levels
of Pinetree Pond located behind his house. He informed the Managers
that there were a series of four ponds in Plymouth, and that the
houses located on the northern pond had experienced significant
flooding. To minimize that flooding, the City of Plymouth had
deepened the channel betQeen Pinetree Pond and the northern pond.
Mr. FloreK stated that this caused the pond to drain on both the
north and south ends. Thus, when the water flows, it will'fill
the other ponds first, lowering the level of Pinetree Pond.
Mr. Florek stated that the City's representatives had informed
him prior to the City's actio~ that it would have no effect upon
the pond level. He also stated that the City's Engineer, Mr. Goldberg,
had written to the City Council saying that the pond's low level
was not a result of the City's action in deepening the channel and
constructing a new sewer system. After his complaints, the City
Council had authorized the digging of a ditch in Pinetree Pond
which now fills with water. Mr. Florek stated that this was not
at all equivalent to the prior pond.
February 15, 1979
Page Two
Fred Moore, present City Engineer for the City of Plymouth,.
was also present and responded to questions of the Managers. He
stated that an outlet structure was necessary to control flooding
in the upstream pond. He stated that the City would put'in rip-rap
at that outlet structure to avoid having water flow from Pinetree
Pond into the northern pond but that the outlet was needed to prevent
flooding. He stated that the City would not set the berm in the
outlet structure any higher than it presently is because that is
the level needed to prevent flooding.
The Managers noted that the houses on the northern pond
had been benefited at the expense of the houses on Pinetree Pond.
The Managers requested Mr. Moore to inform the City that the Water-
shed District expected the City to make amends for the damage to
Mr. Florek's property and find a reasonable and just solution.
Treasurer's Repor~
James Nolan and Steve Stewart of the firm of Robert J.
Lapic, Certified Public Accountant, appeared before the Managers
to revie~ the new format of the Administrative Fund Report. After
discussion, it was moved by Palmatier, seconded by Lehman, that
the Treasurer's Report be approved, subject to the correction on
page 3 that the $134.00 listed for account CP-2-2 should instead
be under account CP-2-1, and that the bills be paid, except that
the check for the District's engineer be withheld until a formal
bill has been received. Upon vote, the motion carried.
Maintenance Fund ~.rojec~s
The treasurer noted that several maintenance fund projects,
previously authorized by the Managers in June, 1977, have not been
undertaken by the proposing municipalities. The treasurer noted
that the District has been maintaining a reserve in its maintenance .
fund account for such projects since their authorization. The
treasurer recommended that these maintenance fund appropriations
be cancelled and that the District notify the affected municipal-
ities that each of the previously approved projects would be con-
sidered by the managers for future funding along with other current
applications of municipalities for qualifying projects. Following
discussion, it was moved by Russell, seconded by Palmatier, that
the follow~gmaintenance appropriations be cancelled:
Municipality
Amount Pro'j~c~
Edina $1,000.00
Edina Mill Pond sediment
removal, matching funds
Minneapolis Park
and Recreation Board
2,000.00
Retaining wall, Minnehaha
Creek at Pleasant Avenue
February 15, 1979
Page Three
Maint'enance Fund Projec~s'(Co'nt"d.)
Muni£ipality
Minnetonka
Amount
$2,000.00
~0j'ect
Storm culvert rePlacement
at Stanton Drive
Mound 1,000.00
Catch basin sump at Glen
Elyn Road and Three Points
Boulevard
Shorewood
1,000.00
Jetty construction at Birch
Bluff Beach
Spring Park
2,400.00
Storm sewer replacement,
Black Lake Road
Upon vote, the motion carried.
Creek' 'ImPr'oV~eraent~ Pro'j ec t' Account
The Managers considered a staff recommendation that a
separate account be established for the Creek Improvement Project.
After discussion, Manager Russell offered the following resolution
and moved its adoption, seconded by Lehman:
WHEREAS, the BOard of Managers of the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District has authorized and
ordered the undertaking of the Basic Water and
Land Management Improvement Project for Minnehaha
Creek and has, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
~112.6!, Subd.. 3, levied a mill rate of one-third
(1/3') of a mill upon all taxable property in the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Number 3,
Hennepin and Carver Counties, State of Minnesota,
for the year 1979 by resolution dated April 20,
1978;
AND WHEREAS, current procedures of the Office
of the Finance Director, Hennepin County, will
not automatically segregate the funds produced
by this levy from funds produced by the annual
administrative fund levy for the District;
AND WI~P~AS, it is necessary and desirable
that the accountant establish a separate fund
· for the revenues generated by the tax levy made
by the managers on April 20, 1978, for purposes
of the Basic Water and Land Management Improvement
Project;
February 15~ 1979
Page Four
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that:
A. The Managers hereby establish and direct
the accountant to create a separate fund to
be known as the Minnehaha Creek Improvement
Fund for purposes of accounting for all funds
generated by the special tax levy and for
the payment of all bills associated with
the project.
B. That the District staff is hereby authorized
and directed to make the necessary requests
of Hennepin County staff to secure the appropriate
accounting data from Hennepin County for purposes
of this resolution.
The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there
were 4 yeas and 0 nays as follows:
COCHRAN
LE~AN
PALMATIER
RUSSELL
WILLI~4S
· ~ AYE
'' AYE.
AYE'
AYE
ABSENT
The chairman declared the resolution adopted.
Schedule Position Bond
The Managers also considered a staff recommendation
that the District purchase a schedule position bond for the
Managers rather than bonds for each named Manager. It was noted
that the change would result in a savings for the District. After
discussion, it was moved by Cochran, seconded by Lehman, that
treasurer be authorized and directed to purchase a schedule posi-
tion bond. Upon vote, the motion carried.
R. Wilkins, Lake Setback Variance for Lot 1, Block 3, of Driftwood
Shores, Lafayette Lane, Harris. ons Bay, Lake Minnetonka - Mound;
_Applica~_ion No.~ 79-03. ·
The engineer reviewed thi~' application for a setback
variance along Lake Minnetonka at Harrisons Bay. The applicant
was present and noted that neighboring property owners also had
setback variances and that this was necessary in order to make
the lot suitable for development. Following discussion, it was
moved by Leis]an, seconded by Russell, that the permit be approved
subject to compliance with Regulation J of the District's Rules
and Regulations and receipt of approval from the City of Mound
for the setback variance. Upon vote, %he motion carried.
February 15, 1979
Page Five
City of Wayzata, Shoreline Work, Grading/Drainage and Parking
Lot Construction, City Beach and Marina, North Shore of Wayzata
' Bay, Lake Minnetonka~ Wa'yzata;~ APplication NO.' '79-02.~ '' ~ ....
The engineer reviewed this application for a grading and
drainage permit by the City of Wayzata. Gene Ernst appeared on
behalf of the applicant. The engineer noted that the project
involved rennovation of the City beach area, including additional
parking. The engineer noted that the addition of the parking
would block drainage from the nearby boat works. He noted that
the.applicant wished to stabilize the shoreline, to fill and mound
for planted trees, and to raise the parking lot to get positive
drainage. He noted that the final design had not yet been completed
and that the applicant must obtain an agreement with the boat works
with respect.to drainage. Following discussion, it was moved by
Cochran, seconded by Lehman, that the managers approve the project
in concept but require final specifications to be submitted to the
managers for final approval. Upon vote, the motion carried.
Lundgren Brothers, Grading/Drainage Plan for Residential Develop-
ment at the Southeast End of Hadley Lake - Plymouth; Application
No. 79-06. ......
The engineer reviewed this application for a grading
and drainage permit, noting that the applicant intended to change
drainage from Hadley Lake. He noted that the City of Plymouth
'has indicated that the development conforms to the City's drainage
plan. The applicant would be requi~ed to install erosion control
measures during construction. Following discussion, it was moved
by Lehman, seconded by Russell, that the permit be approved subject
to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion carried.
P. Grosz, Grading/Drainage Plan for "Morningview Terrace", County
Road 110 near Jennings Bay of Lake Minnetonka - Minnetrista;
Application No. ~78-152.
The engineer reviewed this application for grading and
drainage permit indicating that it met all specifications and
requirements of the District and recommended approval. It was
moved by Lehman, seconded by ~almatier, that the permit be approved
subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote, the motion
carried.
R. Winterhalter, Fill Replacement on Lot Along Holy Name Drive,
Northeast Shore, Holy Name Lake - Medina; Application No.~ 79-01.
The engineer reviewed this application noting that the
applicant had failed to comply with Rule A and Rule F of the District's
Rules and Regulations. He also stated that the applicant had been
notified by the Department of NaCural Resources that he is in
violation of their rules and regulations for placement of fill in
the floodplain. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman,
seconded by Russell, that the application for the permit be denied.
Upon vote, the motion carried.
February 15, 1979
Page Six
C. Lemke, Wetlands Excavation for Wildlife Breeding Ponds, Southwest
Corner' o'fu.~ennepi~' County_ ~' Minn'et'risEa;~ App'!'i'ca'tio~ No%~'79~47 ': ~...
The engineer reviewed this application noting that it
was located north of Lake Waconia. The applicant intends to con-
struct a series of wildlife ponds and channels in existing wetlands.
He indicated that this was being done for wildlife breeding purposes
and not for development. The engineer noted that the Department
of Natural Resources and the City of Minnetrista have indicated
their approval of the project. Following discussion., it was ..
moved by Russell, seconded by Lehman, that the application be
approved subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote,
the motion carried.
A. Holm, Grading/Drainage Plan for a 15-lot Subdivision Draining
to Painter Creek '- Maple Plain;' Application No. '79'05.
The engineer reviewed this application for grading and
drainage Permit, indicating that there will be adequate storage
area for increased run-off from the development. He recommended
that erosion control'measures be required during construction to
avoid Sedimentation. Following discussion, it was moved by Palmatier,
seconded by Cochran, that the application be approved sudject to
the recon~endations of the engineer. Upon vote, the motion carried.
Hakanson Anderson Associates - Grading/Drainage Plan for 13 Lot
Subdivision on County Road 44 and Lake View Drive - Minnetrista;
' Application' No.' '79-08. ' ....... ' .... ~ ...... ~ .......
The engineer reviewed this application for grading and
drainage permit noting that drainage would be conveyed by a-storm
sewer to a catch basin system. The outlet will be to a pond which
will be dedicated for drainage purposes. The engineer noted that
there was sufficient storage for a 100-year storm. He recommended
that erosion control measures be required during construction.
Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Palmatier,
that the permit be approved subject to the engineer's recommenda-
tions. Upon vote, the motion carried.
1978 Hydrologic: Data Report
The engineer submitted the first draft of the 1978
hydrologic data report requesting comments and suggestions from
the managers before the next meeting.
Hydrolo'giC D'a't'a Report' Mai'l'in'g List
The engineer distributed a suggested distribution list
for the hydrologic data report. Following discussion, it was
moved by Cochran, seconded by Lehman, to accept the list as proposed.
Upon vote, the motion carried.
February 15, 1979
Page Seven
Lake Minnetonka Water Quality Sampling
The engineer distributed a memorandum dated February 121
1979, with respect to an expanded monitoring program for Lake
Minnetonka water quality. The District previously utilized data
collected by the Waste Control Commission but the Commission has
ceased gathering that data. The engineer's memo suggests a new
method for collection of water quality data. The engineer suggested
that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District might be willing
to contribute to the sampling study and utilize the data collected.
The engineer has been in contact with the LMCD, and noted that he
was waiting for their response. The managers also directed the
engineer to contact the Fresh Water Biological Laboratory for
the possibility of coordination with their studies.
Permit Application Form
The engineer distributed the latest revision of the
new permit application form. After discussion, it was moved by
Lehman, seconded by Palmatier, that the form be approved and
utilized by the engineer for future applications. Upon vote,
the motion carried.
Gray's Bay Dam Site Investigation
The engineer reported that the investigation at the Gray's
Bay Sam Site has been completed by the soil engineer. The final
report, however, has not yet been submitted.
Creek'Improvement ProjeCt
(1) Agreement With Hennepin County - The attorney reported
on a memorandUm submitted to the managers on February 1, 1979,
noting that the agreement with Hennepin County is progressing and
that an agreement between the two governmental units may be executed
by March, 1979.
(2) Estimated Cost Projections - The managers noted receipt
of a memorandum dated FebrUary 1, 1979, from the attorney with a
proposed timetable for final engineering and construction for the
creek improvement project.
Edina Diversion Agreement
The managers reviewed a written agreement drafted by
the attorney to confirm in writing the existing procedure for
diversion of water from Northeast Pond located in the City of
Edina. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Russell, that the
agreement be executed by Chairman Cochran and forwarded to Nine
Mile Creek Watershed District and the City of Edina for their
approvals. Upon vote, the motion carried.
February 15, 1979
Page Eight
Monthly. Mailing List.
The managers reviewed the present monthly mailing list
and made several revisions. They requested that the next~'month's
mailings notify recipients that such a change will occur. They
directed that subsequent mailings be made to designated positions
at the municipalities and that the mailings contain a request for
that city official to distribute the minutes to elected offiCials
and staff. ~
New Business
Chairman Cochran reluctantly noted receipt of a letter
of resignation from Manager H. Dale Palmatier to be effective
February 28, 1979.
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the
meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at
10 55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ho Dale Palmatier
Secretary
- 1 pn- Permit 00016
PUBLIC NOTICE
for the
ItATIONAL POLLIbTANT DI$CHAI~GE ELII~INATION SYSTEM (NPDES)
AND STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM
(Section 402, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, AS AMENDED, Minnesota Statutes
Chapters 115 and ll6 as amended and Agency Regulation WPC 36)
Proposed NPDES and State Disposal System Permit to Construct Wastewater Treatment.
Facilities and/or to Discharge into Waters of the State
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Attn: Permits Section
Public Notice No:
Public Notice Issued On:
941-o77
Name and Address of Applicant:
Tonka Corporation
Tonka Toys Division
5300 Shoreline Blvd.
Mound, Minnesota 55364
HAR 0 7 1979
Name and Location of Facility:
Tonka Corporation
Tonka Toys Division
5300 Shoreline Blvd.
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Receiving Water: Lake Minnetonka
NOTICE:
The above named applicant has applied for reissuance of an existing
Permit to construct wastewater treatment facilities and/or to
continue to discharge into the designated receiving water. The permit
will be reissued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for a term
of approximately 5 years. Upon issuance, this reissued permit will
supersede the existing permit that shall expire on March 15, 1979.
The principal activity at~ this facility is the manufacture of metal and plastic
toys at an average rate of 220,000 units per shift. The discharge consists of
an average of 500,000 gallons per day of once through non-contact compressor and
mold cooling water. This water is obtained from the city and used without
further chemical treatment. Thermal effluent limitations for the discharge
were developed in accordance with Minnesota Regulations WPC 14 and 24.
The plant location is shown on the.attached map.
-2pn-
Date; HAR 0 ? I§?~
Permit No: HN 0001651
· J :',-" 0
OF'E).--,
m' 0 ~-
o-- ~ 0
· ~
~ ~0
~ 0 ~
· -~.~ O~
~E
v
E
0
~ U
U ~
C) °--
U
-3pn-
Date:
MAR 0 7 19'/9
Permit No: MN 0001651
"Pursuant to the waiver provisions authorized by 40 CFR Part 124.46, this proposed
permit is within the class, type and size for which the Regional Administrator,
Region V, has waived his right to review, object or comment on this proposed permit
action."
On the basis of preliminary staff review and application of applicable standards
and regulations, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency proposes to reissue a permit
for construction and continuation of discharge subject to certain effluent limitations
and special conditions. Any construction that may be required in the existing permit
or in the proposed permit may not be commenced until the plans and specifications are
approved by the Director.
The proposed determination to reissue ~he permit is tentative. Interested persons
are invited to submit written comments upon the proposed discharge. Interested
persons may also petition for a public hearing in accordance with Agency Regulation
WPC 36 (k)(1). Comments or petitions for public hearings should be submitted in
person or by mail no later than thirty (30) days after the public notice of this
application is issued. Deliver or mail all comments or petitions for public
hearing to:
Ms. Terry Mader
Minnesota Pollution Contro'l Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
The application and notice numbers should appear next to the above address on the
envelope and on each page of any submitted comments. All comments received no
later than thirty (30) days after the public notice is issued will be considered
in the formulation of final determinations. The Hinnesota Pollution Control Agency
will issue final determinations in a timely manner after the expiration of the public
comment Period.
PUblic notice of the plans and specifications is discretionary with the Director,
but in all cases a letter notice will be sent to all.persons who indicate an
interest in the plans and specifications.
The application, proposed permit including proposed effluent limitations, special
conditions, comments received and other documents are available for inspection and
may be copied anytime between 9:30 A.M. and 3:30 P.M., ~londay through Friday.
Copies of the Public Notice and the corresponding Fact Sheet sumznarizin9 application
information and proposed permit conditions are available at the address shown above.
If you have any questions regarding this proposed permit, please contact
Paul Deneka at (612) 296-7220.
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons whom you know would be
interested in this matter.
EPARTflENT BUDGETED CURRENT EXP. ¥-T-D EXP. ~.
ALLOWED AC'i UAL
!011 COUNCIL $ 10,450.00 971.17 1,838.86 1 , 7/t2.02 :1759
;O1Z HUMAN RIGHTS 360.00 194.41 194.41 60.01 .5400
;013 "'"'~n~-
r.~,,,~,z.R 85,180.00 15,284.78 24,188.37 14,199.51 .2839.
;O14 ELECTIONS 1,080.O0 2.44 2.44 180.04 .0022
tO15 ASSESSING' '33,055.0'9 151.84 181.84 5,510.27 .0055
t016 FINANCE 98,640.00 7,497.44 17,282.21 16,443.29 .1752.
O18 LEGAL 12,800.OO 1,066.67 2,066.67 2,133.76 .1614
1 i8 PROSECUTING 1 f,O55.O0 720.00 720.O0 1,842.87 .0651
. ~ 31 ,O83.60 67,002.23 76,217.07
,O.:, 1 POLICE 457,211.OO I : ....
~O~32 FIRE 94,375,OO 7,064.06 10,409.98 15,732.31 .1103
'O33' INSPECTIONS 2~6',960.O0 689.76 4.,794.56 ' 4,494.23 ~,"1778'-["..
1933 PLANNING 20,550.00 3,094.49 .. 3,308.00 3,425.69 .1609
034 CIVIL DEFENSE 15,140,OO 35.75 71.15 2,523.84 .0046
IO42 STREET 227,955.00 39;088.89 63,O26.54 38,O00.10 .2765
~743 SHOP & STORE 35,485,00 2,242.77 4,250.46 5,915.35 .1197
;847'-"DISEASED TREES 22,440,00' -- '179.53 3,740.75 .0080 ~'.~.'
~O69 PARKS 63~936.O0 4,744.83 8,920.81 10,658.13 .1395
O~l C.E.T.A. 1,092.'20 3,0~4.83 ....
10132 TEMPORARY LA~OR .11,O50,OO 205.90 443.70 .1,842.O4 .0400
O91 LIQUOR 165,905.O0 7,833.74 '1 ~ 1'876".' 1 ~ .... 27,656.36 .1017
.078 SEWER 379,676,O0 26,574.31 35,330.80 63,291.99 .O931
173 WATER 226,191.OO 15,753.27 27,401.35 37,706.04 .1211
; REVENUE SHARING 42,314.O0 -- 25.00 7,053.74 .O005
IHP EQUIP OUTLAY 108,941.00 19,410.00 19,410.00 18,160.45 .1781
£ EHETERY 5,335. OO 32.20 214.77 389.34 .0402
RETI REHEIIT 83,O16.O0 5,684.13 11,293.93 13,838.77 .1360
FIRE RELIEF 40,750,OO -- 1.285.83 6,793.03 .O315
WATER REVEHUE 54,612, O0 -- . 23,.180.25 .. 9,103~82. .4323
20,000.00-- - ' 33i, i°0 ' ,-oooo
-- l~q hg,(-, l~q '~ti~-~Ocl' Ri" ~ l~-fCq--Do
FEBRUARY 1979
0 REVENUE REPORT , .'-0 ........
Real Estate Tax 347,531,OO 37,826.94 '. ...... 3Z,.826..9~. .1088
Fedora l Grants (CETA) .O0 '--' ..... .--..-...-...5,056..67
Civil Defense Grant 24,000.00 ~: .. ".. '.'-..'.'...'.'.'.'.Z~ ....
State Shared Tax 2,551'.00 ...'.'.'r'z.'.'.".'..'. ':'.' '.'..¥ ..... -~ .... --
State Giant - Police 2,050.00 .... -" ....... ' ...... .52~;:00 .2571.
Local Government Aid 233,437,00 "396,00,'.'~.'.' .'.".'.
M.S.Ao 9;800,00 ..... '.'.'' ':~7:':.".'.'.''.':'..'i: '.'~65~:.50 .4753
'Fixed Machinery Aid 1,493,O0 ..~'..~T.':.'.'~'.'.i".'.'.":.':'..':'..'.'~- :.. --
Poli~e Contract 185,750,00 .... :.'.:CT".'.'[..':: .'['[ '.'..~6~4~Z;.?". .2500
Water Sales 194,291.00 ..... 1~,3~8.~2 .......... 31,623..96 .1627
S~er Service 311,OOO,00. ' 23;633.9~'~.'.':.. ' .... .48,704..91. .1566
Liquor Licenses 9,325,00 ....... ~, ............ · ....... ~... --
Beer Licenses 1~200,00 ..................... --
Garbage Licenses .. 170~'O0 "70.00 ................ 70,00. .4117
Taxi Licenses 35,00 '' 35.00.' ....... 3.5.00 1.0000
Bowling Alley Licenses 80,00 ..... '..'.".'.'~ ...... ; ..... 7~ ..... --
MiSc. Business Permits 1,134,OO: . .'i~3';75'.'..':. '.'. '...'[.'.'.'148.75. .1312
Cigarette Licenses 348.00 '252,00...'.. .'.'~'.."...'~:~5~,00 .... .7241
~og Licenses 9,O00.OO ...... 3~3,00.' ....... ..750~0~. .O833
3uilding Permits 20,000,00 .... ' .... 6'~,5'0.'.'..'~ .':..'~..'.'~;707',50.. .0854
;ewage Tapping. .- ,O0 - .-19~0~i...'.:.. ':.'.'..'.".'.'..390,.00 --
>lumbing Permits 250.00 -"2)2~0-':'-'.'.' .'.'--':-.':'.-646;50..- 2,5860
~ater Connection Permits 9,000.00 -.~03~5 ..... 793,75' ,0882
~xcavation Permits 50,O0 ...... '2;00:...'. ' ..... ..'...4~00. · ,0800
)ock Permits 9,000.00 . 5,466,50 ....... . 8~961',1. O ,9956
)amage Deposits .00 . ' . 237,50.i,' .',' .'.'., .' .'. [1~22,50 --
:ourt Fines 24,500.00 -- 3,084.OO .1258
"" ........ L
REVENUE REPORT (CONT.)
FEBRUARY 1979
Description Bud'getecl Current Receipts Received Y-T-D Percent
~ I
~ayment From Other Gov't 240.00 .... '-
~lannlng Commission Appl 3,000.00 375.00 450.00 .1500
~ale of Maps Et'c.. 2,OO0.00 51.50 91.75 ' .045~ I
ceed Cutting Charges . 200.00 ...... I
Is sess .Sea rches . OO 236. O0 469.50 -- I
lood Chipping 2,500.00 40.00 105.O0 420
kccident Reports.00 ,.oo ,8.oo -- I
..................... 456 35 .... I
;urcharges .2,400.O0 1,334.15 1;
',al'es Tax 32,000.00 1,864.29 3'758i27 ' '1174 "I
.iquor. & Wine Sales 5.70~000..00 37,579.98 . 73,340.83 .1286 I
'i garette ·Revenue . O0 12. O0 27.'O --' I
ra£er sales 200.00 .......
rater Meters lO'O00.OO. 850.00 -8,6...00 08 0 I
evenue Sharing 42,314.00 -- .10,766.00 .2544 ' I
enalty Charges 2,400.00 .... ~ . . ':'": '"' . ~.'.1
onnect Charge- Sewer 9,00'0.00 -- 1'~275.0 .1416
isconnect - Sewer 2OO.00 ....... '.
~.- ............... ~ -' ~ ' :' ' ' ! ........ I
nterest .O0 21,915'.01 : 23,803.70 ....
I
ssessments Col lected .OO 5,602- 15 17,839-'51 --
~mp For Prop Loss 2,000.00 915.87 ~2'346'80 1.1"~34 '' I
~metery Lot Sale 2,500.00 ...... I
ther Fund Transfers .O0 6,890.50 8'9'74"96 -- I
)nations & Contributions .O0 72.50 292.50 -- I
~funds - Reimbursements .00 590- 77 1,099.75 --
TOTAL $ 2~120~493~00 167,388,88 355,814,27 .1677'
300 Metro Square BuiIding. 7th'Street and ~obert Street. S¢int Pau~ Minnesota 5510~e,~.~. 29~)~/'
T0: All Interested Persons in the ~in Cities Metropolitan Area
The purpose of this letter and enclosure is to make you aware of two impor-
tant public hearings on health planning matters during March and to encourage
you to participate in them.
-- 1979 Health Systems Plan/Health Policy Plan, March 21, 1979, 7:00 p.m.
The subject of the hearing is a new Health Systems Plan, which is
mandated under the National Health Planning and Resources Development
Act. The draft will also amend the existing Health Policy Plan chapter
of the Metropolitan Development Guide. The draft includes a descrip-
tion of the health status and health care resources of the Metropolitan
Area; the general pplicies of the Council/Metropolitan Health Board;
agency goals for health services in the Area and the health status of
its residents; and specific guidelines and criteria for a wide range
of services. A summary of the lengthy document is attached.
-- 1979 Annual Implementation Plan and
-- 1979 APplication for Renewal of Dasisnation as a Health System Agency,.
March 28, 1979, 7:30 p.m. The subjects of the hearing are the one-year
plan for implementing the objectives and actions outlined in the Health
Systems Plan, and a document containing the work program and budget,
a description of the agency's organization, community participation
program, annual implementation plan and other documents required by
federal regulations and guidelines.
Ail hearings will be held in the Metropolitan Council Chambers, 300 Metro
Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul.
Copies of the documents are available for public inspection at the following
locations:
Metropolitan Council Library
and Public Information Office
3G0 Metro Square Building
7th and Robert Streets
St. Paul, ~,~ 55101
Minneapolis Public Library
Government Documents Section
300 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55401
A~ A~.~c'~(~y Crop. re(1 lo C(~o~'¢tin~5e the Planning a~ld Dcvelop~ne~tt of the Twin Cities Metropolit;~n Are~ Co~npzisiixg:
A~,ok~ Co~ty 0 C~rver Co~xty 0 Dakota{ County 0 Hennepin County 0 Raxnsey County () Scott County ~.) SVa~hington County
February 26, 1979
Page Two
St. Paul Public Library
Business and Industry Room
Government Publications Section
90 West Fourth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Anoka County Library
Blaine Branch
707 Hwy. 10
Blaine, MN 55434
Carver County Library
Chaska Branch
314 Walnut Street
Chaska, b~ 55318
Dakota County Library
1101 W. County Rd. 42
Burnsville, PIN 55337
Hennepin County Library
Southdale Branch
7001 York Ave. S.
Edina, ~ 55435
Ramsey County Library Reference
2180 N. Hamline Ave.
Roseville, MN 55113
Scott County Library
Shakopee Branch
235 S. Lewis St.
Shakopee, MN 55379
Washington County Library
Park Grove Branch
7520 80th St. S.
St. Paul, ~ 55102
In addition, people who need personal copies of the lengthy documents for
close review can obtain them from the Council's Public Information Office
by calling 291-6464. Copies of the Health Systems Plan will be available
on February 20, 1979. Copies of the Annual Implementation Plan and
Application will be available beginning on March 9.
People wishing tO speak at the hearings should register in advance by
contacting'Eleanor Suneson at'291-6352 Th~se who sign up first Will be
scheduled to speak first. Written comments will also be accepted up to
seven days following the hearings. Questions should be referred to the
Metropolitan Health Board at 291-6352.
Coral Houle, Chairperson
Metropolitan Health Board
Charles Weaver, Chairman
Metropolitan Council
Enclosure
/dc
M COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES,
March 6, 1979
~ir. David Sorsoleil
Route 1, Box 301
Watertown, Minnesota 55388
INC.
Subject: 1978 blound Street I'mprovem~nt$
4807 L~ngford Road
Dmar Mr. Sor~ol~tl:
We havm~zaviewadyour la~ter in which you rejected our proposal of
Sep~mbar 22, 1978 for the planting of ~wo tree~. We must reJe¢~ your
As you are aware since last fall you have been provided a considerable
amount of fill (at no cost to you) on your lot in order for you to have
your lot gradmd as you wanted. Normally, this is against the policy of
the City to provide any fill ma~erial for prtvale lots, however, due to
the circumstances we did make an exception in your case and brought a
lot of fill material into your property. In addition to that, we had
firewood brought in for your use.
In accordance with the terms of our letter of last September, we-
would be willing to give you a check for the ~no~nt that we would have
paid for the two trees that we proposed to plan~ on your~property. This
would have amounted to $1,350.00.
In view of all the work that has been done on your behalf, we
believe this is a very fair and equitable offer for any damages ~hat you
may have suffered,
If you find this proposal acceptable to you please advise and we
will forward you a check ~n the amount of $1,350.00.
'.Very truly yours,
~fcCOMB$-FaNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
William H, McCombs, P.E.
cc: Leonazd Kopp, City of Mound
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 879-8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820
ON ~KE MINN~ON~ INDIAN BURIA~ MOUNDI
~ ....... ~ ...... I iii I I , i iiir I I I i i i iii iiiI
5341 MAywooD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (812) 472-1155
March 6, 1979
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Leonard Kopp - City Manager
Charles Johnson - Chief of Police
Junk and Derelict Automobiles
In response to your inquiry regarding what our procedures and follow up pro-
cedures are on junk cars, what kind of effort we have been making, and finally
how it could happen that a car that was reported six months ago is still there;
it is hoped the following will be helpful.
Upon receiving a complaint or observing an obviously abandooed, junk vehicle,
the police department will attempt to notify the owner of the vehicle of the
city ordinance on abandoned, junk vehicles and ask them to move it. Normally
if we are unable to contact the owner, a written warning is left on the vehicle.
If this time the vehicle is not moved, the police department impounds the vehicle.
The investigation and follow up on these complaints are normally done by CSO
Armajani and the CSO interns as a part of their regular duties. On complaints
demanding immediate attention a sworn officer may sometimes handle the situation.
Historically, the department has made an area wide drive each spring to clear
the city of this type of violation, however for the past year or so we have tried
to keep an on-going effort to enforce this type of violation.
In the past six months, from August 1978 through March 6,'1979 the department
has impounded 199 vehicles within the city of Mound for being derelict or
hazardous. Additionally, 21 written warnings were issued in which the violators
complied with our requests to abate the nuisance. The department does not keep
statistical information on the total number of complaints received or the total
number of oral warnings given, or the total number of citations issued for this
specific violation. In all probability these warnings and citations far exceed
the actual number of impounded vehicles.
We attempt to follow up on all complaints in an expeditious manner, but undoubtedly
there are some that slip by. There could be any number of reasons why a complaint
of this type appears to go unanswered, but whatever the reason it boils down to
a mistake or oversight. It is my belief that these are at a minimum as ref]ected
by the total number of actua! impounds. Also, this type of complaint has to
take a lower priority as compared to the other duties that must be fulfilled.
It is my judgement that the CSO's are all doing a commend~ble job on this and the
many other difficult jobs assigned to them. Undoubtedly, mistakes will occur, but
the overall performance in this area is good. At times it may appear as though a
vehicle is derelict or abandoned and is being ignored by the police department,
however, upon our investigation it is discovered that the vehicle is in running
order, is currently licensed and/o~- is a classic automobile in the mind of the
owner and argueably could not be considered to be derelict or abandoned. In cases
of this nature we attempt to work with the owner to alleviate the problem in the
best interests of both the city and the owner, in any job of this type there is
always room for improvement and I will attempt to make these improvements as best
as I can. Any suggestions to improve performance in this area will be welcomed.
Respectful ly,
Chief of Police
CJ: l ao