The URL can be used to link to this page

81-03-10 OF Mo Ind, Minnesota AGENDA M 81-92 M 8]-9l i 81-97 I 81-86 -93 -89 -88 -90 -87 -94 -95 '96 85 Mound City Council March )0, 1981 City Hal) 7:30 P.M. 1. Minutes Pg. 685-687 ~.~2. Public Hearings A. Rezoning of Part of Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn from Res. A-1 to Commercial or Mu)tiple Dwelling Pg. 681-684 B. Subdivision - Newhouse Builders Addition Pg. 678-680 '-3, 1981 Improvement Bonds - $275,000 State Aid Street Bonds & $IO0,OOO Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds Pg. 664-677 ~4. Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 622-663 B. (2) Subd-i~i's"~on"of"ta~'d~ ..... T-ai~ed C. (3) Lots l-4 and adjoining streets, Block 12, Arden l. Rezoning from A-2 to Residential B (Duplex) 2. Vacation of Right-of Way 3. ~/arl D. (4) Lake Front Variance (Nonconforming Use)-4957 Island View Dr. E. (5) Lot Size, Street, Sideyard & Rearyard Variances-3068 Brighton F. (6) Street Front & Lot Size Variances-4354 Wilshire Blvd. G. ~ ~ on o J.(]O) Sign Variance - 5241 Shoreline Boulevard -~5. Street Construction A. County Road 1)O Construction Agreement Pg. 60)-621 B. Other 4, Police Manpower Pg. 598-600 ~ Park Commission Minutes Pg. 594-597 ~. Deferred Assessment Pg. 592-593 ~9~' Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (3 Minute Limit) ~O. Permits and Licenses A. Dock Permits - Commercial Pg. 584-591 B. Cigarette License Renewals Pg. 583 . C. Variance of Off Street Parking Ordinance Pg. 581-582 City Land - Garden Pg. 579-580 12, Committee Assignments - Present City Manager Pg. 576-578 '~3. Payment of Bills 14. Information Memorandums/Misc. Pg. 564-575 15. Committee Reports Pg. 688 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 10, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-99 SUBJECT: Addendum to C. M. 81'94 License Renewal - Cigarette Application for the renewal of the cigarette license for Surfside, Inc. has been received. L~ona~:d L. Kop ~,~ ..... ~^RCH lO, 198l A i r Comm ,~ Apache Paper Co. Chris Boliis Blackowlak & Son The Brass Bell Bryan Rock Prod. F.H. Bathke Robert Cheney Bill Clark Oil Coast to Coast Continental Telephone Civic Supply Drews Electric G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood Steve Grand Eugene Hickok Henn Co. Chief PolicePTAC Illies& Sons J.B. Distributing Charles Johnson Internatl City Mgmt Assn Koehnens Standard The Laker League of MN Cities League of Women Voters-MN Mound Police Mound Fi re Mound Postmaster MacQueen Equip Mi nnegasco Mound Hdwe MN Recreation & Park Mi nn Comm Martins Navarre 66 No. Henn Comm College Navarre Hdwe N.S.P. Penn Auto Plaza Reo Raj Kennels Nels Schernau St. Cloud State Univ. Spring Park Car Wash Sterne Electric Suburban Ti re Thrifty Snyder Drug Thurk Bros. Chevrolet 90.00 31.69 17.51 43.00 26.40 162.79 13.80 334.00 4,088.43 2.60 727.63 27.31 148.O0 47.45 19.51 688.00 25.00 932.O0 99.00 75.84 40.25 10.00 19.66 125.00 56.00 23.45 4,818.06 300.00 281.83 2,353.30 39.10 7O.OO 78.47 8.25 7O.OO 209.69 4,867.95 30.72 152.00 40.42 45.OO 87.5O 32.00 225.72 23.50 54.06 ! Unitog Re~al System 321.60 Village chevrolet 626.01 Warner Hdwe 41.39 Water Products 575.00 Westonka Sanitation 45.o0 Xerox 662.67 TOTAL BILLS 23,933.56 LIQUOR BILLS Blackowiak & Son 32.00 Continental Tele 72.80 City of Mound 22.90 Mound Shopping Center 675.00 N.W. Linen 10.OO Regal Window Clean 10.75 Water Care 10.40 Johnson Paper 296.34 Wallin Heating 27.50 A.J. Ogle, Inc. 1,324.25 Butch's Bar Supply 120.30 Coca Cola Bottling 175.40 Day Distrib 1,780.43 East Side Beverage 2,724.95 Gold Medal Beverage 157.55 Home Juice Co. 8.98 Jude Candy 143.70 City Club Distrib 1,745.20 Midwest Wine 1,321.46 Pepsi Cola/7 Up 196.05 Pogreba Distrib 2,870.50 Rouillard Beverage 700.80 Thorpe Distrib 2,890.35 The Liquor House 539.88 Bell Boy Corp 2,496.49 Frank's Delivery 24.60 Griggs Cooper 641.35 Johnson Bros. Liq. 2,120.99 MN Distillers 969.00 Old Peoria 785.26 Ed Phillips & Sons 880.07 TOTAL LIQUOR BILLS 25,775.25 GRAND TOTAL---ALL BILLS 49,708.81 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 10, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-98 SUBJECT: Addendum to C.M. 81-87 Dock Permits - Commercial Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the Dock Inspector relative to the Commercial Dock Permit for Surfside which was just received. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD / MOUND. MINNESOTA 5536,4 (612) 472-1155 Hatch 10, 1981 TO: Leonard L. Kopp FROM: Dock Inspector SUBJECT: Surfside Commerical Dock Surfside filed his 1981 application today. The 54 Slips he has applied for is the same as previous years. He paid for 51 slips and will pay for 3 more tomorrow as well as the $20.00 late fee. Don Rother 3:0 ame~[ .- -~o ~ __---- =O~'IS x ~ pu~I uo p2.xo~s sqeoq $o 22qmn~i "--? '~'9/ =O0'Z$ xTa2q~m uo sd}Is 50 a~qmn~ oo'oo~$ 00'0085 225 queo~Idde O0'Og$ $o 225 (~ · uo}q~!Idd~ s}qq q~Ia p2pnIou! 2q qsnm 205 q!ma2d 5o qu2m~ed (~ · 'p2soooao Moop 2qq ao$ p2~eldm~moo · p2sn 2q o~ (s)£onq 50 ad£q puc uo!qeooI 2q~ pu~ ~p2sodoad ~oop 2q~ $o ~deq~ pue 2z!s ¢~df~ ~qq ~0 2IeOS oq 8uia~p V (-.4 :MOI£VDIqHHV SIH£ H£IM OMIMOqqOc~ ~ ~[SOqDM~{ ~Slf~ ~DISIBIqSgS 5[00'I[{ S$'~MISf~ ,.40 ~DI£VOoq AO~(~ SS~MISgE[ ,RO ~[knfN ,.zo '/C/ -~ 9yc_/w'-, ~ ) =Z. 5' .MOIAVOI~HV MC)IDa 'TqIOM~kikK)O V2OS'~NNIN REGULAR HEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL March 3, 1981 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on March 3, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Gordon Swenson and Pinky Charon. Councilmembers Ulrick & Polston were absent. Also present were City Manager Leonard L. Kopp and City Clerk Mary H. Cronin. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of February 24, 1981 were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of February 24, 1981 as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. LAWCON GRANT Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to direct the staff to submit an ap- plication to the Corps of Engineers and request that as much of the Work as possible be done by City employees. The vote was unanimously in favor. CIGARETTE LICENSES Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-76 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CIGARETTE LICENSES TO THE APPLICANTS LISTED ON C.M. 81-77 AND C.M. 81-83 The vote was unanimously in favor. BINGO PERMIT REQUEST Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-77 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A BINGO PERMIT TO THE MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT AUXILIARY WAIVING THE BOND AND FEE The vote was unanimously in favor. GARBAGE COLLECTION LICENSES Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-78 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GARBAGE COLLECTION LICENSES TO BLACKOWIAK AND SONS AND WESTONKA SANITIATION The vote was unanimously in favor. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Swenson moved and Charon'seconded a motion 25 26 March 3~ 1981 RESOLUTION ~-7~ RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING DELINQUENT UTILITY ACCOUNTS TO BE HEARD ON MARCH 24, 1981 AT 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Buzz Sycks, 5900 Beachwood Road updated statistics on police activity in Mound. Pat D'Avia, 1665 Eagle Lane spoke in favor of maintaining a larger police department. A1Hofstadter, commented on the need of an eleven man police force. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS - PRESENT CITY MANAGER Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-80 RESOLUTION APPOINTING LEONARD KOPP AS REPRESENT- ATIVE TO THE SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY AND MAYOR LINDLAN THE ALTERNATE The vote was unanimously in favor. POLICE MANPOWER Swenson moved and Lindlan seconded a motion to authorize an eleventh police officer be hired as soon as a Chief of Police is appointed. L! Lindlan moved and Swenson seconded a motion to table this item. The vote was unanimoulsy in favor. TRANSFER OF FUNDS Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion RESOLUTION 81-81 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CITY FUNDS The vote was unanimously in favor. PAYMENT OF BILLS Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve payment of the bills as presented on the prelist in the amount of $104,338.39 when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. PARKING PERMIT - VARIANCE OF OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to deny the parking permit as recommended by the Public Works Director. The vote was unanimously in favor. SCREENING COMMITTEE - SELECTION OF CITY MANAGER March 3, 1981 Swenson moved and Charon seconQeQ a motio~ to approve appointment of Frank Hancuch, Thomas Reese, Donald Brandenberg and Rock Lindlan to a City Manager Screening Committee with possibly two additional members to be appointed on March 10, 1981. The vote was unanimously in favor. RESIGNATION OF ULRICK FROM L.M.C.D. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to accept the resignation of Don Ulrick from the L.M.C.D. The vote was unanimously in favor. ADJOURNMENT Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn to the next regular meeting on March 10, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor, so adjourned. 27 Mary H. Cronin CMC, City Clerk/Treasurer Leonard L~ Kopp, City Manager 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Koun~, Minnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-92 SUBJECT: Public Heari~n9 - Rezoning Part of Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn from Residential A'I to Commercial or Multiple Dwelling On the request of the lot owner~ a public heari.ng has been called to consider the rezonj.ng of Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn. Inasmuch as this is not a petition request, the rezoning will require a 75% vote or 4/5ths of the Council CITY OF MOI1NI) APPLICATION FOR REZONING 75.00 ! LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED_ ZONING REQUEST: FROM Me 2 i ~'1.r~' ' r. ~z -..T~/' t /V'~ Z_)/ I1/+~-- fi, _,/ ,, TO t c Zir<,~ rcc_,~gL-- -- ~ASON FOR ~ZONING ~QUEST: ~ ~ / ~ ~'~ ~ ~_~ ~o,.~ ~~ IS THERE A PETITION ATTACHED? YES NO ~ Signature of Applicant ~~ ~, Applicant's Interest in Property State why this rezoningt if granted, would not be contrary to the general purpose and intent of the ordinance to secure public health, safety, general welfare, and substantial justice. Residents and owners of property within 350 feet: BEt 2 3 '1980 December 10, 1980 Mrs. Bernice Overby 2300 Driftwood Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mrs. Overby: In reply to your letter of December 1st, we have asked the Attorney to give an opinion of the status of your property. His opinion is quoted below: "This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of November 18, 1980 con- cerning Lot 5, Skarps East Lawn. You indicate to me that the property is currently in the A-1 residential zone and that the owners indicate to you that they have had apartments (you do not say how many apartments) in the home for 25 years. You have also sent me copies of the 1938 and 1945 zoning maps wherein it appears that the property was zoned commercial and that it has had a residential zoning since 1961 or 1962. You ask can it be sold as a multiple dwelling? Does the home exist as a non- conforming use? ~ Len, at the time the property was zoned A-1 residential the use of the property as it then existed could be maintained as a non-conforming use but could not be expanded and is subject to all of the provisions of Section 23.20 of the City Code. The whole intent of the non-conforming use section of the zoning ordinance is to allow the property owner to maintain what he has, but not to perpetuate it and to phase it out over a period of time. The owners should be advised that they are a non- conforming use, that nothing can be done to expand or extend the use and that the goal of the zoning ordinance is to have the property converted back to a use which is consistent with its zoning. If the property owner advertises this as a multiple dwelling, they would also have to advise the prospective purchasers that it is non-conforming and that the goal of the zoning ordinance is to return the property to a single family status." I think his reply is self-explanatory. You can sell this property as a non-conforming use as it exists. If you wish the property rezoned, it will be necessary to file an appli- cation for rezoning which would first be considered by the Planning Commis- sion. The Planning Commission recommendation (for or against) the rezoning Letter - Mrs. Bernice Overby December 10, 1980 - Page 2 would go to the Council who would call a public hearing. The next Plan- ning Commission meeting is January 29th and your application should be in by January 15th. We are enclosing an application for rezoning. A fee of $75.00 should accompany the application. , I want to emphasize that rezoning may or may not be granted after goi.ng through all this,.but it is the only way you can find out for sure. Sincerely, Leonard L. Kopp C i ty Manager LLK/ms Encl. 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, M~nnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-91 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Subdivision - Newhouse Builders Addition A public hearing is called for March 10th to consider the Newhouse Builders Addition which is a subdivision of the land previously owned by Anthony Wick. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the following stipulations: 1. That Lot 8 front and have egress on the cul-de-sac and that 30 foot setback be maintained from both the cul-de-sac and County Road 110; and that portion of unopened Grove Lane be considered the side yard with a 10 foot setback required. 2. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer ensuring that drainage will be to the right of way on Grove Lane. 3. That a lO foot utility easement be maintained on all properties. 4. That the existing structure on Lot 4 either be removed or brought up to code within two years. An appropriate bond would be required. 5. That the 10 foot right-of-way between the street edge and the lot lines be properly improved. 6. Park dedication be waived in view of the fact that the owner has over the years in 3 separate dedications given land to the City. A copy of the Planners report is attached. resolution. Also attached is a proposed --Leo'nard L. Kopp RESOLUTION RESOLUTION APPROVING TNE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF NEWHOUSE BUILDERS ADDITION SUBDIVISION WITH STIPULATIONS WHEREAS, by Resolution 81-50 adopted February 10, 1981, the Council provided for a public hearing to be held on March 10, 1981 regarding the subdivision of land on the 2700 Block on Grove Lane, subdivision to be known as the "Newhouse Builders Addition", NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the preliminary plat be.approved for Newhouse Builders Addition subdivision with the following stipulations: That Lot 8 front and have egress on the cul-de-sac and that 30 foot setback be maintained from both the cul-de-sac and County Road llO; and that portion of.unopened Grove Lane be considered the side yard with a 10 foot setback required. 2. That a drainage plan be submitted for approval by the City Engineer ensuring that drainage will be to the right-of-way on Grove Lane. 3. That a 10 foot utility easement be maintained on all properties. 4. That the existing structure on Lot 4 either be removed~r brought up to code within two years. A~ appropriate bond ~ required. 5. That the 10 foot right-of-way between the street edge and the lot lines be properly improved. 6. Park dedication'~.w~[¥cd in view of the fact that 7. A Title OPinion be furnished the City by ~-i't-t'~ ~:~r;~;; 8. An Escrow Fund in the amount of $1,000. O0. be established to cover engineering, legal and administrative expense. A C~orpoF~[e Surety Bond, C~-~/.k or Letter of Cr~edit of $ l,~O/O'.O0~xbe prov..i'tT~L~to cov~e~/co~Xt~of curb ..c'~'~for dr~v~w~y~, aprons, etc.~ · ........ ~.~ ...... ~.~. .... 10. A preliminary plan be placed with this resolution showing the above. /.7? Y APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND LAND FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL oo3/ Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: ZONING 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. Reason: From Square feet TO Square feet (signat~L~ Applicant's interest in the property: 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: Approval of preliminary plat (see minutes) DATE with stipulations, Jan, 26t 1981 CIT of 'IOUND January 26, 1~81 5341 MAYV','OOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: The City Manager City Planner Newhouse Builders Addition I. Subdivision Design The proposed plat is designed in a straight forward, basic approach which conforms with Mound's minimum lot size, street access, setback and minimum lot widths in an A-1 district. The eight lots are all equal to the 10,000 square foot mini- mum with five lots providing more than the 10,000 square feet needed. The 60 foot lot width is equally meet by all lots sufficient to meet code. II. Public Improvements Public sewer, water and street are in place and consistent with the unit allocations of assessment levy. Similar with other recently submitted plats, the City should stay consistent in requesting or not, curb cuts and bituminous apron installation in land subdivision. Be aware that the 10' R/W between the street edge and lot line is City property and it is in the City's best interest to insure the developer prop- erly improves this service access. III Determination of Proper Frontages It is the City's understanding that the driveway installed coming off the Grove Lane cul-de~sac is for Lot l0 of the Seifarth's Mound Bay Park Subdivision. The positioning of the barriers on Bartlett Boulevard prevent through traffic. Consistent with this plan, Lot 8's frontage is recommended on the cul-de-sac. Lots 3 -7 are also clearly fronting off Grove Lane. Lots 1 and 2 will front off Beachwood Road. Please notice Lot l's sideyard setback at 30' along Grove. This is good design and planning. Lot 8's building setback along Bartlett Boulevard being a County Road, should be at 30 feet. This still allows an adequate building site for Lot 8. RE: Newhouse Builders Addition - Page 2 January 26, i981 Havin9 the preliminary plat referencing the setbacks on all lots, similar to the graphic expression used on, for example, Lot 1, is recommended. Please note the rear yard setback is at 15 feet while the easement line is at 10 feet. IV. Existing Structure on Lot 4 and Need for Filling The house on Lot 4 is positioned to follow the setback regulations. The Planning Commission should be made aware of future plans for the house. Lots 8 and 7 need filling in rear portions for a level building pad. Likewise, plans for proposed filling of portions of these or other lots should be made aware to the Planning Commission. V. Park Dedication With the Assessor's value on the land placed at $50,000, a 10~ park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication is $5,000. VI Recommendations. The Newhouse Builders Addition Preliminary Plat as proposed is a good submittal. The basic design and development follows Mound's subdivision and zoning ordinances. I s~fe no major problems in reviewing the plat. These points should be kept in mind in re- fining the plat towards a final plat submittal being summarized from above. a) Expression of lot setbacks on rear lot lines and Lot 8 along Bartlett. b) Engineers input and recommendation on need for curb-cuts driveway apron installation. This policy needs clarification on this plat as well as any submittals in the future. c) Naming the legal description of the Addition by adding to the title "Block l". d) Advising the developer of his park dedication obligation. ~ (t~ .~ charles E. Riesenberg 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 6, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-97 SUBJECT: 1981 Improvement Bonds - $275,000 State Aid Street Bonds $100,000 Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds Attached are copies of two resolutions authorizin9 the sale of the sub- ject bonds. Action should be taken on these March lOtho Leonard L. Kopp A.THoHA$ WURST gERALD T, CARROLL CURTIS A. PEARSON THOI~AS F'. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER T, JAMEs D. LARSON JOHN W. WOOD, JR. LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 1512 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIs, MINNESOTA 5540= March 5, 1981 Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 TELEPHONE {612) 338-8911 Re: $275,000 G.O. State-Aid Street Bonds $100,000 G.O. Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds Mound, Minnesota Dear Len: I am enclosing herewith two proposed resolutions for consideration and approval by the City Council on March 10. Pursuant to discussions from Ernie Clark, I have combined the two issues for bidding purposes, but each issue requires a separate resolution calling the sale and will require a separate resolution selling the bonds. Please review and if in order, present to the City Council. I am also asking Ernie to review these to be sure they meet with his direction. V~ truly~o~ City Attorney CAP:ih Enclosure cc: Mr. Ernie Clark EXTRACT or MINUTES OF MEETING OF TH]~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CFFY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice hereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound was duly held on Tuesday, the 10th day of March, 1981, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The meeting was called to order by the Mayor. Upon roll call, the following members of the Council were present: and the following were absent: Councilmember introduced the fo]lowing resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution No. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER AND WATER REVENUE BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MONEY TO IMPROVE THE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Mound owns and operates a water plant and sewer system, and WHEREAS, the City must improve the water system to provide water flow and pressure to protect the lives and property of people who reside or attend school in the community, and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended improvements and extensions of the sewer and water system in conjunction with the improvements of County Road 110, and WHEREAS, the council has determined that it is necessary to improve the system, and WHEREAS, it is necessary that the City borrow $98,500 to provide for con- struction, engineering, fiscal and legal expenses and to provide interest during con- struction, and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide the requlred amount by the issuance and sale of bonds payable out of sewer and water revenues, and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, to issue revenue bonds for such purpose, with such bonds also supported by a pledge of the full faith and credit of the municipality, and such bonds can be sold to provide necessary funds, and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that said payments will be sufficient to repay these bonds which are to be issued to provide funding for the aforementioned improvements and it is not feasible to phase said construction over a 10 year period; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. It is hereby determined that it is necessary and expedient to finance improvements to the sewer and water system by the issuance of General Obligation Sewer and Wate~ Revenue Bonds as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, and the Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075. It is further determined that the amount of $98,500 should be supplemented by the issuance of additional bonds as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.56 and that the City shall sell and issue $100,000 of bonds, $1,500 of said bonds being considered as additional interest. The sale resolution shall contain a statement that all funds received in excess of $98,500 shall be credited to the sinking fund for the payment of interest on these obligations. 2. The City shall issue and sell General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $100,000, all bearing date April 1, 1981, bearing interest rate or rates hereafter determined at public sale, payable October 1, 1981, and semiannually thereafter on April 1 and October I in each year, which bonds shall be issued in amounts of $5,000.00 and shall mature serially on April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1982 $10,000 1987 $10,000 1983 10,000 1988 10,000 1984 10,000 1989 10,000 1985 10,000 1990 10,000 1986 10,000 1991 10,000 All bonds are to be issued without option of prior redemption. 3. Both principal and interest shall be payable at a suitable bank designated by the purchaser and the City shall pay the reasonable charges of such bank for its services as paying agent. 4. The bonds to be issued hereunder, and the interest coupons to be thereto attached, shall be in substantially the following form: NO. $5,000 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER AND WATER REVENUE BOND OF 1981 KNOW ALL MEN BY THF~E PRESENTS That the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby acknowledges that it is obligated and, for value received, promises to pay to bearer out of its General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bond Sinking Fund the sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, on the 1st day of April, 19 , and to pay interest thereon out of said fund from the date hereof until the principal sum is paid at the rate of interest to maturity payable October 1, 1981, and semi-annually thereafter on the 1st day of April and the 1st day of October in each year, in accordance with and upon presentation and surrender of the interest coupons hereto attached as they severally become due. Both principal and interest are payable at in any coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. Ail bonds of this issue are without option of prior redemption. This bond is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $100,000, all of like date and tenor except as to serial number, maturity, and interest rate, which bonds have been issued for the purpose of providing money to aid in financing sewer and water improvements, or parts thereof, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, and the principal thereof and interest thereon are payable primarily from the net revenues of the sewer and water plant and system of the City, and for which funds are provided in a special sinking fund of the City, as set forth in a resolution adopted March 10, ]981, entitled, "A Resolution Providing for the Issuance and Sale of $100,000 General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds for the Purpose of Providing Money to Improve the Sewer and Water System of the City," to which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers hereby conferred. The full faith and credit of the City is pledged for its payment and the City Council has obligated itself to levy taxes on all of the taxable property in the City in the event of any deficiency, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or amount. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED That in and by the authorizing resolution, the City has covenanted and agreed that it will continue to own and operate the sewer and water plant free from competition by other like utilities; that adequate insurance on said plant and system and suitable fidelity bonds on employees will be carried; that proper and adequate books of account will be kept showing all receipts and disbursements relating to the Sewer and Water Fund, into which it will pay all of the gross revenues from the sewer and water system; that it will also create and maintain a General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bond Sinking Fund, into which it will pay, out of the net revenues from the sewer and water system, a sum ~uffiei~nt to pa~/ lsrinei~al hereo{ and interest hereon when due, and that it will provide~ Dy ad valorem tax levies, for any deficiency itl funds received by the City from net sewer and water revenues. 1T IS FURTHER CERTIFIED AND RECITED That all acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to happen, and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have been done, have happened and have been performed in due form, time and manner as required by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this bond to be executed in its behalf by the facsimile signature of the Mayor and the manual signature of the City Manager, and a facsimile of the corporate sea] of the City to be hereto affixed, and has caused the interest coupons hereto attached to be executed and authenticated by the facsimile signatures of said officers, an as of April 1, 1981. (facsimile signature) Mayor City Manager (Facsimile City Seal) (Form of Coupon) No. $ On the 1st day of April (October), 19____, the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, will pay to bearer, out of its General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bond Sinking fund, at the amount shown hereon for interest then due on its General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bond of ]981, dated April 1~ ]98L (facsimile signature) City Manager (facsimile signature) Mayor 5. The City Clerk-Treasurer is hereby directed to cause Notice of Sale to be given by publication, at least l0 days in advance of the sale, in the official newspaper, and in Commercial West, a financial paper published at Minneapolis, Minnesota, with general circulation throughout the State of Minnesota. Said notice shall recite the City within 40 days from date of sale, will furnish the printed bonds and approving legal opinion of ~essrs. Wurst, Carro]] and Pearson, Minneapolis, r,~innesota, both without COSt to the purchaser, and that the bonc]s will be m~de payable at any suitable bank or trust company designated by the successful bidder, all bids to be accompanied by a good faith check in the event the bid is accepted by the City and the bidder fails to comply therewith; that no bid of less than $98,500 will be accepted; the Council reserves the right to reject any and all bids, to waive informalities, and to adjourn the sale if deemed expedient. 6. The bonds shall be printed under the direction of the City Clerk-Treasurer and when so prepared shall be executed on behalf of the City by the facsimile signature of the Mayor and the manual signature of the City Manager and a facsimLle of the seal of the City may be affixed thereto, and the interest coupons shall be executed and authenticated by the printed facsimile signatures of such officers. When the bonds have been so executed and authenticated, they shall be delivered by the Clerk-Treasurer to the purchaser thereof, upon receipt of the purchase price, and the purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the proper application of the proceeds thereof. 7. The City shall continue to operate its Sewer and Water Fund to which shall be credited all gross revenues of the sewer and water system and out of which shall be paid all normal and reasonable expenses of current operations of the sewer and water system. Any balance therein shall be deemed net revenues and shall be transferred, from time to time, to a General Obligation Revenue Bond Sinking Fund hereby created, which fund shall be used to pay bonds issued hereunder and any other bonds similarly authorized. There shall always be retained in such fund a sufficient amount to pay principal of and interest on all bonds payable from said fund, and the City Clerk-Treasurer shall report any current or anticipated deficiency in such funds to the Council 8. The City Council covenants and agrees with the holders of the bonds issued hereunder that so long as any of said bonds remain outstanding and unpaid, it will keep and enforce the following covenants and agreements: (a) The City will continue to maintain and efficiently operate the municipal sewer and water plant and system as a public utility and convenience and will cause all revenues therefrom to be deposited in a bank account and credited to the Sewer and Water Fund as hereinabove provided, and will make no expenditures from said account except for a duly authorized purpose and in accordance with this resolution. (b) The City will also maintain a separate account for the General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bond Sinking Fund and will cause money to be credited to said account, from time to time, out of net revenues from the sewer and water plant and system, in sums sufficient to pay principal of and interest on all bonds issued hereunder when due. 1.71 (c) The City will keep and maintain proper and adequate books of record and account separate from all other records of the City in which will }~e complete and correct entries as to all transactions relating to the sewer and water plant and system and which shall be open to inspection and copying by any bondholder, his agent or attorney, at any reasonable time, and it will furnish certified transcripts therefrom upon request and upon payment of a reasonable fee therefor, and said accounts shall be audited at ]east annually by a qualified public accountant and statements of such audit and report will be furnished to all bondholders upon request. 9. The City Clerk-Treasurer is further authorized to combine the notice of sale of this issue with $275,000 State Aid Street Bonds of the City which are authorized for sale on the same date and to provide that the City will accept one bid for both issues. Attest: Mayor City Clerk-Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted AYE: and the following voted NO: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Councilmember presented the following written resolution and moved its adoption. Re~olut~on No. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $275,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION STATE-AID STREET BONDS WHEREAS, the city proposes to improve portions of Tuxedo Boulevard and Three Points Boulevard, and said streets have been designated as municipal state-aid streets under the provisions of M.S.A. 162.09, and WHEREAS, the city is authorized to issue and sell bonds for the purpose of improving state-aid streets, and principal and interest on said bonds are payable from moneys to be alloted to the city from the municipal state-aid street fund of the State of Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1980, Section 162.18, and WHEREAS, the council has determined to improve the aforementioned streets under this program, and the amounts and terms of the proposed issue are such that the average annual amount of principal and interest due in all subsequent calendar years will not exceed 50% of the amount of the last annual allotment preceding the bond issue from the Construction Account in the Municipal State-Aid Street Fund and said allotment for construction purposes during the last year was $119,319; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: L It is hereby determined that the amount of $271,000 is necessary for street improvements and that it is necessary and expedient to provide in part the additional interest required to market bonds at this time by issuance of additional bonds which shall be in the amount of $4,000. Any payment for the bonds in excess of $271,000 shall be credited to the sinking fund for purpose of paying interest first due on said bonds. 2. It is hereby determined that it is necessary to borrow money on the credit of the city and to issue genera] obligation State-Aid Street Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.18, in the total principal amount of $275,000, said bonds to be dated April 1, 1981, to be in the denomination of $5,000 each, or another denomination if specified by the successful bidder within 48 hours after the time of sale, to bear interest at the rate or rates designated by the successful bidder payable October 1, 1981, and semi-annually thereafter on April ! and October 1 in each year and to mature serially on April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1982 $30,000 1985 $40,000 1983 30,000 1986 40,000 1984 35,000 1987 50,000 All bonds are to be issued without option of prior payment. 3. Sealed bids for bonds shall be received at the city hall at lb30 o'clock a.m. on April ?, 1981, and the council shall meet at 7:30 o'clock D.m. in the council chambers in the city hall for the purpose of eonsldering said bids for the purchase of said bonds. The aforementioned sealed bids shall be received and opened by the City Clerk-Treasurer at 11:30 o'clock a.m. and opened in her office in the presence of at least one other City employee and a representative of Miller and Sehroeder Municipals, Inc., the City's financial advisors. The City Clerk-Treasurer shall cause notice of sale to be given by publication at least ten days in advance of the date of sale in the official newspaper of the City and in Commercial West, a financial paper published in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Said notice shall recite that the City will furnish printed bonds and approving legal opinion of Messrs. Wurst, Carroll and Pearson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, both without expense to the purchaser; shall require sealed bids accompanied by a good faith cheek in the amount of at least $5,500 to be forfeited as liquidated damages in the event the bid is accepted by the City and the bidder fails to comply therewith; that no bid of less than $271,000 will be accepted; shall state that all bids shall state one or more rates of interest (not to exceed 5 rates) not to exceed 12% per annum in multiples of 5/100ths of one percent; shall state that the bonds will be payable at any suitable bank designated by the purchaser; that delivery will be made within forth days after the date of sale and that the purchaser may designate bond denomination and a paying agent satisfactory to the City witnin 48 hours after sale. 4. The authority for the issuance of these bonds is M.S.A. 162.18, Subd. 5. These bonds shall be sold in accordance with said statutory authority and in accordance with Chapter 475, Minnesota Laws of 1980. 5. The City Clerk-Treasurer is further authorized to combine the notice of sale of this issue with $100,000 of General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds which are authorized for sale on the same date and to provide that the City will accept one bid for both issues. Attest: Mayor City Clerk-Treasurer The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember and upon vote being taken thereon, the fol- lowing voted AYE: and the following voted NO: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF MOUND ) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing ex-tract of minutes of a regular meeting of the council of said city held March 10, 1981, with the original thereof on file and of record in my office, and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom insofar as the same relates to the issuance of General Obligation Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds and State-Aid Street Bonds of 1981 of the city. WITNESS My hand officially and the corporate seal of the city this of March, 1981. day (SEAL) City Clerk-Treasurer City of Mound, Minnesota b ,7 NOTICE OF SALE $275,000 (~ENERAL OBLIGATION STATE-Am STREET BONDS AND $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER AND WATER RgYENUE BONDS CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that sealed bids for the purchase of the above bonds will be received until 11:30 o'clock a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, Minnesota, on Tuesday, April 7, 1981, at which time the bids will be opened and tabulated. The bids will then be considered by the City Council at its regular meeting at the City Ha]] at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on the same day. The aforedescribed bonds are issued on the following terms: The purpose of the bonds is to provide funds for improvements to the water and sanitary sewer systems of the City to be paid for by sewer and water revenues. The state-aid street funds will be used for street improvements and will be paid from the City's Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. The bonds will be general obligations of the issuer, for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. The bonds will be dated April 1, 1981, will be in denomination of $5,000 each (bidder's option) and will mature on April 1 in the following years and amounts: Sewer and Water Year Year Bonds Total 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 State-Aid Bonds $1o-;0oo /10,000 / 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 $100,000 Totals ,,,, $275,000 ,/ All bonds of these issues are without option df-p_m~'or~ nt. $30,000 $40,000 30,000 40,000 35,000 I 45,000 40,000 i 50,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 ! 60,000 50,000 / 60,000 10,000 10,000 10~000 / $375,000 Interest on the bonds will be payable on October 1, 1981, and semiannually thereafter on each April 1 and October 1. All bonds maturing on the same date must bear interest from date of issue until paid at a single, uniform rate, not exceeding the rate specified for bonds of any subsequent maturity. Not more than five interest rates may be specified for the issue. Each rate must be in an integral multiple of 5/100 of 1%, and no rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may exceed 12% per annum. No supplemental or "B" coupons will be permitted. Principal and interest will be made payable at any suitable bank in the United States designated by the successful bidder within 48 hours after award of sale~ subject to approval by the City, and the City will pay the reasonable and customary paying agency charges. The City will assume no obligation for the assignment or printing of CUSIP numbers on the bonds or for the correctness of any numbers printed thereon, but will permit such numbers to be assigned and printed at the expense of the purchaser, if the purchaser waives any extension of the time of delivery caused thereby. Within 40 days after sale, the City will furnish and deliver at the offiee of the purchaser or, at his option, win deposit with a bank in the United States selected by him and approved by the City as its agent to permit examination by and to deliver to the purchaser, the printed and executed bonds, the unqualified opinion thereon of bond counsel, and a certificate stating that no litigation in any manner questioning their validity is then threatened or pending. The charge of the delivery agent must be paid by the purchaser, but all other costs will be paid by the City. The purchase price must be paid upon delivery of the bonds, or within five days after deposit with the delivery agent, in funds available for expenditure by the City on the day of payment. An unqualified legal opinion on each bond issue will be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Carroll and Pearson, P.A., of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The legal opinion will be printed on the bonds at the request of the purchaser. The legal opinion will state that the bonds are valid and binding general obligations of the City, and the City is obligated and required to levy. taxes for the principal and interest thereon as the same become due without limit as to rate or amount. Sealed bids must be mailed or delivered to the undersigned and must be received prior to 11:30 o'clock a.m. April 7, 1981. Each bid must be unconditional and must be accompanied by a cashier's or certified check or bank draft in the amount of $7,500, payable to the City Treasurer, to be retained by the City as liquidated damages if the bid is accepted and the bidder fails to comply therewith. Comparison of bids will be made on the basis of total interest cost combining both issues. The bid authorizing the lowest net interest cost (total interest from date of bonds to stated maturities, less any cash premium or plus any amount less than $375,000 bid for principal) will be deemed the most favorable. No oral bid and no bid of less than $369,500 for principal plus accrued interest on all of the bonds will be considered, and the city reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality in any bid. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Clerk-Treasurer Mound, Minnesota 55364 NOTICE OF SALE $275,[}[l[I GENERAL OI~LIGATION STATE-AID S'rREET BONDS AND $100,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SEWER AND WATER REVENUE BONDS CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA These bonds will be offered on Tuesday, April 7, 1981. Bids will be received until 1l:30 o'clock a.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound. The bids will be considered by the City Council at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the City Hall in the City of Mound, Minnesota. Dated April 1, ]981, the bonds will mature on April 1 in the years and amounts as follows: State-Aid Sewer and Water Year Year Bonds Bonds Total 1982 $10,000 $30,000 $40,000 1983 10,000 30,000 40,000 1984 10,000 35,000 45,000 1985 10,000 40,000 50,000 1986 10,000 40,000 50,000 1987 10,000 50,000 60,000 1988 10,000 50,000 60,000 1989 10,000 10,000 1990 10,000 10,000 1991 10,000 ]0,000 Totals $100,000 $275,000 $375,000 All bonds of these issues are without option of prior payment. Interest will be payable on October 1, 1981, and semiannually thereafter. No rate of interest nor the net effective average rate of the issue may exceed 12% per annum. An unqualified legal opinion will be furnished by Messrs. Wurst, Carron and Pearson, P.A. of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The purpose of the bonds is to finance improvements to the city state-aid streets and to the sewer and water plant and system of the city. The sewer and water improvements will be paid by revenues from the system and the state-aid street improvements will be paid from the City's Municipal State-Aid Street Funds from funds to be paid to the City by the State of Minnesota. These bond issues are to be combined for bidding purposes and the award will be on the total of the two issues. No bid of less than $369,500 will be considered. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL City Clerk-Treasurer Mound, Minnesota Dated March 10, 198L Further information may be obtained from and bids may be delivered to: Miller and Schroeder Municipals, Inc. 170 Northwestern Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 (612) 831-1500 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minne~ot~ March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-86 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Minutes Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission minutes. required on the following: Item 1. Parking Variance - Snyder's Drug Item tabled. Council action is 2. Subdivision of Land - PID 19-117-23 34 O001 Tabled for more information. Lots 1-4 and adjoining streets, Block 12, Arden A. Rezoning from A-2 to Residential B (Duplex) The Planning Commission recommended the land be rezoned from A-2 to Residential B. A public hearing is required. Suggested dates are April 14th or April 28th. B. Vacation of Right-of-Way The Planning Commission recommended vacation of a portion of the Old Tuxedo right-of-way and a portion of Kinman Place. A public hearing is required. Suggested dates are April 14th or April 28th. C. Front & Side Yard Variances The Planning Commission postponed action until after zoning discussion meetings. Lake Front Variance (Nonconforming Use) Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon - 4957 Island View Drive Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended a 14.8 front yard (lakefront variance) and 17 foot street front variance and a 3.8 side yard variance in order to enlarge the deck. o Lot Size--Street, Side Yard & Rear Yard Variances Part of Lot 16, Block 14, Arden - 3068 Brighton Boulevard Zoned Commercial Requested to make a duplex out of the building. The Planning Commission recommended the building be a one family dwelling and that the City sell their land to the owner. Council Memorandum No. 81-86 Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2 Item 6. Street Front & Lot Size Variance Lot 80, Phelps Island Park Division - 4354 Wilshire Boulevard Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended a street front variance 4.5 feet and a lot size variance of 915.25 feet. This is a nonconforming lot. o Subdivision of Land Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 22, Shadywood Point - 1600 Heron Lane Zoned A-2 Residential 6,000 Square Feet Tabled until a survey is available. Subdivision of Land Lot 54, Whipple Shores - 3301 Warner Lane Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet Tabled for more information. Nonconforming Use - Street Front V~riance Lots 9 and 28, Block 15, Arden - 3033 Brighton Boulevard Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet Tabled until the applicant is present. 10. Sign Variance - 5241 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 7-20 & 21-35, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F Zoned Commercial The Planning Commission recommended a 4 foot by 16 foot sign. MINUTES OF THE MOUh~DVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION February 23, 1981 lNG Present were: Chairman Russell Peterson, Commissioners Margaret Hanson, Gary paulsen, Roy O'gonnell and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Gordon Swenson; City Manager Leonard Kopp; City Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 1981 were presented for consideration. Hanson moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. .~a.r~ing Variance - Snyder Drug, 2321 Commerce Boulevard Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision 167 ' Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to table. The vote was unani- mously in favor. 2. Subdivision of Land - R.L.S. Metes and Bounds, Section 19-117-23 (PID 19-I17-23 34 0001) As applicant not present at this time, Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to table. Vote was unanimously in favor. Later in the meeting, Mr. Brown was present~ He advised that he will be dividing parcel into three parts; 1 & 4 together; rotate the line between 2 and 3 to make legal lots with at least 20 feet at rear lot line; result will be two lO,O00 square foot lots fronting on Island View Drive. A R.L.S. survey and topography to be done by Coffin. Discussed. Weiland moved and O'Donnell seconded a motion to table until we get the needed information. The vote was unanimously in favor. Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden and Adjoining Streets Eugene Schlee, Owner, and Paul E. Johnson were present. Discussed applications. A. Rezoning from A-2 to Residential B O'Donnell moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend the rezoning from A-1 to Residentia! B be approved for the following reasons: 1. Special circumstances such as the topography, the shape of the lot and its being wooded lend itself to this concept for double bungalows. Concept for maximum use of land with minimum dis- ruption of !and and the unused right of way. 2. Traffic safety for egress from properties would be less with this type of use than single family dwellings 3. Would not constitute spot zoning as these lots are adjacent to existing Residential B. The vote was unanimously in favor. I~ebruary 23, 1981 -ii,age 2 3 B. Vacation of Ri~ht-of-Way, Tuxedo and Kinman Hanson moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend the vacation of the right-of-ways, Tuxedo and K~nman w~th the stipulation C'ity retain utility easement over all of the vacated right-of-ways. The vote was unanimously in favor. C. Front and Side Yard Variances Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to table variance, request on zero lot line (side yard) until after the next "Zoning" discussion meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Note: No front yard variance required. take Front Variance/Nonconforming Use -4957 Island View Drive Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon Mr. Norstrem was present. O'Donnell moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend variance for deck be granted with stipulation deck never be enclosed at any future time. The vote- Weiland Nay, all others.voted in favor.. Reason for nay vote - not pertinent to the building for the living area--not that important. o Lot Size, Street, Side & Rear Yard Variances - 3068 Brighton Boulevard Part of Lot 16, Block 14, Arden Mr. Ziskin was present. Also received letters from property owners, Michael Berg, 3065 Brighton.and Gilbert Grimm, 3069 Brighton, stating that they had-no objection to structure being converted to duplex. O'Donnell moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend variance for duplex be denied; that land be rezoned to Residential B; that owner negotiate to acquire additional land from the City and that a variance be granted for a sin§le family dwellin§ only. Further stipulated that City sel.1 land but retain utility easement. The vote was unanimously in favor. Street Front and Lot Size Variances - 4354 Wilshire Boulevard Lot 80, Phelps Island Park 1st Division Rev. Mueller was present. Weiland moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend granting a permit for building house according to plans with stipulation that no deck be added at later date. Further condition that he get permission from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The vote was unanimously in favor. Subdivision of Land Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 22, Shadywood Point Mr. Commerford was present. Weiland moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to table request and have applicant come back with survey. The vote was unanimously in favor. Planning Commission utes February 23, 1981 - Page 3 Subdivision of Land - 3301 Warner Lane Lot 54, Whipple ~hores Michael Byrne was present. Discussed granting subdivision if house and shed on lakeshore portion be removed and if a new structure with tuckunder garage could be built meeting all setbacks thereby having only one nonconforming dwelling rather than two. Also whether proposed new ordinance would affect this. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to table until it can be determined whether or not it would be a buildable lot and that a house can be built without a variance on the lower lot. The vote was unanimously in favor. Nonconforming Use/Street Front Variance - 3033 Brighton Boulevard Lots 9 & 28, Block 15, Arden Applicant not present. Hanson mo~ed and Paulsen seconded a motion to table to the end of meeting. The vote was all in favor. Later in the meeting, it was discussed recommending City sell applicant a strip of Lots 10 and 29 if not needed for storm drain. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to table until applicant present. The vote was unanimously in.favor. lO. Sign Variance - 5241 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 7-20 & 21-35, Blbck 'l, Shirley Hills Unit F Kerry Conner was present. Hanson moved and Weiland seconded a motion recommending granting a 4 foot by 16 foot sign permit for "Conner Furniture Stripping and Refinishing" since thi§ replaces the permit to The Woodsmith~s. The vote was unanimously in favor. Chairman announCed that Frank Weiland has volunteered to be the:-Planning Commission Representative on the Task Force for Downtown Redevelopment Com- mittee. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. favor, so meeting adjourned. Al.1 in Attest: AGENDA FOR THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 23, 1981 Minutes of the January 26, 1981 Planning Commission Board of Appeals. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Dale Radi - Snyder Drug, 2321 Commerce Boulevard Lot 1, Auditor's Subdivision 167 - Map 4 Parking Variance James B. Brown, 3105 Island View Drive Metes & Bounds, Section 19-117-23 (PID 19-117-23 34 OOO1) - Map 13 Subdivision of Land (R.L.S.) 3. Hussman Investment Co.-Eugene Schlee/Paul E. Johnson - 3081-3063 Dundee Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden and Adjoining Streets - Map 12 A. Rezoning from A-2 to Residential B B. Vacation of Right-of-Way C. Variance - Front and Side Yard Ronald Norstrem, 4957 Island View Drive Lots 4, 5 & 6, Block 23, Devon - Map 15 Lake Front Variance/Nonconforming Use (Continued from 1-26-81 meeting) David Ziskin, 3068 Brighton Boulevard Part of Lot 16, Block 14, Arden - Map 12 Lot Size, Street, Side & Rear Yard Variances Rev. R. T. Mueller, 4354 Wilshire Boulevard Lot 80, Phelps Island Park 1st Division - Map 7 Street Front and Lot Size Variance e Robert U. Commerford, 1600 Heron Lane Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block 22, Shadywood Point - Map 2 Subdivision of Land Michael J. Byrne - Property at 3301 Warner Lane Lot 54, Whipple Shores - Map 15 Subdivision of Land 10. James Anderson, 3033 Brighton Boulevard Lots 9 & 28, Block 15, Arden - Map 15 Nonconforming Use/Street Front Variance Kerry R. Conner, 5241 Shoreline Blvd.-Map 5 Lots 7-20 & 21-35 Shirley Hills Unit F Block 1 Sign variance (Note: previous meeting granted variance to The Woodsmith's) City of Mound From: To: Date: Building Inspector Planning Commission February 20, 1981 Subject: Planning Commission Board of Appeals 2-23-81 Dale Radi - Snyder Drug, 2321 Commerce Blvd. Lot 1, Auditor's Subd. 167 - Parking Variance Suggest a continuance or tabling applica~ioncuntil which time staff has had time to go over proposal for improvement of parking. James B. Brown - 3105 Island View Drive Metes & Bounds, Section 19-117-23 (PID 19-117-23 34 0001) Subdivision of Land Would suggest tabling this application until the applicant has complied to all of the criteria of Chapter 22 of Subdivision Ordinance. o Hussman Investment Co. - Eugene Schlee/Paul E Johnson - 3081 Dundee Lane Lots 1-2-3 & 4, Block 12, Arden & adjoining streets (a) Rezoning from A-2 to Residential B (b) Vacation of Right-of-Way (c) Variance - Front and Side Yard Proposal for rezoning from Single Family to Duples land use, I believe to be a misintent of land use. The intent to build duplexes with proposed zero lot lines so that in the future the probability of units being sold individually could be accomplished. I believe this to be an intent to misinterpret the Duplex Zoning. I feel that the application should probably call for rezoning to multiple or town house as this would be the intended use of the property. I would see no problem in allowing two family structures to be located in that particular use districe but NOT with zero lot lines. This defeats the purpose of two family usage and the City Planner's report of item 2 Subsection B, the intent of the Planning Com- mission at this time was to return all Residential B Zoning to Single Family Use, if the land was not developed as such and/or any portionsof the block not de- veloped as such. The proposed structure location, I feel is inadequate to serve the use of the structure as well as probable residency within the structures. The egress and ingress to and from Dundee Lane as proposed is a definite safety hazard. Tuxedo Blvd. as plotted should not be vacated due to sewer and water locations within that plotted right-of-way. I don't feel the City at this time or at any future time should vacate that portion of that right-of-way of Tuxedo Blvd. and definitely not to vacate Kinman Place at this time due to the fact there is land locked pro- perty abutting Kinman Place that in all probability could be buildable sites.' In any event if structures are to be located on this property, the developer of this property should be required to involve a frontage right-of-way so as to afford egress and ingress into the most southerly part of Dundee Lane and not allow any ingress and egress directly to Tuxedo Blvd. or realign on any portion of the curva- ture. The probability of rezonging to that particular area to Multiple Use and allowing a four-plex, I feel at this time, would not be detrimental to the area and would retain compatibility of the neighborhood as a buffer between the residential and commercial use now existing in that very immediate area of Tuxedo Blvd. and Brighton Blvd. Planning Commission of Appeals 2-23-81 page two Ronald Norstrem - 4957 Island View Drive Lots 4-5 G 6, Block 23, Devon - Lake Front Variance/Nonconformin9 Use The applicant proposes to add on to existing deck of which is nonconforming but was granted a variance on 9-23-75 to remain as it exists at this time. The in- tention is to add on to the existing deck in a westerly direction 28 feet, of which as it progresses westerly will be a greater distance from the property line because of existing angle of the house in relation to the lot line. David Ziskin - 3068 Bright Blvd. Part of Lot 16, Block 14, Arden - Lot Size, Street, Side & Rear Yard Variance The intent of the applivant is to take the existing Commercial Use property of the old Coffee Cup and turn it into a two family structure. The existing property and its conveniences for ingress and egress encroach on City right-of-way. It has only1907.2 sq. ft., the lot is undersized for a two family land use by 10,O92.8 sq. ft. If any use at all of the structure is to be condoned with the encroachments as aforestated, I would rather it go back to a single family use only. Two matters of importance: (1) I would request the Commission to request of City Council in writing, so as not to disturb the applicant, to probably undertake to buy that struc- ture from the owner and raze it, to rid the City and zonine of structure and use of a constant and consistent nonconformancy. In previous applicants of the owner to once again return this structure to a commercial use, I objected at that time and voiced statements of nonconformancy. I feel the structure is and has been a health and safety hazard and injurious to the municipal City standards of zoning. (2) I feel this should not be allowed to continue or expand only at the least use available and restricted use available of municipal zoning. Rev. R.T. Mueller - 4354 Wilshire Blvd. Lot 80, Phelps Island Park 1st Div. - Street Front & Lot Size Variance The intent of the applicant is to extend his existing living room because of the small size of the home and the only direction he can go, of which is towards the lakeshore. The property at present is nonconforming, due to lot size and also because of street front setback variance of 4.5 ft. of which was granted by City Council on 12-14-71 for a garage. There is an existing deck, at present, which conforms to lake front setbacks for zoning. The intent is to build underneath this deck and add on in place of the existing deck. There should be no further variances necessary for the addition of the room. However, if a deck were to be added on to in the future, it would then require, under the present ordinance, a lakefront variance setback of however wide thedeck would propose to be. I see no problem in allowing this particular nonconforming use to expand as proposed. Robert U. Commerford - 1600 Heron Lane Lots 3, 4 & 5, Block 22, Shadywood Point - Subdivision of Land Would say no to the application. Lot is undersized and should not be condoned by City also there is a structure on Lots 1 & 2 that would require setback variance for any structure to be placed on Lot 3. o Michael J. Byrne - Property at 3301 Warner Lane Lot 54, Whipple Shores - Subdivision of Lane This particular property has been offered for Combination and Division previously and denied by the Planning Commission and City Council and until the applicant can come up with the required amount of land for a subdivision that will be in com- pliance with municipal zoning should be denied. ~.~, Planning Commission Bc of Appeals 2-~3-81 page three James Anderson - 3033 Brighton Blvd. Lots 9 E 28, Block 15, Arden - Nonconforming Use/Street Front Variance I don't feel these recreational facilities should be allowed to ~'~expand on noncon- forming uses. They are not necessary for ~abi~ablt~ty,' of the dwelling and there is no necessity of which will add to safeguards of the dwelling. I therefore feel these nonconforming use applications for recreational facilities added on or ex- panded should not be approved or condoned. 10. Kerry R. Conner - 5241Shoreling Blvd. Lots 7-20 & 21-25 Shirley Hills Unit F Block 1 Sign Variance (Note: previouls meeting granted sign variance to The Wood- smith's at same location) No comment. HT/dd Henry Truelsen APPLICATION FO ,RIANCE CITY OF MOUND FEE $ ZONING. PROPERTY , __ r ADDRESS ~'~-~ ''~ / ~ ~-~ , APPLICANT ~~ _ ~ ~P~T____PARCEL ..... Address _ · LoT --/ BLOCK .... N~ber~-T& /OADDITION ~.~ _%~ .$~. 7 g ~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) , ~ ~~' ~ ~/Telephone Address ~"~ ~ Number VA~NCE ~QUESTED: NOTE: 1/Attach a survey AND scale drawing , , ~howing location of proposed improvement FRONT [ I ACCESSORY [ FT I in relation to lot lines, other buildings YARD [ FT~] B~LDING [ '] op~operty and abutting streets. ' , Z~ Give owners~p and dimeKsion8 of , ~~ and streets pertinent to the application property owners showing attitude toward N. C. U. * or request. OTHER (describe) - . _ REASON FOR REQUEST: / ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ .' [--~mit must be applied for ~ithin one year from the date of the . CITY 0 ;: Iq Signature ~ ~ PLANING coM~ssION RECOMMENDATION // DATE' COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO._ DATE *non- conforming use APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER Cio PLAT LAND 11'7-~3- 3¥-oool PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: To be divided as follows: / Ft (aHach 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 Reason: Square feet TO EP22980 ", ! CITY OF MOUND ADDR ESS~/O~('' l~'Zq~Jl~.-~.~.~ ~ ~.' ~ ~ Applicant's interest in the property: This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the prope~, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE (ZITT of XlOUND February 13, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Manager Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden and Adjoining Streets Hussman Investment Company has requested that the above Lots be rezoned from Residential A-2 to Residential B, that the adjoining streets, Kinman Place and Old Tuxedo Boulevard, be vacated and after that is done, they be allowed a variance in order to build double bungalows with zero lot lines. The attached map shows the area involved. This will be listed as three separate items on the Planning Commis- sion agenda. The Planner has looked at this; his report is attached. By copy of this memorandum, we are asking for a report from the Engineer and the Public Works Director and Building Inspector. LLK/ms Eric1. cc: Swanson Shanley Truelsen CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Date: F rom: To: February 2, 1981 City Planner City Manager Review of Hussman Investment Company Proposal at Tuxedo Blvd. and Dundee Lane Introduction: This entire site development request involves three agenda review items. In order to comprehend the entire proposal, I will prepare this report on rezoning. II. Rezoning Request It is my opinion that the major issue confronting the proposal is the ultimate use of the land. Since the. present zoning of the site is A-2 Single Family, the proposed duplex development does not follow the code. If this development is to occur, a rezoning is needed. ao Setting for rezoning The surrounding land uses at the si're, as the developer illustrates, is a combination of A-2, Residential B (Duplex) and Commercial. This mix of land use and zoning at and around the site is important to the rezoning use. The comparability and neighborhood acceptance of a re- zoning to permit duplex construction is crucial. It is my opinion that the proposed rezoning would not constitute a spot rezoning because of the adjacent residential B zoning across Kin- man Place and the entire citywide distribution of residential B zones. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Draft Remembering our discussions on establishing a policy on duplex zoning, it was decided that the residential B zoning, shall not be expanded any further than there existing districts. Please keep this in mind as this proposal relates to the score of simi'lar sites citywide. c. Structuring a Proper Recommendation to City Council on the Proposed Rezonin~ It is recommended the Planning Commission either find one of the two following findings to justify a rezoning; otherwise a recommendation of denial is in order: The Original Zoning Was in Error Is there something about the site which after more thorouth review shows the area more suited for duplex development; for example: a. Surrounding land use compatability b. Site development potential - slope, size, etc. page 2 Review of Hussman Investment Company Proposal at Tuxedo Blvd. and Dundee Lane Recent Changes in Community Development Near the Site Reflect a Need ~or Rezonlng In other words what has changed since the sites initial zoning to justify a change? a. Tuxedo Blvd. realignment? b. Near-by commercial development? c. In-filling of nearby residential lots? These substantiating points of fact need to be agreed upon and found to exist to accompany any rezoning request to the Council. Recommendation Rezoning are always a judgemental situation. I believe the planning ~om- missioners have a good feel for the neighborhood area and feel confident on determining the compatability of duplexs at the site. My primary concern, aside from making sure the planning commission's recommenda- tion conforms to the code and is properl~y structured deals with the policy im- plications of rezoning any property in the City from single family to duplex. Through the comprehensive planning process, the issue of duplex zoning was dis- cussed at great length and I feel very adequately addressed. If this parcel is to be rezoned, make sure unique characteristics are present that are not afforded a host of other sites through Mound equally deserving of duplex rezoning. A significant precedent ~ such as this, immediately after updating our compre- hensive plan must be viewed cautiously and supported with solid planning commis- sion findings of fact. Chuck Riesenberg CITY 0F MOUND APPLICATION FOR REZONINg DATE January 6~ 1981 NAME~PLICANT Hussman Investment Company ADDRESS 3140 N. Harbor Lane, Minneapolis, MN ~5441 TELEPHONE 559-2200 LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE REZONED Vicinity northwest of Tuxedo Blvd. and Dundee Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden Subdivision and the adjoining Easterly half of Kinman Place extended to Tuxedo B%vd, realigned. Also the area south of Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden Subdivision bounded by Dundee Lane and Kinman Place and Tuxedo Blvd. realigne ZO~IING REQUEST: FROM A 2 TO Residential Use B REASON FOR REZONING REQUEST: To enable the construction of two double bungalow residences. IS THERE A PETITION ATTACHED? YES NO X " !TV f"! ':: 1 C)I ! "'Q' '---~' Applicah~2-s~iL6terest in Property Signature of Applicant Address 3140 N. Harbor Lane Minneapolis~ MN.. 55441 Tel. No. 559-2200 Owner ~ State why this rezoning, if granted, would not be contrary to the . general purpose and intent of the ordinance to secure public health, safety, general welfare, and substantial justice. See attached i Residents and owners of property within 350 feet: -Mennepin County will furnf~h thi~ directly to Mound in the ~mmediate future. ATTAC~IEI~T TO APPLICATION FOR REZONING -MOUND, MN The proposed zoning is not contrary to the general purpose ~d intent of the ordinance since: 1. The proposal has the equivalent gross density for the parcel as four single family residences, and is in a similar l~w density residential category as single family homes. 0 The proposal provides more open space and is less of a disruption to the land than if four or even three single family residences were constructed. The proposal will not generate any more traffic than wo~ld be generated if the lots were built upon as currently platted and zoned. The proposal will have immediate access to an intersection which will provide excellent vehicular circulation. proposal is set apart or buffered from single famil~ homes The in the area due to the parcel sloping sharply to the so~th and being covered generously with trees. The proposal will be an energy-styled type development with the two double bungalow residences being able to be built out of the existing slope for possible earth shelter type homes with southern ex~.osure to maximize solar heating. This parcel is excellent for this due to its topography and the abundance of deciduous trees which will allow shade during the warm months and sunlight during the colder months. The proposal is an extension of the existing zoning to the west which allows double bungalow residences. Consequently, the proposal would not be considered a "spot zoning". The parcel is amply large enough under the current ordinance to enable two double bungalow lots if the proposed zoning is found acceptable. ;tPPLIC/~TION FOR STREET VACATION CITY OF MOUND DATE January 6,~ 1981 APPLICANT HUSSI~a/l Investment Comp~any ADDRESS 51~Q N. ~arbor Lane, Minneapolis, MN 55441 ~LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: LOT I, 2, 3~ and 4 BIX)CK PLAT iPARCEL SUBDIVISION Arden STREET TO BE VACATEq Easterly half of Kinman Place that adjoins '~foredescribed property extended to Tuxedo Boulevard realignea. Also the area so~t~ of Lots 1-4, Block 12, Arden Subdivision bounded by Dundee Lane and Kfnman Place and Tuxedo Boulevard realigned. REASON FOR REQUEST _1) To landscaoe and improve property as green Space for proposed development of adjoining property; 2) it appears the proposed vacated property is . not Serving the oublic in any direct manner and it is currentIy~taX exempt; 3) motorists are still using the former Tuxedo Boulevard right-of-Way for a drive through even thou6h curbs have been set in place to p~event .this. ~ This is hazardous and a detriment to the adjoining property. We propose ~hat we will fence and landscape adequately in order to prevent motorists from .crossing the property. ~P .... '/ Minneapolis, MN 55441 Tel. No. 559-~aoo CITY OF ...... AppliCant's Interest in Property Landowner of property abutting greet to ~e Residents and owners of property abutting the street to be vacated: Hussman I Investment Company, public and owner of Lot 16~ Block-14,_ Arden $~'bdivision.. Recommended by Utilities: NSP Recommended by City: Public Works Minnegasco ; Fire Chief Continental Tel. ; Engineer Police Chief McCO M B$-KN UT$O N ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS B LAND SURVEYORS [] SITE PLANNER Reply T 128OO I Ptymoul (612) 5~ February 18, 1981 NC. I: idustrial Park Boulevard 1, Minnesota 55441 9-3700 Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Subject: City of Mound Vacation Kinman Place & Tuxedo Road Job #2113 Dear Mr. Kopp: As requested, we forward our comments or recommendations on vacating part of Kinman Road and the old right-of-way of Tuxedo Road adjacent to Lots 1-4, Blcok 12, Arden. When Tuxedo Road was reconstructed in 1978 and 1979 the curve at Dundee Lane and Kinman Place was straigtened out leaving a large area adjacent to Block 12, Arden which is no longer needed for street purposes. There is however, sewer, water, gas, electric and storm sewer lines in the old street right-of-way and if thls is to be vacated a utility easement must be retained. The petition for vacation asks that a portion of Tuxedo Road be vacated. There lsa small piece of City property between this right-of-way and the new street right-of-way. If Tuxedo Road is vacated the property owner should also purchase this land from the clty. The property owner is also asking for a variance and zoning change to allow construction of two - two famlly residences, each to have a zero lot line sideyard setback. Presumably there would be at least two driveways coming out to Tuxedo Road. The Planning Commission may wish to consider requiring a common driveway in the street easement to Dundee to serve the four units. Thls would be a safer situation than addlng new driveways on the sharp curve on Tuxedo Road where the speeds are higher and where there is a much higher trafflc volume. Sewer and water ar~ available for the lots off either Dundee or Tuxedo Road. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Lyle Swanson, P.E. I---I 0 ! I' .: / / / O~ONO I I& scale: I'= 20' PROPOSED JANUARY 6, 1981 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCES ZERO LOT LINE CONCEPT MOUND, MN. APPLICATION CITY OF MOUI~D ~ o'~ !.[ [ OF NAME OF APPLICANT Hussman Investment Company Address 3140 North Harbor Lane Minneapolis, MN 55441 ,FEE $ ZONING Existing: ~r0p0sed: PROPERTY ADDRESS House Numbers Unavailable 25.00 A-2 Res. Use B PLEAT Arden PARCEL~ 130 & see vaca, tion proposed LOT 1-4 & see va- BLOCK ..12 cation proposal Telephone Nux~xber 559-2200 ADDITION Arden INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Number VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT YARD ACCESSORY 30-35 FT. BUILDING Ix FT'I LOT SIZE [ FT.I LOT SQ' FOOTAGE NOTE: REAR YARD N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) (See below) 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. REASON FOR REQUEST: Variance request is for a zero lot line to enable the seoarate units of the proposed two - two family, residences to be individually owned. Also a variance may bg. necess~y for the proposed front yard setbacks of 30' to 35' depending on the interpretation of the ordinance. We feel the proposed front 7ard setback is reasonable and the proposal wil~ blend in with other buildings in the vicinity. A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not tra.~'ferable .... :/ Signature PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non- conforming use January 18, 1981 I~. Leonard L. Kopp City Administrator 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Proposed Zo~ning, Vacation of Right-of-Way, and Vs_riance - Vicinity of Tuxedo Boulevard and Dundee Lane Dear Mr. Kopp: In addition to the previous filing fees, applications, and locational maps submitted to your office for the above noted zoning and vacation of right-of-way, please find enclosed an application, filing fee, and scaled drawing of the proposal for the variance request. For information pertaining to the ownership of the adjoining property of the proposal, please note the property owners list that was directed to your office by Hennepin County. Letters from adjoining property ovmers showing their attitude towards the variance request will be furn±shed as they become available. It should be noted for the area proposed to be vacated, which contains sewer and water utilities~ that we are in favor of having a utility easement exist for m~ntenance purposes. This is shovm on the enclosed scale drawing for the pro- posal but was not mentioned on the formal application for the right-of-way vacation. Enclosed are ten copies of the scaled drawing in order to facilitate staff review. Also enclosed are a few copies of a colored exhibit that illustrates the zoning and vacation proposal. I v~ll be submitting the ss~e material to the Planning Commission and City Council members prior to our meeting dates v~th them. One further point is that originally we envisioned earth shelter housing units for the subject property but after further evaluation we have elected to construct a more conventional housing unit as shown on the enclosed. However, we still plan to utilize the many energy advantages in developing a southerly exposed parcel covered v~th deciduous trees. As previously requested, please advise when the applications will be considered by the City Pla~ng and Zoning Connnission. I suspect that there may be some questions on the proposal ~ud I would be happy to attend a staff meeting in order to answer them. I have taken the liberty to send a copy of all of the informa- tion for the proposal to your planning consultant since this correspondence will reach your office after his Monday visit to Mound. Do not hesitate to call for any reason. Thank you for your cooperation. Paul E. John~ PEJ/ll APP LI GA TION FO]~A RIANGE CITY OF MOUND NAME O~ ~ APPLICANT v .7~z~A/A~-ID INTEREST IN PROPERTY Te le phone Number _~.~ -12 FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address ..ARKIA NC E REQUESTED: O~NT [ , _ -I ACCESSORY SIDE YARD [ FT.J LOT SIZE .[ NOTE: · ! REAR [ FT.[ YARD LOT SQ. FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) y REASON FOR REQIJEST:(~¢e-o~of.~. c~' ~_>o & PROPERTY 7! /', f~.' ~ PLAT ~2~¢~. PARCEL ff~'~ ,LOT ~'C .,4"-- ~, ..BLOCK ADDITION ~ --~ i .... Telephone Numb e r 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 re que s t. , --. .... A. building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the · ,~, .k. c3~ncfl ~.eJolution or variance granted hermes null and void. 1033'~ ' 'Varia~n~'es :are ~t~---~le.~.--- ~ / / _ Signature · m ~ ml~' / PLANNING'COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1-26-81. Approve request for addition to, principal use, but to table to Feb. 23rd meeting the deck proposalDATEPendin9 more information[ 2-10-81 Concur with the Planning Commiss~tgSOLUTIONNO. 81-46~ and approve the addition to the house. DATE COUNCIL ACTION: ;:-'non- conforming use APPLICATION FO] ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAMe OF ~ APPLICANT Address Te le phone Number q?a-12 7'1 INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s LOT..~- S= ~ BLOCK ADDITION t_~Y~4.9 g~-~ ~2 .... Te le phone Number IANCE REQUESTED: ONT I _ I ACCESSORY YARD F¢' ~f FT.J BUI_I_~DING II SIDE YARD I FT'] LOT SIZE I NOTE: · ! YARD FT. .FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement 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. 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 " i ~ ~ ' 4 "~ ': ".k cOUncx.1 rtesolution or variance granted becomes null and void, :are / / I PLANING '~M~SSION RBCOMM~NDATION 1-26-81. Approve request for addition to J principal use, but to table to ~eb. 23rd meeting the deck proposal pending more information[ 1 DAT~ COUNCIL ACTION: 2-10-81 Concur with the Planning Commissi[~l~.SOLUTIONNO. and approve the addition to the house. DATE 81-46 ;:-'non - conforming use 'D RESOLUTION NO. 75 - 373 RESOLUTION ~T,LOWING VARIANCE FOR LAKE FRONT SET BACK ON THE COMMONS (Conditionally) WHEREAS, the ,,zner of Lots 4 - 5 - 6, Block 23, Devon has requested an 8 foot variance for a deck and that said deck protrudes 1.5 feet into the commons,and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends that a Building Permit be obtained for this work, and k~ERFAS, all construction is to be on private property, and ~E~EAS, no enclosure of this deck be allowed at any time. N~W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, M/NNESOTA: That a variance for lake front set back on the Commons be allowed providing that all construction be on private property and that no enclosure be allowed at any time and all other requirements are met. Adopted this 2~rd day of September, 1975 --APP LICA TION FOI~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND ZONING '~ -- INTEREST IN PROPERTY PROPEltT¥ ADDRESS PL~kT ~ 7 7 3 (') PARCEL LOT~'~ f //,~ BLOCK ! - Te le phone _ _ Number ~f~'-~-f~ 7/ADDITION __ j'/-/77-a¥ ,-./'--/ o/7/ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r ~-'y~RIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing ~'~('~7~ . ~-howing location of proposed improveme] /~RoI~T J x/ ~ ACCESSORY] FT[ in relation to lot lines, other buildings YARD J ~ FT.] B~LDING [ ~ ~J~n property and abutting streets. 2. Give owners~p and dimensions of SIDE I ~ FTI - ~TJ ;djoining property. Show ap~ro~m,te YARD ]. ~J LOT SIZE locations of all buildings, driveways, . LOTS~.~~~~ ' ~ RE A R YARD [ ~ F by extending survey or drawing. N.C.U.* or ~/.~t..~ ~ OTHER (describe))~ / REASON FOR REQUEST: and streets pertinent to the application 3. Attach letters from adjoining property owners showing attitude tow; request. b' d%l coun~czt r~"~olutzon or/varzance gran~ed/~ecomes null and vozd. ! r ;\'~'~ ,~V~iance~iare not t;ani~erable, ~: ~' APPLIg4NT~ ~'~~ CO MZN T ON [' DATE COUNCIL AC TION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non- conformin~ use X'Iq'~~o"$I~I) ~o'I oo, uo - ..-. :::. ,zo tmclo o, ou s~[ qO'l:W't ~rr~IcI 'tmmuT>I $o..~ ,¢IZa, q. Oo.t.I o'l, trl: --'. "': ".uot~oo-~p a'I-'ro~ssoq~no$ ~ ut eouoq~ f,,l.oI pt-~e ,,Io zou.zoo ~so~q~,.zoff Gqq.:.q.,.~.: ..~.uu'~... ~:;~:.~'~t".6IIOJ'~u'-poq.'t:,z~op ~u~p,z'~;jo ~ :3t;::)Olit tr'[ 4'91' '1o"I ,jo "4..,~cI 'l.m:I.'r. ,... 0 7- 'HDNI I "A'l,¥~)gl; %. February 2, 1981 I have no objections to the property at 3068 Brighton Blvd, Mound, being converted into a duplex~ 3069 Brighton Blvd, Grimms Store February 2, 1981 I have no objections to the property at 3068 Brighton Blvd, Mound, being converted into a duplex. APP LI CA TION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF MOUND 7 INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE $ PROPERTY/,b..,r~/zl'7 f. PI~T~<:) PARCEL LOT ~ BLOCK FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s Telephone Numb e r ~_.V~~RIANCE RE QUES TED: I" . , YARD'"[~' ~ FT.~ B~LDING SIDE [ YARD FT~ YARD N. C. U.* or NOTE: LOT SIZE FT. LOT SQ. 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvemen 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 affecte, property owners showing attitude toward request. OTHER (describe) /~ REASON FOR REQUEST: ~ ~.~-'~ .... [-"Ji ~x,~, , APPLI~_~ C IY OF !ermit must be applied for within one year from the date of the [ution or variance granted becomes null and void. IT, //~. )'/~V~-~/, ~~ DATE , ~,'/~/ Signa~re ]'PLANNING c~-SSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE *non, conforming use i Carver, Minnesofa 55315 office Of The Pastor Offlc~ Phone: 612-448-4141 Church Phone: 612448~628 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND OF LAND FEE FEB 123 )CITY ©I::: MOUN- FEE OWNER Robert U. Commerford PLAT 1600 Heron Lane Mound, MN. 55364 p ~ o 61980 PARCEL 8440 ~-1/7- Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: Same as above Lot 3,4, and 5 - ]]lock, 22 ShadT~ood Polnt ZON,. To be divided as follows: Lot 3 divided from lots 4 and 5 and variance to build on approximately 5,730 s.f. on Lot 3. (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. 3 From 6,OOO Square fee! TO 5,730 Square fee! Reason: To build new home in the future. ' (signature) ~ ADDRESS 1600 Heron Lane DATE February 13, Mound, MN. 55364 Applicant's interest in the property: Owner 1981 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: DATE Cli70 APPLI ATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER Estate of Michael Wir~z Contact purchaser: Michael J. Byrne 112018 Faber Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PLAT PARCEL Location and complete legal description of properly to be divided: Corner of Warner Land and Waterbury. Lot 54, Whipple Shores ZONING To be divided as follows: The East tract: That part of Lot 54,Whipple Shores which lies easterly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the norhterly li~r~rsaid lot 54 distant 141.6 feet westerly of the northeast/of sa~d Lot 54 to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 54 distnat 83.1 feet The West tract: westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 54. ·hat part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores which lies westerly of a line southeasterly from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 141.6 eet w sterl · of t e r. ea · f said .'Lot 54 (attach survey or sca e d~raw,ng ~s~owlng ~jacent ]~l~reel~, ~i~en~;iton Co~3o~)~'se(~ building sites, sguare fool area of each new parcel designated by number) to a point in the southerly line oF ~ia f.~r q~ d~st~t 83.1 feet, - westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 54 A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO 8,082 As described in enclosed survey, under East Tract. Square feet Reason: 11' Enable lot having two single family houses to have its own seperate lot. ADDRESS 112018 Faber Lane Chaska, MN 55318 in the property: Contract Purchaser TEL. NO. 448-2889 DATE February 14, 1981 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: DATE Address St. CITY OF MOUND 'i [~'[:" ...... :107 [7' ' i ' !,i~ ZONING ,.,...i, as', _. Brighton Blvd. NAME OF ~ ......... '.'-,' :,~: ,-,;-;.vC APPLICANT James Anderson tt ,l ~ ~ -~--P-L-~T PARCEL 3330 Huntington Ave. ~.~_ ....... LOT/ · ~ BLOCK Telephone ~ Louis Park, MN 55216 Number q22-ggq9 ADDITION ~;)t'~--~_~ INTEREST IN PROPERTY Owner FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r ~?A_RIA~CE REQUESTED: \ / ~ NOTE: __ [ ACCES~'ORY l., __ J FT.,I BUILDING ~6 F SIDE [ y FT.] [ FT. YARD. LOT SIZE REAR YARD FT.]LOT SQ. . OOTAO , N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) X REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing ~howing 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. To build a deck patio at the level of the living room to make a new aecess with a new patio door which will replace an old double hung mullion window and an exterior door. This will result in leas heat loss to the dwelling. A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not~ransferab~e.,,~ ~ APPLICANT )~ %~ /{ (U--~-~ DATE~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non-conforming use {, ,,~f PROPERTY ADDRESS -~/1 .~fJ-C/.~_J--Z.~ ~K,..J~. PLAT ~ PARCEL /~ 3dD ,. LOT. 7-~1~ - p1-3-¢- BLOCK- / Telephone ~/?~-~#' ~ Number z/?J-~'z/ ADDITION 'Te lephone Number INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address VAR/ANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONT YARD [ FT.[ ACCESSORY[$ UI LDI NG FT.] SIDE YARD I F T:] LOT SIZE [ F T-I REAR[ I LOTSCZ YARD F T. FOOTAGE 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 re que s t. A council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are not transfer ~ APPLICANT , 'g'.~/~//~', ef '~ DATE building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE. *non- conforming use 51 February 10, 1981 Councilmember Polston the following resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 81-49 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A 16 FOOT BY 4 FOOT SIGN WHEREAS, Kenneth Vistad is requesting a sign variance where he will be doing business at 5241 Shoreline Blvd. Plat 62060, Parcel 1630, Shirley Hills Unit "F" Block 1, Lots 7 - 20 and 26-35 PID 13-117-24 34 0020, and WHEREAS, said sign would state The Wood Smith's and be compatible with and no larger than Sally's sign on front of building and be attached to said building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That Council concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does hereby approve the sign variance for The Wood Smith's. Said sign to be 16 ft. in length and 4 ft. in width and affixed to building as stated above. A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Charon and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of; Charon, Lindlan, Polston, Swenson and Ulrick, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City C~erk. Mayor Attest: City Clerk CMC 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-93 SUBJECT: County Road 110 Construction Agreement Attached is a copy of the Construction Cooperative Agreement between the City and the County for the construction of County Road # 110 - Commerce Boulevard. On Page 2, it states that the City must pay their share within 30 days of billing. Bills will be submitted as the work progresses. It is recommended that the Mayor and Manager be authorized to sign the agree- ment. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Ay, ,South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 935-3381 February 26, 1981 Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 CSAH 110 FROM CSAH 125 TO CSAH 151 COUNTY PROJECT NOS. 7921 & 7002 Dear Mr. Kopp: Submitted herewith are two copies of a Construction Cooperative Agreement for the above referenced project for which arrangements are being made to call for bids. If the agreement is satisfactory, please have both copies signed by the appropriate city officials and return to this office. Upon completion of the remaining signatures by county officials, we will send you one fully executed copy of the agreement for your file. Also, please return a certified copy of the resolution authorizing the mayor and manager to sign the agreement. As indicated in the agreement, the City of Mound's total estimated cost share for the project is $308,659.71. If you have any questions concerning the agreement or revisions required, please contact me as soon as possible. Si.ncerely, Vern Genz~tl. ge~r~.. E. Chief, Design Dfvision VG/WGM:l ar Enclosures HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer Agreement No. PW 02-06-81 County Project Nos. 7002 & 7921 County State Aid Highway NO, 110 City of Mound County of Hennepin CONSTRUCTION COOPERATIVE AGREEJ4ENT AGREEMENT Made and entered into this day of , 19 , by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County" and the City of Mound, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, The County and the City for some time have been negotiating to bring about the improvement of that portion of County State Aid Highway No. 110 located between County State Aid Highway 125 and County State Aid Highway 151 (Engineer's Stations LG 220+79.6 to 105+78.86) as shown on the County Engineer's plans for County Project Nos. 7921 and 7002, which improvements contemplate and include grading, drainage, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, traffic signal system, conduit system, Bridge No. 27588, and other related improvements, and WHEREAS, A portion of the above described projects lies within the corporate limits of the City, and WHEREAS, The County Engineer.has heretofore prepared an engineer's estimate of quantities and unit prices of material and labor for the above described projects and an estimate of the total cost for contract work in the sum of!One Million Five Hundred Ninety-Nine Thousand Four Hundred Two Dollars and Twenty-Five Cents ($1,599,402.25). A copy of said estimate (marked Exhibit "A") is attached hereto and by this reference is made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, It is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the provisions of M.S. Sec. 162.17, Subd. 1. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED: I That the County or its agents will advertise for bids for the work and construction of the aforesaid Project Nos. 7002 and 7921 under a single contract, receive and open bids pursuant to said advertisement and enter into a contract with the successful bidder at the unit prices specified in the bid of such bidder, according to law in such case provided for counties. The contract will be in form and will include the p]ans and specifications prepared by the County or its agents, which said plans and specifications are by this reference made a part hereo;. II The County will administer the contract and inspect the construction of the contract work contemplated herewith. However, the City Engineer of Mound shall cooperate with the County Engineer and his staff at their request to the extent necessary, but will have no responsibility for the supervision of the work. III The County or its agents will acquire all right of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of said projects. , The final cost of all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for the construction of those portions of said projects lying within the corporate limits of the City, plus all costs incurred by the County in acquiring said rights of way, permits and/or easements shall be apportioned 50 percent to Hennepin County and 50 percent to the City of Mound. The right of way costs incurred as described herein shall include all acquisition costs including, but not limited to, any and all damages occurring to any person or persons, including~rivate utilities in relocating or removing or adjusting main conduits or other structures located in or upon the land taken and within the present right of way; or damage in procuring such right of way, whether such damage is caused by the County or the City in the performance of such contract with respect to the improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 110, as shown on the plans for County Project Nos. 7002 and 7921. The County will periodically, as parcels are acquired, prepare and submit to the City itemized accounts showing right of way and acquisition costs incurred by the County. The City share of said costs shall become due and payable within thirty (30) days after submittal. The estimated right of way expenses described herein are indicated in Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. IV The City shall reimburse the County for its share in the construction cost of the contract work for said projects and the total final contract construction cost shall be apportioned as set forth in division of cost breakdowns in said Exhibits "B" and "C" attached hereto. It is further agreed that the Engineer's Estimate -2- referred to on Page ] of this agreement is an estimate of the construction cost for the contract work on said projects and that the unit prices set forth in the contract with the succes$(ul bidder and the final quantities as measured by the £flg4neer shall govern in computing the total final contract construction cost for apportioning the cost of said projects according to the provisions of this paragraph. V In addition to payment of the City's proportionate share of the contrmct construction cost, the City also agrees to pay to the County a su~n equal to twenty percent (ZO%) of the amount computed as the City's share of the said contract construction cost, it being understood that said additional payment by the City is its proportionate share of all engineering costs incurred by the County in connection with the work performed within the corporate limits of the City under this contract. VI Within sixty (60) days after an award by the County to the successful bidder, the City shall deposit with the Hennepin County Director of Property Taxation, ninety percent (90%) of the estimated City share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the projects. Sa~d estimated City share shall be based on actual contract unit prices for estimated quantities shown in the plans. The remaining ten percent (10%) is to be paid to the County upon the completion of the projects and submittal to the City of the County Engineer's Final Estimate for the projects showing the City's final share in the contract construction and engineering costs for the projects. Upon payment of the Final Estimate to the successful bidder by Henneptn County, any amount remaining as a balance in the deposit account will be returned to the City; likewise any amount due the County by the City upon payment of the Final Estimate by the County shall then be paid by the City as its final payment for the construction and engineering cost of these projects. VII The County Engineer will prepare monthly progress reports as provided in the specifications. A copy of these reports will be furnished to the City upon request. VIII All records kept by the City and the County with respect to these projects shall be subject to examination by the representatives of each party hereto. -3- IX The County reserves the right not to issue any permits for a period of five (5) years after completion of the projects for any service Cuts in the roadway surfacing of the County Highways included in these projects for any installation Of underground utt)(ties which would be considered as new work; service cuts shall be allowed for the maintenance and repair of any existing underground utilities. X It is agreed that the City shall, all at its own expense, perform the following operations: 1) Remove and replace all City owned signs that are within the construction limits of these prOjects. 2) Remove all ekisting City owned street light standards and install light standards and luminaires on the light bases that are included as a part of the Contract work. 3} Perform all necessary rearrangements of its water main and appurtenances to accon~date the construction of Project No. 792! between Engineer's Station LG 245+65 and the northerly end of said project during the period of grading operations. XI Upon completion of the project, the County, at its expense, shall place the necessary signs and the City, at its expense, shall provide the enforcement for total prohibition of on-street parking in the con~nercial business district as p~e~ently exists between Lynwood Boulevard and Auditor's Road and prohibition of peaklhour on-street parking, Monday through Friday {except holidays), on the rematntn! portions of County State Aid Highway 110 constructed under these projects within itS,corporate limits. Also, on-street parking will be prohibited between 2:00 a.m. and BiO0 in accordance with City Ordinance No. 329, Section 46.29, Subd. C amended. Any modification of the above parking restrictions shall not be made Without first obtaining a resolution from the County Board of Commissioners permtttt)n§ said modification. Detouring of traffic will be necessary during the construction. The detour routes shall be mutually agreed upon by the County and the City. All guide signs, regulatory signs and pavement markings shall be furnished, installed and maintained by the County at no expense to the City. -4- The County will, at its expense, maintain said detour routes while they are in use. The County does not agree to become responsible for any damage caused by increased traffic on City streets not marked as an official detour or alternate route. XIII It is understood and agreed that upon completion of the improvement proposed herein, the concrete sidewalk and bituminous bicycle path within the corporate limits 'of the City included in said improvement shall become the property of the City and all ~tntenance. restoration, repair or replacement required thereafter shall be performed by the City at its own expense. It is further understood that neither the County, its officers, agents or employees, either in their individual or official capacity, shall be responsible or liable in any manner to the City for any claim, demand, action or cause of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of negligent performance of the hereinbefore described maintenance, restoration, repair or replacement work by the City, or arising out of the negligence of any contractor under any contract let by the City for the performance of said work; and the City agrees to defend, save and keep said County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from all claims, demands, actions or causes of action arising out of negligent performance by the City. its officers, agents or employees. XIV The City agrees that any City license required to perform electrical work within the City shall be issued to the Contractor or the County at no cost to the Contractor or the County. Electrical inspection fees shall not be more than those established by the State Board of Electricity in the most recently recorded Electrical Inspection Fee Schedule. XV The City shall install, or cause the installation of an adequate two wire, 120 volt, single phase, alternating current electrical power connection to the traffic control signals and integral street lights included in the contract at the sole cost and expense of the City. Further, the City shall provide the electrical energy for the operation of the said traffic control signals and street lights at the sole cost and expense of the City. -S- XVl The City shall not revise by addition or deletion, nor alter or adjust any component, part, sequence, or timin9 of the aforesaid traffic control s(gnals, however. nothing herein shall be construed as restraint of prompts pruUent action by properly constituted authorities in situations where a part of such traffic control signals may be Uirectly involved in an emergency. XVII Upon completion of these projects, the County shall thereafter maintain and repair said traffic control signals all at the sole cost and expense of the County. Further, the County, at its expense, shall maintain the integral street lt§ht$ for the City except for the maintenance of photo-electric controls, relamping, glassware, and cleaning of the glassware thereof. The City, at its expense, shall thereafter maintain the above mentioned photo-electric controls and perform the necessary relamping, glassware cleaning and replacement. XVIII Upon completion of these projects, the street lights and all electrical components of the lighting system included in these projects shall become the property of the City and the City shall thereafter maintain and provide electrical energy for the lighting system at its own expense. XIX It is further agreed that each party to this agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other person whomsoever for any claims, damages, actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the performance of any work or part hereof by the other as provided here(n~ and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or proceeding conwnenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein. XX It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all ~t~er persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act or the Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on -6- behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the ~rk or services pr~vtded to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the County. Also, ark~ and all employees of the County and all other persons engage~ by the County in the performance of any work or services required or provided for ~erein to be performed by the County shall not be considered employees of the City, a~d that any and a)l claims that may or might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act Qr the Unemploj~nent Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said en~ployees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City. XXI The provisions of M.S. 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance re ating to civil rights and discrimination and the affirmative action policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. -7- IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, lhe parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and yemr first above written. · CITY OF HOUND !!i' ' By: Hayor (Seal) Date: ATTEST: And: Manager Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN By: ~ '11 Chairman of its County Boar i Date: Deputy County Auditor Date: Upon proper execution, this agreement will be legally valid and binding. Assistant County Attorney 72~-- 37--'~ Date: Approved as to execution And: (,~, Associate Count. y Administr~r and County Engineer )11 Date: ii ih RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL By: Director, Department Date: By: Assistant County Attorney Date: i 1 i ii· 4., CITY Mound, March 4, i I COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-89 SUBJECT: Police Manpower The discussion on whether the C (Council Memorandum 81-80) was~ when it is hoped the entire Cour Attached is a copy of a report power needs and deployment. This will be on the March 10th cc: Hudson ,$hould have 10 or 1 ' Iti led until the March)~e! p°l e persons would be present..)Oth I,,eting the Acting Police ~hief~i~n man- INTEROFF E MEMO TO: FRO lk{: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp - City Manager Sgt. William Hudson - Acting Chief Manpower Needs for the Mound Poll As of the date of this memo, the police Of those, two are not available to duty March 14, 1981, the number of sworn pol ment will drop to 9 with the resignation On or about March 17, 1981, I am suppose ability for duty of the two officers.who We have, up to this point in time, cance of overtime that has been expended to absences due to sickness and training. in the year when officers who have accun take that time off. For a Very long time, in this department, daily duty shift due to the demands and however, on occasion in the past, filled scheduling purposes, and'for scheduling chief as ! have mentioned earlier. For the last eight years, the department person again, due to demands and nature the schedule, but on cases of emergency, Addressing supervisors, their scheduling for the peak and critical times and to There has been considerable talk in ref 11 men (which has been budgeted for 198' about May !, 1981, after council review. needed during their duty shift in addit' and supervisors. ~ Before I can honestly give you a credible several things: . 1. Does the City want 1, 2, or 3~ 2. Do you want the juveniel offi 3. Do you want an investigator. 4. Do you want supervision in.the 5. Do you want the chief to pull regular chiefs duties. March 2, i epartment rtment currently has i0 worn officers. to job related'injuries. Effective :ficers with the MoUnd P ,lice Depart- iff. Smith. ~ave some indicatioh as o the avail- out injured. all vacations to keep wn the amount ~fficers injured oniduty and during practice, however, wil harm us later ed a considerable amout of time, : chief of police has nc pulled a 'e of the chief's jbb. he chief, ~ty slot during emergen¢ es. For ~ses only, we do not cou t on' the staffed an investigator This ~e job, has not been fig red in in filled in. lifferent to allow for s ~ervisors for the chief in his a~ mce. ' to the department beini staffed w}th tion to going ~:o loIlaen on or has also been stated thirst- 2 men are a juvenile office~ and]inveStigator ~onse as to manpwoer, I must know on per shift. ;ld and if so, how much nd what times. 11 duty shift in addit' ~n to his L ~onard Kopp March 2, 1981 Page Two In answering the above questions, I 1. It is difficult at best to haw shift in addition to his duti¢! 2. It is difficult for an investl! shift in addition to his inveSl 3. To have 2 men on duty per shill barring vacations, holidays, 4. With an 11 man department, th~ used up on vacations and holi 5. My previous memo given to you keep in mind several 'ichief responsible for a chief of police. to be responslble for ltive duties and be effe( takes 3 men assigned ing, sick, and job injuI k time for one person i me. ld also be addressed fo Essentially, until it is determined if and full strength is again obtained, we shift and occasionally two. .Investigati County due to the fact that person is go and acting chief responsibilities, perfo a l0 man or an Ii man cally be providing 11 also have to be'dele, have to, in addition 1 duties. An Il man department, with an investigat i! d chief that do nol per responsibilities, still cannot insure 2 take into consideration vacation time, s unexpected injuries. However, with an have now, we could provide 2 men on dur vision, assuming we are at full strenc A 10 man department would provide havin circumstances ! have described above, v peak and critical times. I can honestly say that I feel it would/ gation services from Hennepin County wh opposed to all other agencies. It should also be noted that we are ente power needs. Keeping this in mind, i dc~ on per shift. ! also reco~;~m~nd, thru investigator. In additi~6, I also v S/~/E. Wi 11 iam Hudson //~undz/' Police Department WH/sh each shift all ti :lime, holidays, tral department, under and critical ti :hings: :ull duty on most of the t ildom could we proV stake to rely p? look at our case~ peak activity that we have irated needs, a juV adequate supervis, i, full duty ive. each shift times. essentially input. ]epartment · man on per red to Hennepin investigations ~rm full road when you n and the ~ heduling we les,~ lith super- on investi- lce rate as to man- formed officers and an the above. 3-1 )-81 CITYiiIpF HOUND Hounl( M i nnesota Ma re COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-88 SUBJECT: Park Commission Minu Attached is a copy of the Park C¢ The only action required is the r that Warren Shaffer be allowed to access. Also the Council's attention is ¢ Alma's dock which also appears or Permits. 4, 1981 es ~mission minutes for Febru )commendation of the Park place a mooring buoy off :rected to the discussion the Council Memorandum on Lepr~ird L. Kopp ~ I. ~ cc: D. Rother ry 12th. Dmmission idgewood nA1 & iDock MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISS MEETING of FEBRUARY 12, 1! Present: Hal Larson, T. oni Case, Cathy Bailey, Pete Hard, Robert F1 Burns, Alan Greene, Chris Bollis, Don Rother, Donald Ulrick and se~ De~aney. Citizens present were: Warren Shaffer, attorney and son Philip bo line Drive, Navarre, Roger Rager of 1649~Gull Lane and Norton Hatll Lane and Jackie Meyer past director of Summer Recreational Programl Warren Shaffer requested a variance as a lakeshore owner for a doc property, the island off the north shore~of Priest Bay, as his lak facilitate the 26' sailboat he owns without interfering with neighi explained that being a lakeshore owner would place him in the 3rd I much as he was not applying for a dock permit but a variance for mi land, would circumvent the priority. Considerable discussion on ti ible impact for additional requests for ~'~nooring bouys due to gas si boats and increasing popularity of sail )oats. Ward stated that e, is perferred over power boats and the fu:ure indicates increased u boats. Greene referred to impact on the commons that this request wanted to know how many sail boats could Shaffer stated that the Water Patrol wanl they would not object to a mooring bouy ~ suggested that Shaffer apply for a moori~ 'MOTION BY Bailey seconded by Ward, "Reco~ i mission to place a mooring bouy for his ,~ Water_Patrol approval." Unanimously app 'MOTION BY Bailey seconded by Ward, "Set f all lakeshore in Mound." Unanimo · It was brought out that Lake Minnetonka be accomodated by mooring :ed approval or statement Iff the island owned by th ~g bouy permit through the ~mend to Council that Shaf! ailboat off island at Rid roved. Ip a committee to study us Isly approved. ~onservation Department (LI out the rules and regulations on mooring/bouys but the actual permt the Water Patrol and subject to annual renewal. Larson named Alan Greene as chairman with Ward, Burns and himself Committee to study usage of sail boat moorings on lakeshore in Mou~ ~Norton and Philip Hatlie representing A1 & Alma's made a presentatl drawings and written outline on history of dock there and problems it abutting the public beach. Hatlie admitted that the previous d~ violation since 1971 by encroaching on a portion of the public bea lng setbacks as set forth in Ordinance. Bollis clarified situatio~ State maintains that 150' shall be between a public beach area and area. Mound recommends and will tolerate a 50' area between recog Hatlie informed Commission that proposed new dock would have the e~ into lake to be accurate, would extend the lateral docking an addit previous 2 to proposed 3) and propose to maintain a barier across in the form of a dock, that would be utilized by the restaurant. separate the e.o_twining areas of safety with commercial dock permit~ dock application from proposed barriers seemed needed to enforce s~ area. Any barriers and/or safeguards proposed or installed are the of the City not the applicant. It was brought out that Mr. Nolan had purchased the lot next to hi it was now possible for him to move the docks away from the publ aten, Cheryl retary Dorothy :h of 3609 Shore- e of 3105 Priest permit on City shore will not ~ors rights. Roi ,riority but ina[ ,oring bouy off i tis request and ~ortage for :ologically, sail ~age of sailing would have and off the island? rom the City City. Bollis City. er be given per- ewood Access, wi .ge of sailboat CD) ordinance se t is obtained th s members of the d. on with numerous encountered with ,ck had been in h and not mainta ~ by explaining t dock or boating ized beach area st lot line exte~ ional space (f he swimming beac Greene m~_anaged t~ and stated thatl feguards at beac~ responsibility property and thm' further tha~ he is now proposing. Consensus that Nolan apply for dock permit with proposed docks, dimensions, number of laterals, increased dockage etc. and it wou1 be.~up to the ~ dock inspector and Council to see that .it conforms or there are an~ variances Mound Advisory Park Com~sion Meeting of 2-12-81 page 2 It should be up to the City to provide safety and regulations of swimming beach and maintain and regulate restricted water area between beach and where boats are allow~ Roger Rager requested that he be given a Commercial Boat/Dock licn se on Commons he now has his dock on plus permission to i~tall a sign identifying ~ger's Pub from the water and a light for illuminating said dock and sign. Also q estioned possibi!i of extending his dock out into water up to 100 feet to accommodate boats coming by water to get to his place of business? It was brought out that th~ Ordinance for all dock on public land or commons will allowia dock to extend out as tar as to be ableil to encounter a depth of 36" for a boat up to 100'. If Rager's doc~ is over 36" water depth he Cannot extend dock beyond ithat length. Greene stated the light would enhance the use of the dock and also help identify the correct doc~ in that darkenec area of shoreline, the sign would serve the same purpose. Hal suggested Rager work with Don on request for a maintenance permit for the sign and lighi and raised the question of the legality of a commercial dock on the Commons? Ulrick, as Council Rep. gave lengthy report, going over previous r,~ord and backgro~r of the life guard program, the Community iServices function, how it ~as financed andi! why fees are necessary. Jackie Meyers was present for input as Director of Summer Recreation Program for Mound for the last 2 years. The Soccer Pro~ram was very suc~ ful and it is hoped that the age brackets can be further divided t~ have better repl sentation. Thinking of two fee structures, one for Mound participants and one for those participating but living outside of Mound. It was brought o~t by Meyers that all of the money paid went into the CommUnity Services. Ward suggested that possi the Mound merchants help fund some phase,of the soccer program. The Softball phase of the sports program was gotten into, there ar~ more and more t~ using and demanding time on our ball fielids. It was Ulrick's suggestion that Commu~ Services charge a fee and schedule games~ times, ball parks etc. so as to utilize f~ potential for the popular and expanding oompetition of softball, t was suggested representative be selected to represent MOund on the School Distri t's Softball cil, Larson stated that Jon Lynott would!~e well qualified to act s that represent~ tive but as he was absent, he would contact him to see if he would accept the respo~ ibility. Soccer being so popular last year, it is i~ certainty that it will e continued and panded in the 1981 season. !~ MOTION BY Greene seconded by Case, "Reco~end to Council to contin the Soccer Pro! in 1981 at a fee not to exceed $3.50 per!iPerson and possibly less, ~ayable to Commu, Services." Unanimously approved, ii! Meyers raised the question if there was ~o be another Summer Recre~ tional Program sponsored by the City and if so, if she ~ere to continue as the Di ~ctor? Was con- sensus that City wanted her to again ser~e in that capacity. MOTION BY Ward seconded by Case, "Recommend to Council that Jackie ~eyer be retaine, as Director of Summer Recreational Program for 1981 season, offere¢ FREE to youngst, residing in Mound." Unanimously approve~. The summer life guard program was reviewed by Ulrick and he requested assurance tha~ the City would continue to retain the life guards as selected.and slalaries be paid by Community Services, who in turn charge the City for this service. Program revi briefly, guards are being used where swimming lessons are being given on designated! beaches, 3 on Island Park, 1 on Three Points, Sandy Beach and Moun¢ Bay Park. Wage~ for life guards last year were on graduating scale, $3.20, $3.60 acd $3.80 per hour MOTION BY Bailey seconded by Burns, "Recommend to Council that Mound continue with Westonka Corr~unity Services for the life guard program and support it the same Mound Advisory Park Co~ssion Meeting of 2-12-81 page 3 as last year." Unanimously approved. Question arose on the possibility oF ins used for swimming and part of the summe in 1980 there was only one o~hree Point' construction program there were two, Thi stated it was difficult with many of th~ program for half a day to not have faci MOTION BY Ward seconded by Case, "Recom guard being added to three strategic bel hours daily, 3 days a week, within the ~ by the City. This would put more super( and decrease safety hazard of unsupervi talling more satellites al recreational program? Bc I"at Canary Beach,' prior'ti ee Points Park and Three youngsters being in the s ities when they were at t~ end that City Cou~ci:l ent~ ches, in addition to Mount chool district and have ti ised and guarded beaches ed swimming beaches." No various beaches lis stated that the 1979 street ints Beach. Ja ummer recreat e beaches. rtain idea of li Bay Park, for program funded Or use by reside !response from motion invalid. Softball was again discussed, it was U1 ~ick's opinion that Commun|lty Services coul~ together a program whereby they could schedule any and all activities demanded or These would include any type of ball game, fields where~they were~to be played fo the City and School District, tennis co~ rts, buildings, picnic grounds and/or faci All this and more could be handled by C~mmunity Services for a fee It was also s, ed that commercial teams pay a User Feelrather than City paying activities. Greene suggested that the I~ecreational Committee kee lng a fee for scheduling of games on la~d owned and maintained by the City Staff for expertise on scheduling of games etc. without fees. In the absence of Kopp, a memo on the r~ntal of the Community Cenl basis by the E1 Shaddai Church was pres~nl~ed. Considerable discus of responsibility of being tied to a special interest or group etC rental of public building. MOTION BY Ward seconded by larson, "Recdmmend to Council to formu' that no public building be used on a cor~tinuing use basis as long recreational buildings being used by th~ public." Ward and Case Bai~, Flatten, Burns and Green Voted ~y motion DEFEATED. MOTION BY Greene seconded by Ward, RecOmmend that Council deny t~e request of E1 Church for rent of Community Center on a long term basis." Unanimously ap Minutes of the meeting from January 8, 981 were presented for ap~ MOTION BY Larson seconded by Case, "Min approved. There being no further business to disc~ seconded by Burns "Meeting be adjourne~ February 26, 19811~ Unanimously approve~ es be approved as submitt s and time being 11:45 p. until next scheduled Disc D. De Laney r scheduling of an open mind on the City. We ca~ dditional expens~ on a long ter~ Sion among membel on a long term ~te a stated poi ~s there are oth ~ted aye, Larson. roval. ed." Unanimous' motion by Lar ~ssion Meeting ot CITY OF J~oun~, M MOUND February 26, 1981 3-10'B1 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-90 SUBJECT: Deferred Assessment At the time of deferring assessments, one of the citizens sh~ income in the previous year (the year used for deferment) in excess of 510,0OO. He says that he could have shown a loss since he had a loss gains that could have been listed in either year. He has in, that he was informed that the year to be used for deferment other than the one used; therefore, he did not defer the los~ year used. The situation is that his income in the year before the defe~ the year after the deferment was less than $10,OOO and he is that the deferment be allowed on that basis. We have contacted the Attorney and his reply is attached. A is a copy of the resolution establ!ishing the deferments. ~ed an slight ment and asking so attached n capital icated Duld be in the A.THoMAs WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A. PEARSON THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER 3~ JAMES D. L-ARSON JOHN W. WOOD, JR, LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON pROFIE~iONAL A~OClATION MINNEAPOLIs. MINNESOTA 55402 February 23, 1981 Mr. Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Deferred Assessments Dear Len: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of Februa 1981. The City Council is the o~e who establishes the and the criteria for the allowance of deferred assessm~ senior citizens. I believe the questions which you h~ mitted regarding a person whose ~ncome went over the $i figure is one that has to be dec: may want to ask the council if ti standards in lieu of inflation ar figure was established some year~ I do not see a legal question in, and criteria are the responsibil ~ded by the City Counc: Ley wish to reconsider ~d the fact that the $i ago. dived here as the sta~ y of the City Council very?truly your s.o/~ :i~ Pearson i City Attorney CAP :ms TELEPHONE (812) 338-8911 :y 5, standards ~nts for ze sub- 10,000 [1. You their LO,O00 Ldards CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-87 SUBJECT: Dock Permits - Com~ercial Attached is a copy.of a memorandum from the Dock Inspector Commercial Dock Permits for: Bay Point Martin & Sons A1 & Alma's 59 slips 30 slips & 14 boats on 15 slips It is recommended that Bay Point and Martin &.Sons. be grant, & Alma's be tabled until the new plans are presented. (See mission Minutes of February 12, 1981). They are in this pac L'~o~pard L. Kopp cc: D. Rother 3-10-81 ecommend i ng and d, but A1 ~ark Corn- <et. March 2, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp Dock Inspector Commercial Dock Applications The following have applied for commercial licences for 1981. Bay Point ~,~rtin & Sons 59 slips 30 slips 14 boats on lahd $228.00 $174.00 A1 & Almas 15 slips $130.00 Ail applicants are filing for the same amount of slips as 1980. Al & Almas are changing the dock plan fqr 1981. Surfside has not filed for 1981 as of t~is date. Respectfully, Don Rother Dock Inspector DR/j cn 5341 M,~,, Y V,' O O D MOUf,~D. M,i ~i~,~ESOTA (612) 472-~ ~5f NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS NAME OF BUSINESS CITY OF MOUND MOUND I~INN'ESO~A., COMMERCIAL DOCK APPLICA?If~N Are you now, or have you been enga§ed in a similar business If So, when EXACT LCEATI(15I OF BUSINESS STREET ADDRESS ~LEASE ENCLOSE THE FCLLOWINO WITH THIS APPLICATICBI: 1) A drawin9 to scale of the type, size and Shape of the proposed, and the location and type o£ buoy(s)~to be A drawing to scale of off-Street parking'mrovided for three rental boPt st~lls, bouys-or slios~- A stPtement outlining the mPnner, extent and degree-o: dock lsed; each f ' US e Dom_temple[ed :for the dock Drooosed. '' ' ' ' ' Payment of permit fee must be included with this ampi 9ati°n; -" "' ' t~'-s late fee of $~0.00 - - ..... ~-~ New applicant fee ' $200.00 Number of slips on water~ $2.00=,~ I N~ber of boats stored BAY POINT P, PARTt~ENT HO;4ES 4J63 W!LSHIRE BOULEVARD " .-/ ' ~p ~ '=00'Z$ x O~amqem uo sd!Is jo a~qmn~ qoa~qns ac 'uo~eo~I 00'00I$ Iemeuez ee$ o!sea 00'00g$ aa$ queo~Idde meK 00'0g$ 2° a~$ ~qeI eoq II~qs I qoa~N ~q2e ~o uo p~A!~OO~ suo!~eo~Idd~ IIV d~e s!qq qq!a papnlou! ~q qsnm aa$ q!maad $o qu~uufed · pasoaoad Moop arq ao$ p~qeIdma~moo ~$n ~ ~aSap pue quaopc~ '~uudm ~q~ 8u!u!I~no quama~qs V 'Sa!IS ao s£noq ~sII~qS q~oq Ia~Uaa a~aR~ qoe~ mOS p~p!Aoad 6u!Maea qma~qs-$$o $o aleos o~ 8uIae~p V "pasn Moop a (5 (~ aq oo, (s).~onq $o ad,~0, pua uo~.qeooI aq:[ pue ~pasodoad t~ $o adeq.$ puc az!s ~ad~c[ arq 20 aIeos oq 6u!ae~p ¥ (I :I~)I£VOI'IdHV S'fHA HAIR 9MIMOqqOd gl-IA ~SOqOl%q ~SV~qH ,~OIS/AIOHflS v_ ~ /v ~ MDOq~,-,z- ~f- ~//Dq - MOIJ~IHOS~ q¥9~q SS~NISfl8 SO MDIAVZDq /DVX~ uaqa ~o$ /[ ;auIsnq aeI!mIs e u! pa6e§ua u~aq noX OAeq ~IO CmOU no~ olaf SS'~I~IISfl8 ~0 ~N (]NflOM -HO X£IO £kn/OIqdclV ~0 MkUfM sI3!£ pue o~o~.Fqns ~q m~!S 30 aL~eE =0_0_'I$ x ~ pueI uo p~aoqs sqeoq $o aaqtunK ,'7~3~ 'Of =O0°g$ x ¢-i :.~qem uo sd!Is 30 a~qmnK oo'oo15 oo'oo25 aa$ queo!Idde aaK OISIAIGHgS %, ~too~ :Z '/ zo"t - ~zzaz~o~a uzqa ~os ~ Ls$~u[snq ~eI!m!s e u! p~e~ua u33q no,~ 3^eq ~o ~z~ou noX ~.z¥ i~: '1861 L 7, g3J ; ££60/ YJJ3 S'2{iqf%IH SS%;NISfl8 SO ~tKVM SS~ClOV £MVOIqddV ,HO ~k~M #3 The purpose of this permit is to allow the safe mooril of watercraft for the patrons of A1 & Alma's, owned b Nolan, and for the dockage of J.W. Nolan's two boats. ~g --I ,001 .T I' I I II II I'~ LOT 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-94 SUBJECT: License Renewal - Cigarettes Application for the renewal of cigarette licenses haye beer from the following: Grimm's Store ~ O~ ~ ~ ~' ~ P.D.Q. Food Store ~' ~- ~0'- ~ ~T~ receiyed 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-95 SUBJECT: Permit for Variance of Off Street Parking Ordinance Attached is a copy of a Winter Parking Permit request for!3040 High- land Boulevard. The Public Works Department is recommending approval of tSis request. City of Mound Date VARIANCE REQUEST, OFF STREET PARKING ORDINANCE APPX~. APPOINTMENT TIME FC~t ON SITE INSPECTION A.M. P, DL~_§RAM OF LOT - Use reverse side of this request: ~t~RKS & RECOMmeNDATIONS BY INDIVIDUAL MAKING INSPECTION 3-1 O-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 5, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-96 SUBJECT: City Land - Garden For several years the Ray Kramer's have been leasing the C land by Well # 3 for garden space. Attached is a copy of letter requesting the land for the 1981 summer. An authorization for the Mayor and Manager to enter into a lease for $I.OO is recommended, i ty Le~n<~-f-d [_. Kopp 3-1OI81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota March 4, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-85 SUBJECT: Committee Assignments - Present City Manager On March 3rd, consideration of the first paragraph of Counc Number 81-76 was continued to March 10th. / ~'-~ortard L. Kopp ' ~ ' 1 Memorandum 2-24-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota February 24, 1981 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 81-76 SUBJECT: Committee Assignments - Present City Manager On February 3, 1981, Mayor Lindlan wrote the City Council on the subject of this memorandum suggesting that possibly the. present manager could continue on some of the committee assignments he now holds. It was also suggested the manager be named as the City's reF tive to the Suburban Rate Authority and the Mayor become the nate. resenta- al ter- February 3~ 1~§1 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The City Council Mayor Lindlan Committee Assignments of the present City Manager Presently the City Manager holds Council appointments to the Suburban' Rate Authority (SRA) The Cable T.V. Committee, and as a City employee is on a committee for the A.M.M., The League of Cities and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Suburban Public Health Nursing Service (SPHNS). If, after retirement, the Manager has some sort of City title, he could continue most and maybe all of these assignments. It is suggested he be given some sort of City title so his experience will be of use to the City on these committees and boards. Presently ! am the representative to the Suburban Rate Authority and the Manage~ the alternate~ The Manager has been elected to the Execu- tive Board of the SRA for 1981. It is suggested that the Manager be made the representative and the Mayor, the alternate.to SRA. Leighton Lindlan Mayor LL/ms 3-10-81 CITY OF MOUND Mound. M~nnesota March 4, 1981 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 81-41 SUBJECT: Lost Lake Storage Area A few weeks ago, the Council was sent a letter from the P. C. A. regarding the Mound dump. They were referring to the Lost Lake Storage Area. Attached is a copy of a letter from the Public Works Director which explains the situation. Leonard L. Kopp TO: FROM: SUBJECT: INTEROFFICE ME%0 Leonard Kopp Public Worl%s Director Letter to P. C. A. Attached is a copy of a letter sent to the P. C. A. in answer to their letter regarding the ~und Dump as they call it. I spoke with Jeff I~rthun today and ~hey are a~reeable with lettinA the contractors operate out of this area aEain this year. DATE ..... l~rch 3~ ~rch 3, 1981 5341 tV~AYV,'OOD F;OA~' MOUND MINNESOTA 553( (612) 472-115: Jeff I~rthun Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Division of Solid Waste Enforcement Section 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Dear Jeff As you know from our phone conversation of }~rch 3, 1981 I am in receipt of your letter concerning: 14ound Dump (HN-012) S-13, T-117N, R 2~W. In 1978 we began a five year road project program in l.~und, We allowed the' various contractors to park equipment and place temporary stock piles in the area forementioned. ~ Over the last three years numerous'items were allowed to accumulate in this area. Since your inspector was on the site last summer the majority of these items have been removed and the area is about 75% cleaned up.' 'could be allowed No items were placed in a position wherelany debri or run offi into the wetlands area. An inspectorifr~m the Corps of Engineers was on the site during the construction season a~d .~ave us the o'kay from their organization. Presently the items left that have to[ibe[removed are numerous[culverts that we have made arrangements with a contractor~to~ do but it will ta~e him some time. The used cast iron water main is going construction starts this spring. A fair sized pile of pallets and cardboa~ wall contractor when they return to do The City has a pontoon boat impounded~:i~~i spring auction so that it will be removed e by C,ty% crews before containers will be removed by the summers work. area that will Be placed in our ~y sunnier. Ail other articles currently there belong to the City and will be Straightened up when the frost is out and the ground ha~ dried up. As you can see, we at no time planned this as a dump but only as a temporary storage site. It is our request that we be able to use this area once again this construction season for this purpose. This will allow uS to clean it up this fall and early next spring. I WO~l~ guess that we could!have the area straightened up and reseeded in grassi~Y:iJuly 1, 1982. If not I would keep in contact with you so that you know what is going on. If you should have any questions concerning this matter feel free to call me at 472-1251 during normal working hours, iAny inspection of the area or suggestions as to the best usage would be welcomed you wish to send someone!out. I will be very happy to meet with them at their convenience. Thank you for your attention and :ation in this matter Respectfully, Robert Shanley Public Works Director ms/j cn Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distr PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE HOMER O. NORRIS BOCK VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that tl District will hold a public he Hall (4349 Warren Ave.) at 7: in the matter of a request by le Lake Minnetonka aring at the Spring 0 p.m., Wednesday, Homer O. Norris for reestablish the dock use area a~ 6199 Sinclair LMCD Area 2 (Priests Bay). ~City ~18, 1981 variance to Mound on 3-3-81' Frank Lake Executive Direcl ~ka Conservatio~ Lct -7/ Minnetonka Conservation PUBLIC NOTICE SEAHORSE NEW ASSN. Notice is hereby given tha~ District will hold a publi, lake Minnetonka C at the Spring Hall (4349 Warren Ave.) ~.m. on Wednesday 1981 in the matter of a ne~ ~c~ license applicat transient slips at the Se o : ondominium Assoc 5440 Three Points Blvd., }U~ i! 1.2'ICD Area 16 (J 3-3-81 Direct~ Lake Conservation lservation ?ark 'City March 18, ~n to ladd ~tion' lnings Bay). .striCt LAKE MINN 'ONKA CONSERVATi DISTRICT Monday Saturday Wednesday Saturday 3-09-81 3-14-81 3-18-81 3-21-81 L.M.C.D. t, fF. Marc Lake Use 4:30 p.m., Executive 7:30 a.m., iT!lq~ SCHEDULE i[office, Wayzata ,' ee ench Eatery, Sprit Public Hear 7:30 p.m., Park City Hall (~ Bayview New Dock Kreslins ~ck License Loring ACi~~ i .~ach Assn., Inc. NE Seahor se i~ilminium As sm. NewDc West Beach ~p~$. New Dock License Norris DUA ~iance North Sta~ ~.~ime, Inc., New Length ~1 '~i~tback Variance Wikner Do~l~!tth Variance Water Struc &Environment 7:30 a.m., Cafe, Wayzata Park :ren Ave. ) License ~e and Wednesday 3-25-81" Regular Mee ithe Board of 8 p.m., e Hall 490 :6u Road (County 3-2-81 CITY MOUND~ MONTHLY ACTIVITY LIQUOR MON~H OF SALES I THIS MONTH MOLq1D OFF SALE: I '1-o MONTH 197o 16 GERALD T. CARROLL THOHAS F. UND£RWOOD · .JAHE~ D. L~.R5ON ,.JOHN W. WOOD, JR. [.AW WURST, CARROI L & PEARSON MINNEAPOLI,I~i,, Februa~ NESOTA 5540~ ~7, 1981 Mr. Jeffrey R. Schmidt Attorney at Law 4200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: Mound Vo. Dear Jeff: I am enclosing he' City Engineer under date of F a couple of the questions you summary, the streets could b( that the special assessments sewer service does not of the building is I think W: l ll ve previously the improvements o~ Windsor t~:i~ Hiller propert economically feasible from th~i~y' s standpoznt, in ~C~ance with Curt ments there would be more suggestion, which would allow of access which would get to city standards..The engin would attempt to pu~-excess f this street which might save Please keep me takes place. ~s - Hiller a copy of a ~ter 26. I belie?~ th: d in your earl$gr ded 60 feet, a~4 I ibc levied accor~$ngl] ~e a problem, b~the i~ical ¥|are ]~nd~ ~ust: ~uct CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Mr. Curt Austin Mr. Lyle Swanson Mr. Len Kopp !Hillers to cons' the property indicated other jobs some mort as progress t~ ~Very truly your C~ Pears( City Attorney City of Mound TELEPHONE (612) 338-B911 from the ~s answers ,.tter. In ~resume r. The elevation :ed that not my improve- .n' s earlier the type ,uld not be that they area into settlement COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING E~GINiFERS [] LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS i!~ , February 26, 1981 Curtis Pearson Wurst, Carroll & Pearson 1512 First 8an~ Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Subject: City of Mound Voorhees-Hiller Job #2113 Dear Mr. Pearson: I have reviewed Mr. Oeffrey answer of February 20th and have The plans for the 1980 Street Ir extended approximately 60 feet into matter of access to the Hiller Contractor to construct the street that if everything get settled the, 60 feet next spring. A sewer service to this pro of the uncertainty of what was installed, we should know the first The property would be assessed for assessed for the same service. We street repair connected with this c I am confused by Mr. Schmidts r, access to the Hiller property. I h~ expense of extending Windsor to the If you have any questions, plea: Yi M( LS:01 Minneapolis - pr Repl~ 1 Plyrm (612) ~'0: Industrial Park Boulevard Jth, Minnesota 55441 559-3700 letter of February 12th nd your ~wing comments. Project show the str et was to be ~orees-Genring property. ~When the up last fall we instr the iO the edge of this proper be willing to construct 0ot installed last fall, )eh. If a sewer s~rvic elevation of the propose ~er service as all vacant there would be no assess ~tion. :e to the City granting a y given you allett property. se. truly, nsoq, P.E. ASSOCIATES, ~cted ~y. We assume ~he remaining gain because ~ is to be building. lots are ~ent for any easement for ~r on the imson - Alexandria - Eagan ~ pecycled paper LI:ONARD I~. L~NDC)UIST NORMAN L. N[WHALL LAU~£S$ V, ACI<HAN r DWARD M. GLI:NNON II N D Q U I S T 4200 IDS CENTER I N N EAPOLI~., TELEPH( TELEX CABLE ADD 740 EAST WAYZATA~ M I Mr. Curtis Austin 730 N.F.C. 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 Mr. Curtis Pearson 1100 First National Bank Buil~ Minneapolis, ~ 55402 Mr. Ronald Gehring 3215 Charles Lane Mound, ~N 55364 Re: Clint Voorhees Dear Gentlemen: I received a telephone call Mr. Gehring. Mr. Gehring adv not in agreement with the mat1 letter, and that consequently~ agreed upon. Mr. Gehring ind! town until March 2, at which request that he does so as this matter may either be set1 may commence litigation and hz Court as soon as possible. I will contact Messrs. Austin has responded. JRS/ms VEN N U M ~OUTH 8~ STREET 5540~ L I N LAW J £ ~REE ET 55391 25, 1981 was on vacation fr¢ secretary that he ~et forth in my ~ebr~ luch settlement has that he would be o~ ie would contact !me. he has returned iso and for all!,i or matter resolved by , Pearson as soon ~s M~ very truly, RICHARD A,. pRIHUTH TI ~0THY H. ~uTL£1q ~'NNI$ I~. MATHI$£N n ~ry 12 ~en itiof the Gehring 1 ~0''~ WASHINI MINNEAPOLI.~ 2 March 1981 Mary Marske Mound Vi 11 age Office 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Professional services performE City of Mound for the month of AVENUE SOUTH ~E$0TA 55454 Timothy L. Pi epkorn for ;he ,Uary, 1981: 1. February 3rd: Jury Trial ~l;iated) 2. February 9th: 18 Formal ; review of files 3. February 10th: 2 Court 4 Pre-Trial con erence~l.til~lil[ 4. February llth: 2 Formal Coll~i~nts 5. February 13th: 7 Formal ints 6. February 16th: Meeting at with citizen 7. February 24th: 1 Court Tri Pre-Trial CO 8. February 26th: Prepared 1 Complaint Hour~ 2 8.00 4~50 2.00 3.75 .75 3.00 2,00 26,00 Total Owing ($300 for 1 at $30 ll hours