82-09-07MOUND CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, September 7, 1982
7:30 P.M. - City Hall
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
1. Minutes of August 24, 1982, Regular Meeting
2. PLANNING COMMISSI'ON ITEMS
A. Case 82-139 - Ronald Pelarski - 1609 Bluebird Lane
Lots 2,3,4,21,22 & 23, Block 7, Woodland Point
Lakeshore Setback & Preliminary Subdivision MAP 2
B0 Case 82-140 - Richard Bialon - 3495 East Shore Drive
Sulgrove Road east of Tuxedo Blvd. - 30 foot right-of-way
Street Vacation (Set P.H. date 10-5-82) MAP 15
C. Case 82-141 - Kevin James Hetchler -.4913 Island View
Lot 14, Block 14, Devon - Non-conforming Lot & Structure
Variances to place an attached garage 18 ft. to 20.3 ft.
from street MAP 15
D. Case 82-142 - Matthew Phillippi - 4521 Manchester Road
Lots 22 and part of 1,2,3, & 5, Block 14., Avalon
Nonconforming use and structure variances° MAP 13
(Tabled by the Planning Commission)
3. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
(Please Limit to 3 Minutes)
4o Report from Building Inspector to City Manager/City Council
on Work in the City
5. City Hall Roof Situation with Recommendations
6o SETTING DATES FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARINGS
A. County Road 110 Project - September 21,~ 1982
B. 1981 County Rd. 110 Street Light Project-Sept. 21, 1982
C. CBD Parking Maintenance - September 28, 1982
D. Delinquent Water & Sewer Bills - September 28, 1982
E. Unpaid Tree Removal Charges - September 28, 1982
F. Unpaid Weedcutting Charges - September 28, 1982
7. Partial,~ayment - 1982 Street Overlay Project - Aero Asphalt -
$29,554.~2
8. M.S.A. Funds for County Road 110 Project
9. Amend Chapter 37, Part D of the City Code to provide for
Authorizing the Exemption of Non-Profit Community Groups
from Hawkers, Peddlers Licenses.
10. Approval of Mound Bay Park Specifications and Advertisement
for Bids
Pg. 2030-2037
Pg. 2038
Pg. 2039-2047
Pg. 2048-2052
Pg. 2053-2056
Pgo 2057
Pg. 2058-2063
Pg. 2064-2067
Pg. 2068
Pg. 2069
Pg. 2070
Pg. 207l
Pg. 2072-2073
Pg. 2074-2075
Pg. 2076
Pg. 2077
Page 2029
13.
14.
Transfers.for 1982 Fire Service & Capital Outlay Budgets
An Ordinance Adding Section 55.38A to the City Code relating
to Temporary Signs
Payment of Bills
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Notice from City Attorney (Note the new phone number)
B. Tonka Newsclipping (Mpls. Tribune 8-22-82)
C. L.M.C.D. Agenda & Minutes
D. Letter on Tuxedo Blvd. & Three Points Blvd. Tree
Replacement
E. Notice of Sale of Tax-Forfeited Land - Sept. 10, 1982 at
9:00~A.M.
F Letter from City of Tonka Bay Attorney
G. Letter Regarding Placement of Newsstand by Bus Depot
H. Notice of Lake Minnetonka Task-Force Meeting -
September 14th at 7:00 P.M. - Water Patrol Station
I. Hennepin County'~s Latest Plans for County Road 110
J. American Legion Post #398 Gambling Report
Pg; 2078-2080
Pg. 2081
Pg. 2082
Pg. 2083
Pg. 2084-2085'
Pg. 2086-2089
Pg. 2090
Pg. 2091
Pg. 2092
Pg. 2093-2097
Pgo 2098
Pgo 2099
Pg. 2100
Page 2029-A
173
August 24, 1982
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
Pur~ant 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 August 24, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. ·
Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmember Pinky Charon, Go~don
Swenson and. Donal'd Ulrick. Councilmember Robert Polston arrived late. Also
.present were: City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Sharon Legg,
City Manager don Elam, Police Chief Bruce Wold and City Clerk Fran Clark;
and the follpwing interested persons: Joan Wold, John Wagman, Bob Hanson,
Buzz Sycks arid Butch Essig.
MINUTES
The Minu'tes of the August 10, 1982, Kegular Meetilng were presented.for cons[der~
atlon.' Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion to approve the Milnutes of
the August 10, 1982, Regular Meeting as presented, The vote was unanimously
in favor. Moti'on carried.
The Minutes of the August 17, 1982, Special M.eet~ngwere present for consider ....
ati'on. Swenson moved and Charon seconded:a moti. on to approve, the M[nutes of.the
August 17, 1982, Speci;al Meeting es presented. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
Councllmember Polston arrived at 7:35 P,M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. 3.2 BEER LICENSE FOR THE SUR~SIDE, INC.-
The City Manager explained that all property':owners w~th.~n 500 feet
were notified of this public hearing.
The Mayor opened the Pub.liE Hearing and asked for any comments feom
persons present. There'~were none. The Mayor closed, the Public Heaping.
Councilmember Swenson mo~ed ~nd Charon seconded the~follo~tng resolution,
RESOLUTION'#82-225
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE 3,2 BEER LICENSE FOR
THE SURFSIDE, INC.., 2670 COMMERCE BLVD, -
EXPIRES APKIL 30, 1983.
The vote was unani'mouslY'.'in favor. Motj'on carrj'ed.
B. DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked for any comments from
persons present. There were none. The Mayor closed the Public Hearilng
The City Manager stated that the amount on the list i"s down to $2,175.37.
~74
August 24, ]982.
Ulrick moved and Polston seconded the following reso]ution.
'~ESOLUTION #82-226 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY'BILLS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,175.37 AND AUTHORIZING THE'STAFF
TO SHUTOFF WATER SERVICE FOR THESE'DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
The vote was unanimously in'favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 STREET LIGHT PROJECT & COUNTY ROAD 110
rIMPROV EMENT PROJECT
The City Eng'ineer submitted the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the County
Road 110 Improvement Project. The final figures including the Peabody Road
Storm Sewer will be as follows:
$3.45/L.F. Concrete Curb & Gutter
$1.53/S.F. Driveway Aprons'
$O,051/S.F. Storm Sewer
The Engineer'then submitted the Preliminary Assessment Roll for the 1981
Street Light Project. He explained that the properties were divided into
two catagories, single.family residential use as one and all other uses
as the second catagory. The charge per foot for the other uses was computed
at I-1/2 times the residential rate. He went on to explain that when the
public hearing was held last year, they had used' the zoning map to compute
the assessments but that some of the properties that are zoning commercial
have residential uses at this time. So the assessments were changed to
reflect the residential uses in'commercial areas. The'Council questioned
this and suggested that the Staff check with the City Attorney before
.the assessment letters are sent out. The Council also discussed the
possibility of assessing additional amounts.when the property is changed
and used for a commercial, purpose.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-227
RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO. BE ASSESSED, ACCEPTING
THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FIGURES AND SETTING
SEPTEMBER 21, ]982, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY
HALL FOR A HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT -
COUNTY ROAD l~O IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND 198l
STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
IMPROVEMENT BONDS' TO COVER THE COST OF COUNTY ROAD l l0 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The City'Manager explained a memo submitted'by the Finance Director. That
memo states that the City has $209,097.53 of expenses at this point. The
City Engineer has estimated an additional $7,200.00 to cover any remaining
costs, exclusive of e~sements whi'ch he is estimating to be approximately
$75,000.00. Therefore, the total project.cost is $291,297.53 of which
$173,800.72 is to be assessed. The balance is to be born by the City.
The City now has a cash deficit of $178,269.92 and this will be increased
by the cost of the easements and the additional $7,200.00, bringing the
cash deficit to $260,469.92. (This total does not include the Peabody Road
Storm Sewer.) Thus, the need to sell bonds.
175
Augus~ 2~, 1~82
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-228
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE
CITY MANAGER TO BEGIN TO NEGOTIATE THE SALE OF
BONDS FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 110 STREET IMPROVEMENT
NOT TO EXCEED $299,~99.99
The vpte was unan.imous.ly in favor. Motion carried.
PEABODY ROAD STORM' SEWER QUOTATIONS
The City Engineer has submitted two quotations for the Peabody Road Storm
Sewer'ExtensJon and they are as follows:
Widmer Bros., Inc., Sp~ing Park
F.F. Jedlicki, Eden Prairie
$9,335.OO
$9,865.OO
RESOLUTION #82-229
Charon-moved and Ulrick seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION. TO ACCEPT THE QUOTATION OF WIDMER
BROS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,335.00 FOR THE
PEABODY ROAD STORM SEWER.EXTENSION TO COMPLETE
THE COUNTY ROAD 110 PROJECT
The vote was unanimously'in favor. Motion carried.
CHANGE ORDER #2 - i982 STREET OVERLAY PROJECT
The City Enginee~ submitted a Change Order #2 in the amount of $9,251.00
for the bituminous work around the City garage and also paving the driveway
to the well house off Three Points Blvd. The Mayor suggested trying to
get any property owners benefiting from the paving of the driveway at
the well house to pay for part of the cost. The Staff will check.
Swenson moved and P°iston seconded the:following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-230 RESOLUTION'APPROVING CHANGE ORDER #2 - 1982
STREET OVERLAY PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,251.00
The vote.was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
EXTENSION OF VARIANCE - ARLYS GRIBOVSKY - LOT 7~ BLOCK 1, HALSTEAD ACRES
2ND ADDITION.
Arlys Gribovsky. h'as requested an extension of Resolution #81-269 for 1
year.
Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #82-23'1
RESOLUT'I'ON GRANTING AN EXTENSION OF ONE YEAR FOR
VARIANCE IN RESOLUTION #81-269 - LOT 7, BLOCK 1,
HALSTEAD ACRES 2ND ADDITION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
176
August 24, 1982
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked is there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens
present. There we. re none.
LICENSE APPLICATION - VIDEO GAME - VFW POST 5113
Polston moved'and Ulrick seconded .the following resolution.
RESOLUT. ION #82-232
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GAME OF SKILL LICENSE
FOR THE VFW POST #5113 - VALID UNTIL APRIL 30,
1983
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ADMINISTRATIVE CARS--
The City Manager reported the the Police Chief has done extensive checking
and they are recommending that the City purchase good quality rental cars.
Polston moved and Swenson seconded a~motion to authorize the City Manager
to solicit bids for good quality rental cars to be used as administrative
vehicles. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
JERRY ROCKVAM - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
The City Manager-explained that.because of interpretation, the City Planner'
informed the Building Inspector'that a COnditional Use Permit could, be
given to allow a boat'storage warehouse to be built by Jerry Rockvam in
a B-2 Zoning'District.
The City Attorney has advised that a Conditional Use Permit cannot be
given to allow this. The only way to allow a boat storage warehouse would
be to amend the Zoning Ordinance.
This information was given to Mr. Rockvam.
No action was taken.
SIGN ORDINANCE - SECTION 55.38
The City Manager suggested that Section 55.38 of the Sign Ordinance be
amended to allow administrative approval for temporary signs. Some of
the rules governing the issuance of Temporary Sign Permits might include:
they will not be up more than 2 months; that they conform to the existing
sign ordinance in terms of set-backs, sign size, etc. The Mayor-
suggested all.owing a temporary sign for 6 months and Councilmember Ulrick
suggested if allowed for 6 months, then a minimal charge per month be
paid. The City Manager and the Council agreed to have the City Attorney
draw up an amendment covering temporary signs and bring it back to the
Council for approval.
177
August 24, 1982
QUOTATION FOR REPAIR OF THREE POINTS TENNIS COURT
The City Manager explained that Chris Bollis, Park Director, has waited
most.,of the summer for firms to submit quotations on the repair of the
Three Points Tennis Court. Only one firm responded, Tennis West, Inc.,
and they have submitted a quote for $9,940.00 which the Park Director
feels is' reasonable. This quotation would include the following~
A. The repair and resurfacing of an existing doubles tennis court.
Work to comply with the following:
1. Contractor to remove existing fence and tennis net posts;
..
2. Asphalt mat to be extended 12 ft. to West. Min. 3".MDOT 2331
"black base" shall be installed;
3. ~htire court surface shall be tacked and overlayed with a
· 2" MDOT 2341 wearing course;
4. Tennis net posCs to be installed with-center tie anchor.
5. All new galvanized chain link tennis court fencing 10 ft. high
'~ shall be installed 6" in from edge.of new. asphalt mat. Fence
to be 2" 9 ga. fabric with 3" terminal posts, 2½" line posts,
1 5/8" top rail, H. & D. bracing on all terminal.posts, 7 ga..
b~ttom tension wire, and heavy duty hardware;
6. A Decoralt D/S-lb.Color System'for new asphalt shall ~e installed.
Col.or to be w. green with 2" white.playing lines;'
7. Adjolning.multi-use hardcourt Surface shall be surfaced.with
Decoralt and two basketball free throw lanes-shall be .striped.
Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion t° approve the quotatl.on'of
Tennis West, I.nc. for the repair of the Three Points Tennis Court in the
amount of $9,940.00. The vote was Unanimously in favor~ Motion ~arried.
The City Manager'reminded the.Council that this money was b~dgeted i.n
the Revenue. Sharing budget.
PAYMENT. OF BILLS
Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motiOn to approve the payment of the bills
as presented on. the pre-list ih the amount of $141,277.56 when funds.are
available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor° Motion carried.
SET BUDGET PRESENTATION DATES
The City Manager suggested that sometime next week'would be a good time to
· have the budget presentation to the Council.
Swenson'.moved and Charon seconded a motiOn to hold budget meetings on
the followlng dates:
Monday, August 30, 1982, 6:00 P.M. in City Hall
Wednesday, September 1,.1982, 6:00:P.M. in City'Hall
Thursday, September 2, 1982, 6:00 P.M. in city' Hall, if necessary
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. Proposed list of public facilities to receive free cable T.V. drop.
Those proposed were:
1.' Westonka Community Service Building
2. Our Lady of the Lake School
178
August 24, 19.82
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Mound'City Hall
Shirley Hills Elementary School
Hillstop Elementary School
Mound-Westonka High School
Senior Citizen Housing Project (2020 commerce)
Island Park Community Hall
The following were suggested by the Council.
9. Grandview Middle School
10. The Library
ll.. Sports Arena
The City Manager stated that these 11 places will be inserted in the
Request for Proposals (R.F.P..).
LEAGUE OF CITIES REGIONAL MEETING - September 16, 1982,' at the
Holiday Inn in Maplewood, beginning at 2:30 P.M. ResePvatlons must
be in by September 9, 1982, in order to attend the dinner.
LETTER FROM HENNEPI.N COUNTY PARK RESERVE - Schedule of Public Hearings
on proposed "Policies for Development and OperatiOn of the Hennepin
County Park Reserve District".
D. LEGION POST 398 GAMBLING REPORT - JulY, 1982
E. VFW POST #5113 GAMBLING REPORT - May 12, 1982 and August 10, 1982
F. WESTON'KA CHAMBERS WAVES - August 1982
G. METRO'COUNCIL RANKINGS OF SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING PROJECTS ~ Westonka
Estates ranked llth.
PARKC-OMMISSlON MINUTES'- June 10, 1982, Meeting
ARTICLE FROM MINNEAPOLIS TRIBUNE AUGUST 19, 1982 - Article on the
Downtown Redevelopment.
OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CLINIC - This is the clinic that Bill Husbands
suggested in his workman.!s'c°mpensation report.· The Director of. the '
clinic has'been..out..~and met with the City Manager. The City'Manager
feels that .the clinic of.fers a very complete program and. will. be a
most valuable toll for the City in it's insurance management efforts.
K. DAC LETTER WITH SUGGESTIONS - MINUTES FROM THE JULY 28TH MEETING
LETTER FROM. JOHN BURGER - Praising the Planning Commission and the
the City Council for the cOurtesy extended to him in obtaining a
Temporary Sign Permit.
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT - AGENDA AND MINUTES - Agenda for
the August 19, 198'2, Meeting and the Minutes of the July 15, 1982,
Meeting.
N. TWIN CITIES LABOR MARKET !NFORMATION - August, 1982, edition.
179
August 2~, 1982
MAIN STREET'MINNESOTA II - Conference to be held October 1, 1982
on downtown improvements.
P. BENNEPIN COUNTY CENSUS REPORT (AGE & SEX DISTRIBUTION)
Charon moved and Swenson seconded a mo~ion to adjourn at 9:55 P.M.
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The vote
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
BILLS ..... AUGUST 24t 1982
Allied Blacktop Co.
.Diane Arneson
Autocon Industries
Air Comm
Acro-H i nneso ta
Ear] F Andersen & Assoc
F.H. Bathke
Blackowiak & Son
Chapin Publishing
A.B, Cumming
Nancy Clough
Director Property Tax
Delano Fi re Dept
Dept of Property Tax
Jon Elam
Floral view
Fi rehouse
First Bank Mpls
Gerryms Plumbing
Greyhound Travel Club
Hennepin County
Hawkins Chemical
Henn Coop Seed Exchange
I11ies & Sons
Robert Johnson
O.J. Janski & Assoc
K~3ehnen' s Standard
LOG I S
Eawton Printing
Mankato Conference
HcCombs Knut son
M inn Comm
Hetro Fone
Metro Waste Control
MCFOA
MacQueen Equip ..
M i nnega sco
N.W. Bell Tele
No Central AWWA
Navarre Hdwe
N,S,P,
Old Dominion Brush
Pitney Bowes
Reo Raj Kennels
Sterne Electric
Jack Strohm
State Treas.
Satellite Industries
Thrifty Snyder Drug
T & T Maintenance
32,918.42
170.00
154.60
90.00
218.67
175.67
20.70
56.00
182.40
20.00
48.15
319.57
300.O0
29.00
.35.70
13.50
14.97
20.00
57,00
50.00
33,O32.00
171.74
49.50
260.00
29.04
850.00
152.34
1,291.12
14.85
150.O0
5,774.5O
28.50
: 11.80
19,277.27
15.00
338.44
45.31
72.80
13o.00
296.93
4,o41.o3
648.00
55.50
220.00
17.50
50.00
15.00
390.00
30.98
73.75
Thurk Bros. Chev
Timberwall Landscaping
Unitog Rental Serv
Wurst,Carroll,Pearson
John Weidt Assoc
Water Products
Widmer Bros
Xerox
R.L. Youngdahl
Brown Photo
Tonka Printing
Griggs, Cooper
Johnson Bros. Liquor
MN Distillers
Old Peoria
Ed Phillips
Holly Bostrom
Babler Automotive
Total'Bills
600.57
14.40
240.30
14,361.34
225.00
262.43
407.00
82.72
5,270.00
139.50
385.00
3,173.64
4,951.94
1,132.90
2,156.97
3,452.94
144.00
1,849.26
141,277.56
AGENDA FOR
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
August 30, 1982
City Hall 7:30 P.Mo
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1982.
BOARD OF APPEALS
i. Case No. 82-'139 - Ronald Pelarski - Property Address: 1609 Bluebird Lane
Lots 2,3,4,21,22' & 23, Block 7, Woodland Point - Map 2
Lakeshore Setback and Preliminary Subdivision
2. Case No. 82-140 - Richard Bialon, 3495 East Shore Drive, Mound
Sulgrove Road east of Tuxedo Boulevard - 30 foot right-of-way - Map 15
Street Vacation
e
Case No. 82-141 - Kevin James Hetchler, 4913 Island View D~ive
Lot 14, Block 14, Devon - Map. 15
Non-conforming Lot'& Structure Variances to place an attached garage
18 ft. to 20.3 ft. from the street.
Case No. 82-142 - Matthew Phillippi - Property Address 4521 Manchester Road
Lots 22 and part of 1,2,3 & 5, Block 14, Avalon - Map 13
Nonconforming Use and Structure Variances
¸it
F" JU,
CWY (
2 7 1982 .'] ~
......... ~.d.,4 '"
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Sec. 22~.03- a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE OWNER
OF__,ANNI~
PLAT
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
FEE $ .~._'~. ~) 0
PARCEL.
t~. o1'5o
'zl oo ~5'2.
ZO.,N~ R- ?~
Case No. ~-~ LaKesnore se[pacK ~a~a~'ce..and ~prel,ialnary divls-ion
Lots 2,3,h,21,22 and 23, Block 7, Woodland Point
Applicant Ronald Pelarski and Architect Dick Larsen were present.
'Applicant is requesting a 20 foot lakefront variance to build a'home (si'ab
on grade) on Lots h and 2] plus"the divlded, lO feet from Lots 3 and 22.
House with retaining wall will be built so there is no encroachment unto
lower part of lot/house to be 30 inches to ~ feet above the lower part.
Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved allOWlng a 30 foot setback.
Discussed street extension and sewer and water.~onnections.
O'Donnell.moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to' recommend grantlng the
variance and subdivision request.
S'tannard moved and Welland seconded a motion to amend the'motion to include
the recommendatioA of the"Building Official-and Engineer as follows:
I. New surveys be submitted with the elevations shown as required by our
City Engineer,.'inc.)uding proposed utility connections and the monuments
to be reset.
Floodproofing is to be ac~omp]ished as per code for the utility connec-
tions.
'Our City Attorney to review the descriptions of the drainage easement
shown on the survey.
The new building site pay or be assessed the street unit charge($1,.)70..~0)
plus the.front-footage of $7.~$ + .08 a square foot from the 1~78 street
assessment.
The plans need to indicate how the street extension wi]] be handled and
the proposed elevations of same.
The vote on the amendment was unanimously in favor. The vote on the motion
as amended was unanimously in favor. Hotion carried.
feet
CITY OF HOUND
ApP]icat-ion No.
Fee
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please. type the following information)
Date.Filed
2. Legal Description of Property: tot~;~-i'~.~~~ ~k~l~4~ Block~
Addition ~~ ~~ PID No.I~-~'~'~ I~ 01~.1
3. Owner's Name ~~ I~i~ ~' Day Phone No.
Address ~ ~ ' k~
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Address ~t~ ~[~~ ~ ~1~~, ~ 5~~'
5. Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit ( ) Amendment
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ] Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other
*If Other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
8'-
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ¢~(~ If so, list d~t/~s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken an~ ~ro~ide Resolution No.(s)
C~ies o~ previous resold t ions shall accompany I ""/
I certify that all'of the above statements and the
papers or plans to be subm[_~tted herewith a're true
or upon the premises desc~/~_b~d in this/~at~plication
of Mound fOr the' purpose ~f ilnspec/4'~, 26r of post il
notices as may be require~a~~ _
Signature of Applicant
il Action:
4/82
Request'for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure
Case #
D. Location of: Signs, easements; underground utilitles,-etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. 'Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
· and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All Information below, a site plan, as described In Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone'district In which It Is located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing'structures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations
for the Zone district In'which i't is.located? Yes ()(~) No ~ ( )
If ~'no", speci, fy'each non-conforming use:
~.-
· ~easonable use for any o~ the.uses.permitted in that zoning district?~' .
. ~ .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage.. (.) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( )' Shape' ( ) 'Other: Specify:~
E. ~as the hardship described above'created by the action of anyone having
property Interests in the land aften the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes (.) No '~ If. yes, expl~in:
F. Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change', such'as the reloca-
tion of a 'road? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X') No ( )
If no, how many other properties are slmilarly affected?
What Is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, Using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation· Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
Will granting of the vari.~nce be materially detrimental to'property in tk
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
12 August 1982
RFCF v 'm i 6 1982
LARSEN / ROVA 'ASSOCIATES ~
architects / planners
15612 highway 7 suite 310
minnetonka mn 55343
(612) 933-8111
Jan Bertrand
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound MN 55364
Re:
Ronald Pelarski. Lot, Bluebird Lane - variance for setback
distance from mean high water level of Lake Mtnnetonk~
Dear Mrs Bertrand:
We are requesting a reduction of the required 50 foot setback from
the Mean High Water Level of Lake Minnetonka to 30 feet for the
following reasons:
1. This lot has been of record since before the setback regulation
was adopted. We have arranged to acquire 10' of additional
property from the property owner to the north; nevertheless,
literal application of theSO' setback requirement would render
the expanded lot unbuildable.
e
One of the purposes of the setback requirement is to assure
stghtlines for adjoining property owners. In this case the set-
back is a side,yard setback so that the question of neighbors'
sightlines is not critical, since houses in this direction are
spaced much further apart.
Another purpose of the setback requirement is to protect the
shoreline of the lake from encroachment and damage. In this case,
the shoreline {as defined by the Mean High Water Level) occurs
in a flat, marshy area, and is therefore not accessible for walk-
ing, boat dockage, etc. The house which we are proposing for
this lot would not encroach on or affect the shoreline in any way.
In light of the above, we feel that the request for a 20' variance in
the setback distance is a reasonable request, and hope that the Plan-
ning Commission and City Council will see fit to 'grant our request.
cerely
RJL cml
I
*'
%
',9
'Z
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Case No. 82-139
planning Commission Agenda of August 30, 1982:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 82-139
Location: 1609 Bluebird Lane
Legal Desc.: Lots 2, 23~ 4, 21., 3 and 22,
Block 7, Woodland Point.
Request: Lakeshore setback and Preliminary
Subdivision
Zoning District R-2
Applicant:
Ronald Pelarski
517 - 6th Ave. S.
Hopkins, MN. 55343
Phone: 935-4724
The applicant is requesting to build a home on Lots 4 and 21 plus the divided
10 feet from Lots 3 and 22. The existing grades will be maintained with basi-
cally no filling of the site.' The applicant is also requesting to place the
structure 30 feet from the designated mean high water level of 929.4 (sea
level) instead of the required 50 foot setback. Mr. Gordon Swenson owns Lots
3, 2, 22 and 23, Block 7, Woodland Point and is requesting to divide off l0 feet
of Lots 3 and 22 to Mr. Pelarski.
The ordinance requires a 6,000 square foot area for R-2 district. The request
will create two parcels containing 11,3975 and 8,253±. The minimum lot width,
lot depth, etc. will conform to ordinance requirements. The lakeshore (MHW)
setback will be 30 feet instead of the required 50 feet at the south side of
the property,.but in excess of 104 feet to the west. This property fronts on
two sides to the lake. The open water to the south'is approximately 102 feet
away at the sout'h side with high cattails from open water to approximately the
lot line. The proposed house elevation is set above the flood elevation of 933.5.
RECOMMEND:
I would recommend approval of the requested preliminary subdivision
and variance upon the following conditions:
I. New sur'veys be submitted with the elevations shown as required
by our City Engineer, including proposed utility connections and
the monuments to be reset.
2. Floodproofing is to be accomplished as per code for the util.ity
connections.
3. That the Minnehaha Watershed District drainage easement be
shown on the survey, with the City Attorney to review descriptions.
4. The new building site pay or be assessed the street unit charge
($1,170.90) plus the front footage of $7.95 + .08 a square foot
from the 1978 street assessment.
That the City Engineer's report to extend the street and/or obtain
an agreement with the owner regarding the dead end completion of
the street.
6. All person with financial interest in the property submit approval
of the lot-split request.
7. The applicant resubmit a final subdivision request within one year
of City Council approval with a waiver of the public hearing to
be granted.
This will be going to the Council September ~, 1982.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS I~ LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
August 24, 1982
Ms. 3an Bertrand
Building Inspector
City' of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Hound, MN 55364
Subject:
Ronald Pelarski Property
Lots 4 and 21, and S 10' of
Lots } and 22, Blk 7, Woodland Roint
File #211}, General
Z.:,- -/3 )
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Dear 3an:
We have reviewed the proposed plan' for the above property submitted by
Larsen/Rova Associates and have the following commentsi
1. Before any permits are issued, such as the grading or building
permits, a more complete site plan should be required. It should show addi-
tional existing elevations on the lot to the north and proposed elevations on
the building site.
In addition to the above, the plans' need to indicate how the street
extension will be handled and the proposed elevations of same.
3. The final plans will also have to show the proposed water and sewer
connections: It appears the sewer service may have less than five feet of
cover. If this is the case, insulation should be provided.
4. No filling is allowed below the 931~5 elevation.
· We would appreciate an opportunity to review the final plans when they are
submitted to make sure the drainage pattern is functional.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
OC:sj
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
'f/ Oohn Cameron
EHAHA CREEl(
VdATE SHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
BOARD OF MANAGI:RS:
D~vid H. Cochran. Pre~. · Albert 1. lehman · John £. Thomas · Bar,fa R. Gudmund~on · Michael B. Ca~zoll
LAKE MINNETONKA
Permit Application No: 82-65'
Date: August 23, 1982
Applicant:
Ronald Pelarskl
c/o Deneson Insulation Co.
14530 27th Avenue North
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
Location:
City of Mound, Sec. 13 ABB, Jennings Bay, LAke
Mlnnetonka
Purpose:
Lake setback variance of 30' for the construction of
a single family home.
At the regularly scheduled August 19, 1982 meeting of the Board of
Managers, the above permit application was reviewed along with the
following exhibits:
Permit application received August 6, 1982.
Revised Site Plan prepared by Larsen/Rova Associates received
August 18, 1982.
Revised topographic survey prepared by Gabriel Land Surveying
received August 17, 1982.
The Board approved the permit application allowing a setback of 30
feet from the closest point on the main foundation to the NOHW
(929.4, 1929 datum) with the following condition:
A revised drainage easement description shall be submitted
for review and approval.
This document is your permit from the MCWD. It is valid for one
(1) year. If construction is not~omplete within one (1) year, an
extension must be requested. Please contact the District at
473-4224 when the project is about to commence so an inspector may
view the, work in p%~ogress.
Michael A~ Panzer,~/P.E.
August 19~ 1982
Date of Issue
CC:
Board
Cyacomber
of Mound
R. Larsen,
Larsen/Rova Assoc.
bt .
?l~t of Survey
fo~ Gor~on T. S~enson
of Lots 2, 3, 22, and 23,~ Block 7, Woodland Point
Hennepin County, Minnesota
/
/
Certificate of S~rvey:
I hereby certify that ~his is a true and correc~
representation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 2, 3,
22, and 23, Block 7, Woodland Point; and of the location of all
buildings, if any,. thereon. I~ does not purport so show encroachments.
Scale: 1" = 40'
Date : 11-1~-68
o : Iron marker
'GordonR.
Coffin Rag .~o
l~nd Surveyor an8 Planner
Long Lake, Minnesota
APPLICANT
APPLICATION ]'~.OR..STREET VACATION
CITY '~)]" HOUND
'1
FEE $
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNE~' BY APPLICANT: PLAT PARCEL
L / /
REASON FOR REQUEST W0
- , ,~ · · I/. ',~ -
Street Vacat|on of Sulgrove Road east of Tuxedo Boulevard.
Richard Bialon was present.
Case No. 82-140
The Building Official explained that there is no right-of-way presently to the
two existing homes on platted Sul'g'rove east of Tuxedo in Mound. Mr. Bialon's
house in Minnetrlsta, when surveyed, was found to be approximately 2.1 feet
on the Sulgrove klght-of-way. The drive to his garage also goes on that side
(North) of his house. Bialon would like to buy 15 feet of Sulgrove/willlng
to work out purchase or exchange of land for access/easement over Lot I, Block
1, Douglas Addn. Presently there are no utilities to any of the houses in
the area - sewer, water or gas.
Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend that the Attorneys
fbr Mound and Minnetrista and City Engineers try to resolve access and
necessary easements for a workable plan for al.i concerned in the area of
East Shore Drive and the p. latted Sulgrove Road. Further stated that. there
~!' w. ould be no need to bring this back to the Planning CommissiOn. The vote
/ was unanimously in favor.
· ..: ,,' i;. ," F .~ "',~
~'y Utilities: NSP
Recommended
; Minnegasco
; Continental Tel.
Case No. 82-140
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of August 30, 1982:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 82-140
Location: Sulgrove Road east of Tuxedo
Boulevard
Legal Desc. as.per plat - 30 foot right-
of-way
Request: Street.Vacation
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant:
Richard Bialon
3495 E. Shore Drive
Mound, MN.
Phone: 472-3381/446-1660
The homeowners abutting Sulgrove Road and East Shore Drive, Minnetrista, are
requesting that the City of Mound vacate the road designated to be Sulgrove
from the plat.
The corporate limits of Mound is to the south of the proposed'street and the
street, if vacated, would revert back to Mr. Paul Henry of Lots 14, 15 and part
of Lot 6, Block 28, Whipple, and to Roger Bergqu|st of Lots 4, 16 and 17, Block
28, Whipple.
The survey of Richard Bialon's property shows a vacated portion of East Shore
Drive indicating that Sulgrove Road does not connect to another right-of-way.
Thereby, the property owners in Mound drive across his prOperty to get access
to their homes. Also, Mr. Richard Bialon's. home is 2.1 feet onto the designated
Sulgrove Road right-of-way.
RECOMMEND:
I have our City Attorney reviewing the situation. Our City Engineer,
John Cameron and myself have reviewed the request. He stated the
City of Mound has no utilities in the area and I checked with Minne-
trista and all three homes are not connected to any sewer and water
from their mains at the end of East Shore Drive and Tuxedo Boulevard.
Also, the City of Mound owns the property to the west which runs
through a swamp to Tuxedo Boulevard. Possibly the vacation should
include the right-of-way from East Shore Drive to Tuxedo Boulevard
and an easement be dedicated to the Mound residents or the City of
Mound for the homeowners in Mound to get access from East Shore Drive.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
PLet of Survey
for Pau~ A. Henry
o£ Lots 1~ and 1~, Block 28, ~ippl~
Henn~pin Count~, .%4inneso~a
8000 --'
o Sulqro~,e.. Road
Certificate of Surw-ey: .. ': ·
I hereb)- ce.r.tift that t.h~s 'is a~'tru~ and correct representetton of a
survey of th% boundaries of Lots 14 and 15, Block 28, Whipple, the loca-
tion of all existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to shou
other' i~prcvements or en~ro-~ts.
Sc~.le: 1" = 30'
Date : 1.0-12-77
o : Iron r. mrker
Gordon E. Coffin-~&
Land Su_-veycr and Plnrmcr
Long Lake, Minnesota
$o5'o
~.o~uu~,x ~[~'I ~uo'I
~u'~q~g pu~ -~o/_~S pu~,'I
~ou ssop ~I 'uoa~q~ 'Xu~ $~ 's~u~pIl'nq,~uT.~S!xe 1.I~-$o uo~ooI
,/ .
1
I /'
DRUMMOND
A
RO/~
ROAD
WATERBURY:
LLP~
8'I?''t G:l
JRY
9
ROAD
, \
\ 4 \
\
,/
1
· Reeu]~r meetin~ of the ,~nnetrista Council ~ms held at the meetin£ room
D., - ~ -,~,~,.
~:t t,he Minnetr~st~ Garaz~at S P.M. ~embers present Ed }-bert, Mafor: Robert
Fillmore, Robert Hubbard, Paul fiader a nd Germaih Boll, Councilmen: Art Jaekel,
Treasurer. Pre~ent also w~s Richard Diercks~ chairman of Planning Corem,:
Hewn ~aas, Yil]aEe. assesor: ~izabeth Bonham, Yil]age Attorney: Lamont
Weiland, roa~ superintendent and Thohas Lindner, Policeman. Minutes of the
March 6, 1967 meetin~ was read and approved.
A Public hear~n~ held Ap.ril '3, 1967 at Minnetrista Villafie ~ara_~e to consider
vocPting of ~. portion of the road adjoinin~ the Edgar V. 'Schullen property. There
heine no object~onar~, this ro~d served no other property,, the Council ~cated this
~aid road. ~ppllcant brought in thls copy
· of m|nutes ~hich vacated
The Council ~lso ~iscussed vith lnsur, nc..shore ~r|ve {portion of)
Police reserve under Work~ns Comperesation, these men will be classified as civil
defense reserves.
Albert Ha~-st~om of Rol]~n~ Hills
maint~Sned the roads in Kollin~ H~lls?
addition asked why the ¥il]age has not
Although these roads have been excepted
when the Village si~ned the plot, ~t these roads will have to be brought to the
s~,ecific~.tions of the Vil]~gemd a possible compromise for the cost of improving
these roads or street.
Robert F~llmore ~ave a ~ood report on the newly Minnehaha liatershed Dist.
The followinz bills were ~udited and allowed:
ROAD ~UND: ~aconia Co. #2791 $$.10 J. Heitz #2792 ~212.85 P.E.R.A. ~2793 $109.24
Am Heitz ~2794 $]66.5:' ~'. Th~rk #2795 $94.84 .Tax Dept. ~2796 $225.90
E. Berg #2797 $20.68 ~.R.$. #2?98 $864.80 St Bon~ Auto ~2799 $23.15
A. Hertz #2800 $]5.00 Corver G~awe] #2S0] $134.50 Camen paper #2802 $476.40
St Bon~ Oil #2803 $196~20 Cam~nson Paper #2804 ~5.O0
L Weiland #2S29 $~46.O0 A. Hertz #2830 $264.7~
AU6 2 0 bQ 2
¢].'n' ,o F o u :.
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please. type the following information)
Appllcat.~on Mo.
Fee Paid~'L]~,,
Date Filed ~-~_~.~
1. Street Address of PropeFty /-/.G~ /~ _~-~'/.-~/Va ~/~Z,,.,,.. /...),,~/~.,,~
2. Legal Descrlpti.on of Property: Lot /~
Block / ~-~
Addition ~)~C/ O,q/
4. Applicant '(if other than owner):
PID No. ~"-/17 ',,.!.5f /! Z~O~O
Day Phone No../-/'?,~ ~7 7(2
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit
Zoning Interpretation ~ Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ] Sign Permit
( ).*Other
*If Other, specify:
· ~i Present Zoning District ....
· I
7- Existing Use(s) of Property ~-~_
8; Has an application ever been bade for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
~.""~-~s~'No. 82'141 Nonco~f0rming Lot and Structure Variances 'to place an attached
garage 18 feet to 20.3 feet from the street.
Lot 14, Block 14, Devon.
Mrs. Hetcher was present.
Discussed size of lot (4,062~) and size of proposed'garage and whether it could
be less deep (20 feet) so that there would be a minimum of 20 feet to the street.
Also discussed placement of overhead door. Applican~ felt this size needed both
for storage and for being able to get around a Charger to work on it.
Paulsen mOved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend that application as
requested be approved.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded'an, amendment t'o the motion that overhead
door be placed to the N.E. side of garage ashlar as practical.
The vote on the amendment was Weiland and Stannard against; all others voted
in favor. The vote on the motion as amended was Wei.land and Stannard against,
all others in favor. Motion carried. Weiland and Stannard feel that 18 feet
or 18.6 feet is too close to a dangerous road; garage could be made 20 feet
deep; sh'ould be some compromise with the building on a small lot..
~//)~ ~ Date
4182
i
'in
ty
.i
Request for Zoning-Variance Procedure
(2) Case
D. 'Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional, information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
I!1. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, 'as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In which it is located? Yes (?~) No ( )
If "no",,specify each non-conforming Use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulK ,regulations
for the zone district in-which it is.located? Yes { ) No {~0
If ."no", speci.fy each non-conforming use:
D.. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject proper¢~revent its
reasonable use for any of the.uses.permitted in that zoning district?
( ) iToo narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
(;>t~ Too. small ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (/) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~[) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
'only to the property described in this petition? Yes (/~) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. .What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? ~
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR:, ]-t"',~'/,~ ~ M/,,~..v~/~ //-/'~,/.-~¢//~,~-
r!g
o..tr~
T,Hansen
nor' ,p., &
Pellinen, Inc.
Consulting Engineers - Lend Surveyors - Site Planners
'/405 M;fchelJ R-l.,Eden Prairie, Mn. 55344
13907 Spring Lake Rd., Minnetonka. Mn. 55343 938-5678
,,o20~TS'" ,
I hereby certify that this survey, prepared by me or under my direct ~uper-
vision, is a true and correct representation of the boundaries of the above
described land and of the location of all buildings, if any thereon, .-4 all,
visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land and that I am
registered land surveyor under' State of Minnesota Statutes Section 3z6.02
to 326.16.
Date: , ~./ Registration NO.,
JobNo. ¢¢/-13o Book- Page P-¢K, Scale /
Case No. 82-141
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of August 30, 1982:
Board of Appeals
Case No; 82-141
Location: 4913 Island View Drive
Legal Desc.: Lot 14, Block 14, Devon
Request: Variance for non-conforming lot
& structure to place an attached
garage 18 ft. to 20.3 ft; from the
street.
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant:
Kevin James Hetchler
4913 Island View Drive
Phone: 472-4770
The applicant is requesting to Place an attached garage 18 feet to-20.3 feet
from Island View Drive.
The house size is 704 square feet; required is 840 square feet. The lot size
is 4,062± square feet; required is 6,000 square feet. The structure is 5.5
feet from the southwest property line and 11.I feet on the northeast; required
is 6, and 6 foot and 10 foot. The maximum size of'an accessory building is 10%
of the lot area or 406 square feet.
RECOMMEND:
I would recommend granting the variance due to a hardship of lot
size and the shape of the lot. The garage additi'on will be offset
to conform to the 6 foot sideyard minimum setback. The lots to
either side are buil.t on at the present time. Enclosed and off
street parking ~re desirable as Island View is a 15 foot right-of-
way with designated no parking. Possibly the proper sizing of the
structure to the lot size should be considered.
This will be going to the Council September 14, 1982.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
CITY OF MOUND
Fee Paid
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
· (Please.type the f. ollo~in~ information)/
1. Street Add'ess of P~operty ~ ~/' t /~/f~.~ /~// .~~,.
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ ,m~/-~'-~x~~
Address *,~ '..~~~ ~,
Date Filed ~6-~
.Block
No. I 0o,.??'
Day Phone No.
4. Applicant '(if other than owner):'
e
Name Day Phone No.
Type of Request: ~:;) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation &. Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit'
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
'(~; Present Zoning .District
7. Existing Use(s)of Property
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning )rocedure for this property? ~1'¢ If so, .list date(s) of
application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
us re~olut'ion~ sh~ll accompany pEe~nt rkqu~.
f the above statements and the statements contained in any required
a submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the eh.try
:....:or:upon't;he~prem~se described in this application by any authorized official of the City
' 6f~Mo',',~'d-'fOP--the' 'pur"Pose of insj~ecting, o.r/pf posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required.bt?w. ~r////r
Signature of Appl,cant~..~ ~Z~.~, Date ~-x~O--~.~
· ... /If .- -
4. Case No. 82-142 Nonconforming Use and Structure Variances ~"
Lots 22 and part of I ,2,3 and 5, Block 14, Avalon
Appiicant Matthew Phi llippi was not present.
Th~ Building Official explained this case. Applicant started remodeling building
at 4521 Manchester Road without a permit/has been rental property. There are two
single family houses on this one parcel of approximately 7,160 square feet. This
house is nonconforming and in hazardous condition. Discussed briefly variance
request/method of handling problem and list of items required to bring to code.
~f~d~.~2Paulsen moved and Jensen seconded a motion to table. The vote was unanimously
in favor.
q/~Z
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO CERTAIN
HAZARDOUS PROPERTY WITf-IIN THE CITY
LOCATED AT 4521 MANCHESTER ROAD
WHEREAS, complaints have been received regarding the structure located at
4521 Manchester Road, which structure is in a state of delapidati0n and structural
disrepair; and
WHEREAS, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand has inspected said premises and has
reported to the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to Sections 463.16 to 463.261, inclusive, Minnesota Statutes,
1980, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, finds that the struct~lre
located at 4521 Manchester Road upon the parcel of land legally described as follows:
Lot 22, the North half of Lot 5, the West 4(] feet of Lot 3, and that
part of Lots I and 2 lying West of a line drawn from a point on the
North line of said Lot i distant 19 feet East of the Northwest corner of
said Lot 1, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2, and there ending, all
in Block 14, Avalon
to be hazardous within the meaning of the aforesaid statute for the following reasons:
ao
Mortar missing from foundation walls and house
not anchored to foundation;
b. Foundation walls of inadequate depth;
Bearing supports, posts and beams are inade-
quate;
d. Block foundation inadequately supported and
open to exterior;
e. Floor joists overspanned;
Electric service not properly secured at service
entrance; grounding inadequate;
go
Outside deck stairway deteriorated and falling
apart; inside basement stairway deteriorated;
Plumbing illegal, including improper sizing of
water distribution;
i. Roof is sagged;
j. Gas appliance not vented.
2. Pursuant to the foregoing and in accordance with the said statute, the
City Manager or his designated officer is hereby authorized and directed to order the
owner of said property to correct the above deficiencies or to remove or raze such
hazardous building and that such repair, razing or removal be completed within 30
days of the date of service of said Order.
3. The City Manager or his designated officer shall advise the owner that
unless such action is taken or an answer served upon the City and filed in the Office
of the Clerk of District Court for Hennepin County, Minnesota, within 20 days of the
date of the service of the Order upon him, a Motion for Summary Enforcement of the
Order will be made to said District Court.
4. The City Manager or his designated officer shall further advise the owner
that if the City is compelled to take any corrective action herein, all necessary costs
will be assessed against the real estate and all necessary expenses will be certified
to the County Auditor for collection and that such costs and expenses will be collected
as other taxes.
5. The City Manager or his designated officer is further authorized to give
the above notice to any lien holders of record.
The foregoing Resolution was introduced by Councilman
was seconded by Councilman
and
The following voted in favor of the Resolution:
The following voted against:
The fo]lowing were absent:
WHEREUPON, the Resolution was adopted.
ADOPTED:
, 1982
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
-2-
CITY of MOUND
,5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUNI), MINNES4OTA 52',~-1
~612/ 472-11'-~
August 31, 1982
Mr. Curtis A. Pearson
1100 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN. 55402
Re: 4521 Manchester Road, Mound, Minnesota
Dear Curt:
Could you please prepare a resolution for the City Council
regarding the attached abatement of hazardous buildings?
Please be advised that the owner did apply to the Planning
Commission for the August 30th meeting, but did not attend
the meeting and the Planning Commission tabled the item
which was for a variance for structural repairs to a non-
conforming use and structure. A formal complaint has been
requested from the City Prosecutor.
Thanks for your help.
Sincerely,
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Encl.
117/82
CHECK LIST
HAZARDOUS AND SUB-STANDARD BUILDINGS
Q
e
An inspection form should be filled out relating to the premises.
This is necessary to show and, state the specific substandard
portions and items relating to the structure which we want the
council to order repaired.. Pictures ~ are helpful and should be
taken if at all possible.
The findings of the inspection report are incorporated in a
resolution to be presented for the council's consideration
calling for an enforcement ord. er. Special attent-ion should be
paid at this phase'of the proceedings to any questions relating
to personal property which may be on the. site~ and if personal
property is on the site, the owners should be ordered to remove
it or it may be necessary for the City to sell it before it can
proceed with the order. "
Service of the council resolution and enforcement ord. er must be
made by personal service on all of the following:
Cm;ner
Tenants
Any lien holders. (The owner has 20 days to answer the
council resolution.)
A copy of the resolution containing the enforcement order must
be filed with the clerk of District Court at least five days
prior to the filing of a motion to enforce the order.
The City must file a notice of lis pendens with t~e County.
Recorder or Registrar .of Titles noting the pendency of these
proceedings describing wi~h reasonable certainty' the lands
affected and. the nature of the-order. (If the City drops the
action, it shall within ten days remove the notice of lis pendens.
If the property owners or other interested parties do not answer,
the City then brings on a motion before the District Court for
the enforcement of the council's order. We then submit
affidavits and other data necessary for the court to enter its
order.
Contested cases are tried by the court under the rules of civil
procedure. The one ad. vantage is that the case has priority and
moves ahead of other cases on the calendar.
CITY 0~' lq(~UND
REPORT OF INSPECTION P£LATIVE TO HAZARDOUS AND D/~NGEROUS BUILDING(S) AT
4521 "-n '
,,~ chester CITY OF MOUND
SITE ADDRESS 4519/21 Manchester Road
WHAT INSPECTED 0ne structure of two on same parcel
DATE Auoust '25, 1982
PRINCIPAL USES 2 sinq.!e family structures
USE ZONE R-3 FIRE ZONE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 22, the .qorth 1/2 of Lot 5. !'J, 40 ft. lot 3
Pt. of Lots 1 & 2, Block 14, Avalon Addition
N/A
OI.rNER Hatthew J. Phillippi
22155 Minne.tonka Blvd. Excelsior 55331 . PHONE 474-2025
ADDRESS
AGENT
Berdahl-0rfield Inv. Co.
ADDRESS
iPANTS
same as above
vacant
PH ON E
DDRES S
HEIRS
PHONE
ADDFES$
GUARDI AN
PHONE.
ADDF_ESS
LIEN-HOLDERS
unknown
PHONE
ADDP£SS
CONSTPUCTION OF BUILDING
foundation
PHONE
. 12" block
wood frame~ lao sidin~ asohalt roofins, .
No. OF STOFiE£__J
TYPE OF HEATING PLANT
forced air nas
CC.]'C£,]TiO]~' C'r~ Hr m~qG ~ ~;~ not in operation at time of_iJqspection_
water.heater needs relief valve~ shut off value~ proper
~THEF FEC;qA?~]CAL EQUiPYdE)0T
--T1Q~"'~hh'e-~%]~6~7 ~as 1 ine channes
..... ~'- . ~ ": ....... '~C~' ~I~'~E)q~ .-fai~.to-p~r.-
, . . ~..-: ~ ~;. . ....
BUILDING INSPECTION
(HAZARDOUS & DANGEROUS)
ELECTRIC LIGHTING AND WIRING 60.amp.
)N OF ABOVE fair to poor
KIND OF ROOF 2 x 4's 2 ft. to 16 in. on center~ asphalt shingles With vents
CONDITION OF ROOF. structure has Sagged roof~ shingles good
CONDITION OF BASEMENT poor'., (new block portion only 20 feet 'of wall)
CONDITION OF WINDOWS , poor~ pu. tty. removed and one sill; one has~m~n~_ winde:,:
open; m~ss]ng storms & screens
ADEQUATE LIGHT AND AIR PROVIDED. yes
CONDITION OF SILLS fair to coot
CONDITION OF CHIMNEYS good! repaired recently at exterior
ATTIC: HOW USED non-habitable
CONDITION OF FOUNDATION WALL poor~ mortar missing and house '~o~c anchored to foundation,
inadequateq%k~ce depth in one area
CONDITION OF BEARING WALLS posts & beams inad~n.,~a'f.~ ~, placed o.~. concrete
concrete floor inadequate at footings
CONDITION OF NON-BEARING WALLS fair
OF EXTERIOR WALLS fair
CONDITION OF PLU~tBING poor, hole in building sewer., imProper waste; no ventin~
of fixtures ' "
CONDITION OF OTHER SANITARY FACILITIES disconnected at time of insDecti0n
CONDITION OF COOKING EQUIPMENT fair., electric stove
MUNICIPAL WATER yes WELL nn
serviced from other home on the si~e
CONDITION OF INTERIOR, LATH AND PLASTER, ETC.
MUNICIPAL SEWER yes
possibly inte?connected
TYPE AND CONDITION OF FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES none - smoke
al arm required
DI!~IENSION OF BUILDING
SETBACKS, FRONT 80 fi<+ REAR ..10 ft,
DISTANCE FROM OTHER BUIL, DINGS 55 ft.~,+.
L0? AREA 7.160 sq. ft.
REMARKS IN GENEPJkL started remodeling withoJ~ permits, such as reroof
bath ceramic tile floor, plbg. fixtures removed~ new 12" b]ock'wal] 20 ft
16.4' x 32.4' = 528 sq, ft. & / 8' x 23.5' = 188 ~ Total 716 ~
SIDES
encl
len( )rox~
mate!y~10 courses high; beams & po. stsplace directly on floor instead of raised on pier "
floor joist,over spaned (2 x 6's 2 ft ~ on center)~ inadequateysupported block
--f0undati°nW~hhas oo~nin~s
. ,_ to exterior with mortar missin~
~SL~ILDI N (~ ]]NSPECTION
(HAZARDOUS & DANGEROUS)
T SEPARATELY ALL PEPJ~.ITS ISSUED' FOP. BUILDING
BUILDING ·
HEATING
PLUMB IN G
1955 electric was inspected.
CONCLUSIONS: IS BUILDING A FIRE HAZAP~? yes WHY electric service
an~ grounding inadequate and installation not ali i'n safe condition at service entrance'
or w~rin§ secured
IS' BU1-E~3ING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC SAFETY? yes krHY.. Imor0per ven%ino of. ao_p. liance
to outside, stairway at deck deteriorated and falling apartF excavation at foundation
is open; s~airway to'basem~nt~?o~f'is-.sagged~ floor.a~d.~upports systems inadequate
BUILDING A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH yes= . ~" WHY PlumbinQ is illeeal in-
ng improper sizing of water distribution~ foundation area is open to outside and
subject to rodents and insects to enter as well as the weather elements
P~ECOb~ENDATION: CHECK O~]E
REPAIR (LIST ALL REAPIRS .REQUIRED)
· as per list
and/or I//~REMOVAL
WERE PHOTS- TAKEN? -yes
IF SO, ATTACH' COPIES TO THE REPOP. T.
BUILDING INSpEcTION
(HAZAPDOUS & DANGEROUS)
NkMES OF ALL INSPECTORS WHO INSPECTED THE PREMISES AND FILED REPORTS:
~]an Bertrand, Building Official
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY
ATTORNEY REVIEW
ATTORNEY ACT ION
SIGNATURE
TITLE
DATE
DATE
DATE
COUNCIL HEARING
COUNCIL ACTION
ILDING POSTED
ORDER SERVED
TIME 'FOR COMPLIANCE
for non-occupancy
DATE
DATE
DATE 8/25/82
DATE
HOW SERVED
COURT ACTION TAKEN
FILED WITH CLERK OF COURT
FILED WITH COUNTY RECORDER
DATE
-DATE
4521 Manchester Road
List of repairs required:
.Structure
1.) Install Wired-in smoke alarm.
2.) Enclose foundation area to be weather-tight.
3.) Backfill excavation and grade to allow for proper drainage around the
site.
4.) InstAll insulation at rim joist.
5.) Anchor structure to sill plate at foundation perimeter.
6.) Insulate foundation area at least at the crawl .space area and close off
openings in outside walls,and provide vapor barrier at ground level.
7.) Pour concrete floor over new footings to restrain lower block wall.
8.) 'Install and raise posts and beams to adequately support floor system of
2x6's two feet ~lus or minus on center with footings under supports.
9.) Rebuild and repair outside deck stairway.
10.) ProVide handrails to meet code at outsi~eand interior stairways.
11.) Adequately brace roof rafters to prevent any further sag or settlement.
12.). Install storms and screens, windowsills where needed and putty and'
weatherstrip interior window sash and install'handles at interior.
13.)
14.)
is.)
17.)
Provide adequate frost protection for roofed front entry supports.
Mortar blocks where, it is presently missing.
Interior doors to be installed and made operable.
Interior floor openings to be repaired.
Insulate and weatherstrip where needed.
Plumbing
1.) Secure copper water pipes, and size them to code.
2.) Provide shut off valve.where necessary.
3.) Separate connection to watermain and sewer.
4.) Repair hole in ~uilding sewer.
5.) Properly instal~l waste.and vent piping.to code and remove improper connec~
t~i,ons (aluminum pipe mixed with PVC, ABS and steel waste pipe).
Heating
1,) Provide operable heating controls (thermostat), sound control and properly
connect ducts.
2.') Provide gas shut o~fs to all gas appliances with proper vent connection
to water heater.
3.) Provide.relief and gate valve to water heater.
Electric
1.) Provide electric service entrance and ground to code (60 amp service).
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
August 25, 1982
6ERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Mathew J. Phillippi
21155 Minnetonka Boulevard
Excelsior, MN. 55331
Dear Mr. Phillippi:
It has come to the attention of the Building Inspection Depart-
ment that you are remodeling your structure at 4519/4521 Man-
chester Road in the City of Mound without obtaining the required
building permits. A stop order was placed at the site on
August 23, 1982. The structures are non-conforming by City
Ordinance and require variance approval to do structural repairs.
Please contact me within ten (10) days to discuss the planned
remodeling of the building.
Sincerely, .
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
CCl
Berdahl-Orfield Inv. Co.
City Attorney
116/82
peo~ qS!qu~0 ~LS~
CITY.OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
August 31, 1982
Dear Jon and Members of the City Council:
''After being employed by the City Of Mound for seven months, I feel I
must put some of my:though'ts in writing to see if the approach I am using
for the Building Inspection Department meets the needs of MoUnd and the elected
officials. Also, I would like.to set-some objectives, pose some problems, and
suggest some possible solutions to you and them.
First, I would-like .to state what'l feel is the objectives of a building
official. The majority of the City df Mound is comprised of housing and the
concerns should be for the safety, health'and we.lfare of the ~ccupants of
those structures from poor construction and hazardous situations. To, assure
to them adequate sanitation, potable water, electric service, heat systems,
protection from the elements as well as structurally sound homes. If a City
contains the aforementioned housing Stock, it also creates a good tax base
to continue the needed public services to its citizens. A]so, the'City derives
a benefit of lower fire hazards which allow lower insurance rates and fire
protection costs. Probably, my objectives are idealistic, but everyone must
feel their job is needed and serves a purpose.
I would llke to review with you some of the various situations I have
encountered regarding land subdivision, building without required permits,
rental complaints and zoning matters.
We have had a situation arise whereby I have 'found property subdivided,
possibly illegally, in which the new building owner of a commercial business
at 5579 Auditors Road has had to be ordered to connect to the watermain.
'Basically, the building has common walls on two sides, one sewer service and
one water service with Mound Auto Body at 2334 Commerce Boulevard. The prop-
erty records show a division of this parcel in December of 1967, but in reality
it is one building on two tax parcels.
I have had several occasions where property owners have been remodeling,
demolishing, alteriog structures without obtaining proper permits such as:
6635 Halstead Avenue, 1578 Eagle Lane, 5600 Grandview Boulevard, 1743 Wildhurst
Lane, 2530 Ruby Lane, 5440 Three Points Boulevard, 4857 Island View Drive, 27r'
Halstead Lane, 4665 island View Drive, 1677 Avocet Lane, 3064 Alexander Lane,
4519/4521 Manchester Road, 6385 Bay Ridge Road, 5222 Phelps Road, 2919' Holt
Lane, etc. Possibly the City should .publicize the requirements for building
permits, but I have been told that Mound gives people such a hard time getting
permits that they would rather risk getting caugh't. Also, I.have. heard that
people don't want to go through a zoning process, if they are non-conforming
so if they start building and get caught, they'll get a variance granted.
The Fire Department informs me that we have had several suspected arson cases
since I have been with the City. To assure equal treatment 'to everyone, I have
charged some persons through legal prosecution for failure to ~obtain permits
and I have tried to double fee them on occasion.
I have received a number of rental property complaints pertaining to
faulty stairways, rental of duplexes on undersized lots or single family dis-
tricts, wiring in buildings, pipes freezing, etc., etc. In some cases, I
have written notices of compliance to cease and desist rental of the property
and/or correction orders. I have seen. two structures on the same parcel being
rented .and three of those rental units were over driveunder garages with plumb-
ing service in the unheated garage portion with the utilities of one structure
servicing the other. Why the utilities were ever connected to such buildings,
· I don't know.
Could you advise me as to your feelings regarding my conclusions and possi-
ble solutions to some of these'situations? I feel. that I am doing a considerable
amount of enforcement rather than asslstance in construction, planning and zoning
matters. I would like to explain, the best I can, the tools we can use to accom-
plish better housing stock with less red tape.
First, we have the existing laws and ordinances such as:
a. Subdivision - properly control lot-splits and platting of land.
b. Zoning - establishes zoning use districts, minimum size and bulk of
property, setbacks, and non-conforming allowable continuations.
c. Bui. lding Code - establishes minimum standards to safeguard the safety,
health.and welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construc-
tion, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance
of all buildings and structures within the City.
d. Fire Code - State Fire Marshal - regulations are not for inspection of
one and two family structures except State Statute requires smoke de-
tectors in all rental property; and after the fire service is called,
the Chief can discont'inue the use of any fire hazard (such as a fire-
place, electrical problems related to a fire).
The building code does not require a Certificate of Occupancy for one and
two family dwell.ings. The building code regulates new construction and states
that "'All buildings and structures, both existing and new, and all parts thereof,
shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary cOndition. All devices or safeguards
which'are required'by this code shall be maintained in conformance with.'the code
edition under which installed."
Basically, I think the City could adopt a minimum housing Code standard for
existing dwellings. Possibl.y the citizens of Mound would like a well maintained
structure rather than anyone objecting to the size of an existing structur6.
Some cit. ies have taken on various housing programs to either rahab housing
stock or remove them. St. Louis'Park requires, a Certificate of Code Compliance
upon any sale of property. Minneapolis has two housing programs at the time of
sale; one is just a notification to the buyer of any problems and/or defects,
but no corrections required; the other is a. voluntary code compl~ance; after
the inspection'is made at your request, you are required to make any necessary
corrections.
Also, larger cities andsmaller cities have set Up redevelopment district(s).
The city than may purchase property, rehab or. demolish structures, and than return
the land and/or structures back for sale. They have sold homes for $1.00 and
allowed them to be rehabilitated.
We have scattered demoli'tion sites throughout, the City that have foundations
which have not been removed aod, in most cases, are full of weeds and debris. I
have had several persons .tell me they don't want to fix the house anymore, but
would like to remove it and build a'new home when'they can afford it. Can they
remove it and bargai~ to build again, if the lot size is under the minimum? I
have noted that, in some cases, .it has been allowed in the past. Also, owners
of a vacant or abandoned home are reluctant to remove the struCture for fear
· they can not reuse the property. Can the City compensate a property owner for
rendering the property useless such as relocation fees are used in a redevelop-
ment district?
Since a' good share of the property owners have had sizeable tax assessments
against their property, there is an increasing e'ffort, on their part, to do
something with their property such' as subdivide or sell some of it as.a building
site.
The Federal Government Commi'ssion on Housing has published some guidelines
to research housing in America. I have attached a brief description of their
concerns they would like addressed.
Recommendations of resident.'s
Commission on Housing
The Report of the President's Commi~s.ion on Housing, address~
lng all aspects of the housing questions confronting the nation and
focusing on matters of particular interest to the regulatory com.
muni~ is now available. The .Commission's findings regarding
state and local regblatory issues are discussed in four major sec-
tions: zoning (general and specific), develop.ment regulations, and
local permit processing:
General Zoning Regulations
· General Standard
To protect property rights and to increase the production of
housing and lower its cost, all state and local legislatures should
enact legislation providing that no zoning regulations denying or
limiting the development of housing should be deemed valid
unless their existence or adoption is necessary to achieve a vital
and pressing governmental interest. In litigation, the governmental
body seeking to maintain or impose the regulation should bear the
burden for proving it complies with the foregoing standard.
· Constitutional Validity of Zoning Restrictions
The President should direct the Attorney General to analyze the
constitutional validity and jurisprudential ramifications of the "vital
and pressing" standard for judicially determining the validity of
zoning ordinances and related standards that strike a balance
between legitimate governmental interest and individuals' rights to
property; if the Attorney General then concludes that a change
ould be sought in the existing Euclid standard, he should seek an
propriate case for urging the Supreme Court to adopt a new test.
Specific Zoning Standards
· Density of Development
The density of development should be left to the conditions of
the market except when a lesser density is necessary to achieve a
vital and pressing governmental interest.
· Zoning Restrictions on Manufactured Housing
States and localities should remove from their zoning laws all
forms of discrimination against manufactured housing, including
off-site fabricated housing systems or components conforming to
requirements of one of the current nationally recognized model
codes.
· Size of Dwelling Units (Single and Multifamily)
NO limits (minimum or maximum) should be placed on the size
of individual dwelling units.
· Growth Controls
Except where justified by a vital and pressing interest, govern-
ments should avoid growth contro'[s that limit production of
housing.
· Farmland Preservation Controls
Regulation restricting land to farm/n8 use should not be adopted
if it would limit housing production.
Development Regulations
Financing Infrastructures
Municipalities should consider using innovative financing
approaches to assist developers in providing infrastructure for new
residential development.
Cost-sensitive Standards
HUD should contract with the National Institute of Building
Sciences to develop cost-sensitive subdivision standards for state
and local government consideration.
· Wastewater Technology
No development should be barred for lack Of municipal sewer
Capacity if the developer is prepared to install at his cost proven
innovative and alternative wastewater technologies that meet pub-
lic health and safety requirements. To this end, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency should support both public and private
research activities related to innovative wastewater technologies.
· Builder/Developer Fees
Builders and developers should be obligated only for such fees,'
dedications, servitudes, parking requirements, or other exactions
as are specifically attributable to the development. Likewise, com-
munities should not be required to subsidize new housing develop-
ment infrastructure or facilities relating thereto. Builders and devel-
opers should pay only their pro rata share. They should be
permitted to install at their own ~ost facilities not publicly
available.
Local Permit Processing
· Wherever possible, procedures for obtaining permits for sub.
division and construction should be reduced and consolidated to a
single comprehensive permit to minimize the time between pur-
chase of land and occupancy by homeowners and tenants. '
In the area of construction standards and building codes, th'e
Commission addresses the federal role and state and local building
codes, making the following recommendations:
The Federal Role
· Private Sector Standards
Federal agencies, in their housing programs, should use appro-
priate voluntary private sector construction standards and rely
upon appropriate private sector processes for development and
revision of standards.
· BuildingProductEvaluationandApprovaiSystems
Reciprocity should be established between public and private
building product evaluation and approval systems with the objec-
tive of developing a single, nationally recognized I~rivate sector
system upon which the public sector can rely.
· Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety
Standards
Consistent with its legal authority, HUD should revise its man-
ufactured housing construction and safety standards, using, to the
extent feasible, nationally recognized voluntary standards
organizations.
· Energy-performance Standards
The federal government should repeal the building energy-per-
formance standards legislation and consider limited funding of
private research on total building performance.
· Access for the Handicapped
The federal government should use the American National Stan-
dards Institute (ANSI) standard for access for the handicapped in
order to meet the special construction needs of the handicapped
population. Furthermore, appropriate federal agencies should
request ANSI to develop, at the earliest opportunity, a methodology
for establishing scope requirements to determine local handi-
capped housing needs. In the interim, federal scope requirements
would be controlling.
To comply with federally assisted housing development require-
The Ceramic Tile Institute established the program of testing materials for'pedor-
mance at the request of many tile contractors who wanted to be sure they ware using
quality products.
The materials listed below have passed the designated tests. We feel you will be
protecting yourself, your customer and your industry by using quality materials, by
installing them correctly and by using them where they are intended to be used.
Manufacturers often advocate the use of their materials o~ surfaces not racom-
mended by the Ceramic Tile Institute, an example is wood. Ceramic Tits Institute
does not recommend bonding directly to wood with any products. We have tded to
give you complete information on this sheet. However, whenever you are in doubt
about materials you are using, feel free lo call the Ceramic Tile Institute office.
THIN-SET PORTLAND CEMENT
MORTAR--TEST CTI-64-1
CUSTOM BUILOING PROOUCTS,
INC.
Custom Thin-Set 'l~le Mortar, White
Custom Thin-Set Tile Mortar, Gray
Custom Tile-Set White, Thin-Set Mortar
Custom Tile-Set Gray, Thin-Set Mortar
'Custom-Crete Lalex Mortar
C-CURE CHEMICAL CO.~ INC.
(C-CURE CHEMICAL OF NEVADA)
Permabond Gray Sanded Thin-Set
Mortar
Permabond White Sanded Thin-Set
Mortar
Multi-Purpose Dry Set
'*Desert-Crete, Latex Thin-Set
Admixture
°*C-Cure Crete, Letex Thin. Set
Admixture
H. B. FULLER CO., TECHNICAL
ADHESIVES DIVISION
'Tec. Crete Liquid Rubber Portland
Cement Mortar
Tec Cement-Set, White
Tec Cement-Set, Gray
INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC.
"725 Multi-Purpose Thin-Set, Water
Additive
INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING PRODUCTS
White Thin-Set Mortar
Gray Thin-Set Mortar
L & M SURCO MFG., INC.
L & M Well Mix, White
L & M Floor Mix, Gray
°L & M Polycrete Plus
LATICRETE INTERNATIONAL. INC.
'Laticrete Tile Setting Liquid 4237
Latapoxy 210 Epoxy Adhesive
LES-K PRODUCTS, INC.
Ultrabond White Mortar
Ultrabon~ Gray Mortar
LIP BUILDING PRODUCTS, LTD.
"LIP 400 Acrylic
MER-KOTE PRODUCTS, INC.
MerKrete Tile SeEing Adhesive
USM CORPORATION, UPCO
CHEMICAL DIVISION
Tile Mate Thin-Set Mortar for Floor,
Gray
Tile Mate Thin-Set Mortar All Climate
Formula for Wall Tile, White
Tile Mate Thin-Set Mortar All Climate
Formula for Wall 'Rte, Gray
'When portland cement and fine
graded sand is added in accordance
with manufacturer's directions.
"When used in accordance with the
manufacturer's instructions.
2.
PORTLAND CEMENT GROUT FOR ~,¥
OR LESS JOINT WiDTH--TEST
CTI-64-3
CUSTOM BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC.
Custom'$ White *file Grout, Dry
H. B. FULLER CO., TECHNICAL
ADHESIVE DIVISION
Tec Dry Grout
INTERNATIONAL
BUILDING PRODUCTS
White Dry Tire Grout
LES-K PRODUCTS, INC.
White Magic Dry Grout
CERAMIC TILE INSTITUTE
700 N. Virgil Ave. · Los Angelsa, CA 90029 · (213, 660-1911
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Continued from page 17)
ments in this regard, builders should certify that the construction
complies with the ANSI standard and, where appropriate h the
federal scope standards.
* MinimumPropertyStandards
The Department of Housing and Urban .Development, the Farm-
ers Home Administration, and the Veterans Administration should
phase out their use of the single and multifamily Minimum Property
Standards and depend entirely on locally enforced building codes
that are consistent with the One and Two Family Dwelling Code or
one of the current nationally recognized model building codes.
Additional marketability and durability criteria may be used for
federally subsidized multifamily rental housing if required to estab-
lish a reasonable level of risk for federal funds.
In the absence of such a locally enforced building cc)cie, the
three agencies should enforce the One and Two Family Dwelling
Code or whichever of the current nationally recognized model
building codes is most widely used in the immediate area of the
individual project.
State and Local Buildin~ Codes
. Health and Safety Requirements
All building codes shbuld be limited to health and safety require-
ments; those responsible for developing or adopting'such codes
should remove existing requirements that do not meet this basic
test..
· 5tare and Local Use of Model Building Codes
States should adopt or require their local governments with
building codes to adopt, with little or no amendment, one of the
current nationally recognized model building codes and" 'ABO
One and Two Family Dwelling Code.
· Professional Code Administration
State and local governments should recognize and utilize exist-
ing building department personnel certification systems as an inte-
gral element of evaluating the technical competence of such
personnel.
e Membership o[Model Code Organizations
The model code organizations should include other technically
competent interested parties as full voting members in their deliber-
ative processes.
· .Conflicting Codes
The Board for the Coordination of Model Codes (BCMC) should
be encouraged in its effort to resolve differences between buildi.ng
codes and fire safety standards.
* Rehabilitation Standards
State and local governments should apply the HUD rehabilita-
tion guidelines as the basis for further development of their own
rehabilitation standards.
. Building Code Research
The federal government shoUld consider providing limited fund-
ing for research and demonstration projects to enhance the techni-
cal content and the administration of building codes.
e Licensing Construction Craftsmen
States should reform their laws relating to licensure of spe-
cialized construction workers (1) to remove licensure requirements
not related to basic health and safety and to remove te.~ting a.nd
scoring not closely and directly related to job performa (2) to
establish statewide licensure so licensed craftsmen ma~ .,perate
anywhere within the state; and (3) to grant recognition to compara-
ble licenses issued by other states.
The full report may be obtained by contacting the President's
Commission on Housing, ?30 Jackson Place, N. W., Washington.
DC 20503, (202) 395-5832.
CITY of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Jon Elam, City Manager
Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector
City Hall Roof Leaking
September 2, 1982
Over the last several weeks, I have read through the file regarding the
history of the roof leaks for City Hall. I have met with contractors and
discussed the skylights and a possible new design. I have met w~th two
representatives from Sander and Company to look over their foamed roof
system and its deficiencies. Yesterday I met with Jim O'Brien of Williams/
O'Brien Associates, Inc. :
I would like to itemize each problem and solution of all parties concerned.
Also, I would like to have the City Council decide which route we should
take to remedy the situation. I must stress that we have a short time span
to make corrective measures, due to the weather.
Mr. O'Brien has agreed to write up a specification sheet for contractors to
bid from and will charge us only for any structural calculations necessary
to complete .the building alterations.
Sander and Company (foam ~oof system) has agreed to do any recovery of the
roof, at no charge, when the skylights are altered at the lower level. The
upper roof, we would be charged for blending in the foam system with the
skylights, but our warranty would continue in force until expired by our
original agreement of July, 1980. At present, I want Sander and Company to
replace all of the lower roof at no charge. The upper roof has only sus-
tained storm damage to be repaired by us.
After discussing alternates of skylight design with various contractors, I
would like to suggest that the City Council select one of the following,
which I have listed in order of preference:
Remove the skylights and install new domed-thermo-commercially made sky-
light units. The size would be reduced to approximately 4 feet by 4 feet,
two in each of the five present openings. (10 domes)
Same as above, except two of the five openings be removed. Two domes in
three openings over the planter area. (6 domes) Attached is a 4 X 4
Wasco dome, approximately $450 each not installed. The curb height is
9 inches.
3. Raise the existing skylights off of the roof deck no less than 8 inches
To: Jon Elam
Subject: City Hall Roof Leaking
September 2, 1982 - Page 2
and install new flashing. The joint seals between units should be ex-
amined well at the time of alteration to assure that they remain tight°
If you would like me to attend the next City Council meeting, let me know.
Building Inspector
JB/ms
120/82
INDUSTRY LEADERS IN SKYLIGHTING, S ~ SKYDOME!
SMOKE AND HEAT VENTING .......
; OX 351 / SANFORD, MAINE 04073 / TEL: 207-324-8060
,
IFICATIONs: .
Skylights shall be thermalized Wasco Solar Energy Sky-
domes® Model CA as manufactured by Wasco Products,
Inc., Sanford, Maine. They shall consist of 9" high curbs with
incombustible and corrosion-resistant aluminum inner and
outer skins. These skins shall be separated at the base by a
thermal barrier to eliminate "through" conductivity of heat,
The skins will be joined at the top by an e-xtrusion of incom-
bustible and corrosion-resistant aluminum containing a ther-
mal break, condensation gut.tar and high performance elas-
tomeric gasket and butyl seals. The curbs shall be insulated
with a 1" thick unfaced fiberglass. The glazing shall have
an exterior load carrying element which is made from cast
acrylic sheet of a minimum thickness, all as specified in
;AAMA Std. 1601.1-1976, "Voluntary Thickness Specifications
for Acrylic Plastic Domes." The edges of the glazing shall
be encased and supported with non-combustible aluminum
retainers.
The skylights must meet minimum overall thermal perfor-
mance test criteria including an applied heat loss due to air
Infiltration or exfiltratlon which does not exceed 0.05 BTU I
Hr./Ft. of periphery in an annual average 71/~ mph wind and a
heat loss which is less than 6 BTU'slHr. I'F (for standard
301/4x301/4 test unit).
. Tests must be
o ifled by the
clation.
conducted in a commercial laboratory
Architectural Aluminum Manufacturers
STANDARD SIZES
AAMA.
MODEL NO. BXB THICKNESS
CA-2828 221/4 x221A .125
CA-2852 221/4 x46V4 .150
CA-3636 30tAx30tA .125
CA-3652 30V4x46~/~ .150
CA-4242 37x37 .125
CA-4280 .250
.~, CA-5276 46'Ax69'/2 .250
CA-5296 46~/4 x89t/2 .250
CA-6060 55x55 .187
'CA-6496 57t/2 x89t/2 .250
CA-8080 75x75 .250
For double dome .add prefix DD to model numbers. Example:
CA-(single dome), DDCA-{double dome).
STANDARD ACRYLIC DOME COLORS
DESIGNATION COLOR
CL CLEAR COLORLESS
2447 WHITE TRANSLUCENT
2412 TRANSPARENT SOLAR BRONZE
WASCO DOMES MEET AAMA THICKNESS SPECIFICATIONS
In order, to assist the architect, contractor and c~wner to specify and
obtain acrylic plastic skylights having adequate design load ~harao-
terlstics, the Skylight and Space Enclosure Division of the Architec-
tural Aluminum Manufacturers Association has adopted minimum
thickness standards--AAMA Publication No. 1601.1-1976, "Volun-
tary Thickness Specifications for Acrylic Plastic Skylight Domes".
Wesco Skydomes® are fabricated to this specification for a design
load of 40 psf. Always specify that plastic skylight domes be manu-
factured In accordance with this standard.
FILL IN
OUTER INNER
MODEL NO. QUANT. DOME DOME
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS: While Waeco Skydomee® end Sk¥11ghte ere deelgne(~ to eup.-
poffi the weight of enow, ICe, and the force of normal winds, they are not designed to with-
land the weight of people. If human eafety becomee a conllder&tlort, ekylights ehould bl
protected by relllnge, grlda or ecreene.
PROJECT
ARCHITECT
APPROVED BY
CONTRACTOR.
REPRESENTATIVE
INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
As soon as units have been.receiv~d at jobslte, open cartons or crates, and inspect to Insure that the units were not damaged during shipping.
(~) GUIDELINES
(3) MAS?,C /
· NAILERS \ /
ROOFI"G \ \
Cl~eck well opening and nailer construction for
correct dimensions and squareness. Opening should
have wood nailer (min. 2'x6') all around secured
to structure.
2. For square and Ior rectangular units, extend guidelines
8' from each comer.
3. Two Inches from edge of opening, trowel on mastic 4'
to 5' wide all around.
'CAUTION
GUIDELINES NAILS
'Caution--Do not allow roofing materials to come In
contact with dome°
4. Center square and/or rectangular units over opening
by lining up corners of unit with guidelines. Press
firmly into mastic.
5. Secure unit with 1 ~A', large head, annular ring
aluminum roofing nails or equivalent, placed 3'--4' on
center V~' in from outer edge.
UNIT
{~ MASTIC
6. Prime the top of the aluminum roof flange. Trowel
mastic over nailing flange and extend 4' to 5' wide
onto roof all around.
7. Strip In with felt paper approximately 7' wide.
8. Mop hot pitch and gravel.
9. Clean roofing materials from unit.
NOTICE OF HEARING ON:PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
City of Mound, Minnesota
TO WHOM IT MAY.CONCERN;
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that'the City Council of Mound Will meet at
7i30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 21, 1982, at the City Hall located at.
5341Maywood Road to pass upon the proposed assessment for the improvement
of:
"County Road 110 improvement Project"
The tota. 1 cost of the improvement is $305,780.53.
AND
"1981 County Road llO Street Light Project"
The total cost of the improvement is $'187,252.13.
Pursuant. to MSA Sec. 429.011 to 429.111. All property abutting upon or
lying within the above described limits and benefitting therefrom is proposed
to be assessed. The proposed assessment is on file for pub'lic inspection
at the City Clerk's Office.. Written'or oral objections will be considered
at the hearing, but the Council may consider any objections to the amount of
the proposed individual assessments'at an adjoucned meeting upon such further
notice .to the affected property owners as it deems advisable.
An owner may appeal an assessment to'District Court pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or
Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and
filing such notice with the District Court within ten days after service upon
the Mayor or Clerk.
No such appeal as~to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel
of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written
objection to that assessment with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has
presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing.
The City Council has adopted pursuant to the authority granted by
· Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 435.193 to 435.195, a resolution containing standards
and guidelines for deferring assessments for senior citizens for whom it would
be a hardship to make the payments on homestead property. The standards and
'guidelines are on file with the City Clerk for your inspection.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in The Laker September 7, 1982 and
September 13, 1982
CITY OF'MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1982
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
September 13, 1982
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council Will meet at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on
September 28, 1982 at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road to pass upon the
proposed assessments. The general nature of the improvements and the areas to
be assessed are as follows:
CENTRAL~BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE - 1982 - Area within the
following boundaries proposed to be assessed:
Belmont Lane on the East
North of Lynwood Boulevard to Tonkawood Road
700 feet West of Commerce Boulevard
700 feet South of Shoreline Boulevard
Total Cost to be Assessed
$22,28'1.07
The proposed assessments for the above are on file for public inspection at the
City Office. Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing.
An owner may appeal an assessment to district .court pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or
City Clerk within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such
notice with the district court within ten days after service upon the Mayor or
City Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel of
land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written objection
to that assessment with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or has presented
the written objection to the presid'ing off. icer at the hearing.
Jon Elam, City Manager
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Hinnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESS~.~ENT
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER BILLS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound will
meet at the City Ha11,5341Maywood Road,Mound, ~iinnesota, at 7:30 p.m.
on September 28,1982,to hear,consider and pass on all written and
oral objections,if any, to the proposed assessment on the following
parcels of land for :
Unpaid Water and Sewer Bills:
Property Identifaction
#13-117-24-43-0060
#14-117-24-14-0017
#19-117-23-34-0041
#22-117-24-43-0007
#24-117-24-11-0012
#24-117-24-41-0097
#24-117-24-44-0081
#25-117-24-12-0118
$102.14
$161.91
$ 95.70
$i567.50
$ 66.40
$ 98.50
$ 98.00
$I24.00
An owner may appeal an assessment to district court Pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or
Clerk of the City within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment
and filing such notice with the district court within ten days after ser-
vice upon the Mayor or Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of an assessment as to a specific parcel
of land may be made unless the owner has either filed a signed written
objection to that assessment with the City Clerk prior to the hearing or
has presented the written objections to the presiding officer at the hear-
ing.
(publish. in the Laker September 13~1982)
Jon Elam
City Manager
070
CITY OF MOUND,
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
UNPAID TREE REMOVAL CHARGES AND
UNPAID WEEDCUTTING CHARGES
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound will
meet at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road,· Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on
September 28, 1982, to hear, consider and pass on all written and oral objec-
tions,- if any, to the proposed assessment on the following parcels'of land
for:
Unpaid Tree Removal Charges:
Propert'y Identification
# 24-117-24' 12 0037
$455.O0
Unpaid.Weedcutting Charges
Property Identification # 13-117-24 12 0032
$100.00
'An owner'may appeal.an assessment to District Courtlpursuant to Minne-
sota Statutes 'Section 429.081 by serving'notice of the appeal upon the Mayor
or Clerk of the .City within 30 days after·the adoption .of the asses'sment and
filing such notice with the District COurt within ten days after service
upon the Mayor or Clerk.
No such appeal as to the amount of.an assessment as to a specific parcel
of land may be made unless the' owner~has either' filed a signed written objec-
tion to that assessment with the City.Clerk pribr to .the hearing or has
presented the written objection to the presiding officer at the hearing.
Fr~n-cene C. Clark, City Cl~rk
Publish in The Laker September 13,1982
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS I~ LAND SURVEYORS [] PLANNERS
September 2, 1982
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. Jori Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject:
Mound, Minnesota
1982 Street Overlay Project
Payment Request No. 1
File #6468
Dear Jon,
Enclosed is payment request No. 1 in the amount of 329,554.52 for the above
project. This request is for work completed through 8-31-82.
If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
JC:bb
Enclosure
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
printed on recycled paper
7"T~ACTOR F'AY ESTIMATE NO. 0~1.
6468
MOUND, MINNESOT~ 1988 STREET OVERLAY F~P. OJECT
PAGE
O1
ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-~(NUTSON CONTRACTOR: AERO ASPHALT, INC.
18800 IND PK. BLVD P.O. 80X 817
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 HAMEL, MN 55340
DATE: 08/31/88
-- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE SUMMARY --
WORK COMPLETED
SECTION I-- PRIEST LANE
SECTION II - RUSTIC RIDGE ROAD
SECTION III - GUM.WOOD ROAD & LANGDON LN
CH. ORD.1 - MOUND 8AY PARK-PARKING LOT
CH.ORD 8-F'UBLIC WOP, KS GARAGE-PARKING LOT
H~TERIALS ON SITE
SECTION I - PRIEST LANE
SECTION II - RUSTIC RIDGE ROAD
SECTION III - GUHWOOD ROAD & LANGDON LN
CH. ORD.1 - MOUND BAY PAPX-PARKING LOT
CH.ORD 8-PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE-PARKING LOT
THIS PERIOD
?,456.46
3,161.76
14,488.71
3,775.B0
8,893.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O. O0
ADJUSTED TOTAL
LESS RETAINAGE - 0% PREVIOUS,
TO DATE
7,456.46
3,161.76
14,488.71
,3,775.90
8,893.80
0.00
0.00
0'.00
0.00
0.00
31,110.03 31,110.03
5% CURRENT 1,555.50 !,555.50
TOTAL AMOI~T DUE FOR WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 89,554.58
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 89,554.58
89,554.58
89,554.58
APPROVED:
CONTRACTOR: AERO ASF'HALT, INC.
August 31, 1982
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS I~ PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. Jori Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364
Subject:
County Road 110
M.S.A. Funds
File #6001
Dear Jon:
As we have discussed, there is a possibility that the City of Mound could
appropriate a portion of its M.S.A. Construction Fund for the work on County
Road 110. Hennepin County has used their state aid funds for the majority of
this project with the exception of the extras incurred with the addition of the
new.street lights. Street lights do qualify as an eligible item for M.S.A.
funds, with some stipulations. From what we can determine, Hennepin County
never requested any state aid funds to cover the supplemental agreement that
Mound signed. This agreement included the extra cost for the street lights and
the sidewalk which was changed from bituminous to concrete. The final cost to
the City of Mound for this part of the contract is 5109,375.63, which includes
10% for administrative costs.
The City has, at this time, a balance of 592,654.77 in their M.S.A. Con-
struction Fund. If you so desire, we can request this money be appropriated to
pay the major portion of the extra cost of the street lights and sidewalk. The
District State Aid Engineer, Chuck Weischeltaum, thought we had only a 50%
chance of receiving the funds since the request will be made after completion
of the project. We would recommend the City request these funds at this time
unless there are plans for a specific M.S.A. project in the near future.
Enclosed is a sample resolution which would need to be adopted by the City
Council if we are to proceed.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
JRC/jb
Enclosure
printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
~ Appropriation of Municipal State-Aid Funds
To C.S.A.H. or T.H. Project
WHEREAS, It has been deemed advisable and necessary for the City of
Mound to participate in th~ cost of construction projects located on C.S.A.Ho
No. 110 within the limits of said municipality, and
WHEREAS~ Said construction projects have been approved by the Depart-
ment of Highways and identified in its records at S.A.P. No. 27-710-04 and Noo
27-710-02.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That we do hereby appropriate from our
Municipal State-Aid Street Funds the sum of ~92,000.00 dollars to apply toward
the construction of said' project and request the Commissioner of Highways to
approve this authorization.
CERT IF I CAT ION
I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a Reso-
lution presented to and adopted by the Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the day
of , 1982, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my
possession.
(SE~)
City Clerk
City of Mound
INTEROFFICE MEMO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jon E1 am ./~ ~
Bruce Wo]d
Modification of Chapter 37 Part D of City Ordinances
DATE, August ~1
Jon:
Chapter 37 Part D of the city ordinances deals with Transient merchants,
hawkers, peddlers and solicitors. The chapter is designed to set the
requirements for licenses required by these business persons. While
reviewing the ordinance, I noticed that there is no exemption for non-
profit organizations. As I currently interpret the ordinance, all
orgainzations are required to pay for and obtain a license before carry-
ing out any of the business transacti,ons described in this chapter.
I think it would be a good idea to specifically exempt community based
non-profit organizations from the need to pay for alli'cense. However,
I do feel that it would be good to make them apply. That way we~'would
be aware of fund raising efforts that are underway, and would, be better
able to respond to inquiries by the public. Often the pclice department
will recieve calls about the authenticity of a peddler who has arrived
on a resident's doorstep.
This is for.your information and action.
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS
Mound, Minnesota
Mound Bay Park Improvements
File #6564
Sealed proposals will be received, publicly opened, and read aloud at 2:00
p.m., September 20, 1982 at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota,
for park improvements. Work consists of approximately 1250 tons of beach sand,
76 trees, 59 shrubs, a removab%e 60 L.F. dock, 2 acres seeding, and miscellane-
ous grading. The.pro~qsals will be considered by the City Council at their
meeting on September~ 1982.
Ail proposals shall be addressed to:
Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364'
and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the
statement "PROPOSAL FOR MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS" and shall be on the Pro-
posal form hound into the specifications for the project.
Copies of the plans, specifications, and other proposed contract documents
are on file with the City Clerk~and at the office of. McCombs-Knutson
Associates, Inc., 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441.
Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the
office of the above address of the Engineers upon deposit of $25.00. The full
amount of the deposit for one set will be refunded to each bidder who has made
a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner, upon return of the plans and
specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened.
Each bidder shall file with his bid an acceptable certified check or
bidder's bond in an amount of not less than ten percent (10%) of the total
amount of his bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the
bids are opened.
The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive
any informalities or irregularities therein.
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk
By: Rock Lindlan, Mayor
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Date: September 2, 1982
To: Jon Elam
From: Sharon Legg
Re: Transfers for fire
Attached are two resolutions which need to go before the council
for approval. The first resolution satisfies the Fire Capital
Outlay Fund deficit at January 1, 1982. Mound absorbs this cost.
The second makes the transfers necessary to satisfy Mound's
portion of the 1982 cost of the contract with surrounding commu-
nities.
Summary of costs of'each contracting city:
Mound"s share $ 116,725
Minnetonka Beach 9,292
Minnetrista 22,573
Orono 41,223
Shorewood 1,854
Spring Park 23,933
$ 215,600
SL/gb
RESOLUTION # 82-
RESOLUTION TRANSFERING $9,09 7.67
FIRE CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND
WHEREAS, the Fire Capital Outlay had a ~und deficit of $9,O9~.67 on Janua'Y~ 1,
1982, and
WHEREAS, Mound contracts with surrounding municipalities for fire services
on an on going basis, and'
WHEREAS, this deficit existed before the existing formula for contributions
was effective, and
· NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
to transfer $9,097.67 from the General Fund to the Fire Capital
Outlay Fund to satisfy the'deficit at $9,097.67.
77
RESOLUTION # 82-
RESOLUTION TRANSFERING MOUND'S
1982 FIRE COSTS PER CONTRACT
WHEREAS, Resolution 81-394 created a special Fire Service Fund for the fire
depar.tment,.and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS.~
the City of Mound entered into a fire contract with surrounding
municipalities, and
Mound's share of the total contract is $116,725, and
$78,100 of Mounds. share is provided by special tax levies which
'are credited directly to the Fire Relief Fund and Fire Equipment
Certificate Fund, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BEFIT RESOLVED BY. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
to transfer the balance, $38,625, from the General Fund to the
Area Fire Service Fund ($22,625) and Fire Capital Outlay Fund
($16,000)
ogo
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 55.38A TO THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY SIGNS ~,
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 55.38A is hereby added to the City Code and shall
read as follows:
55.38A. Temporary Signs..~ The, City Manager is authorized to
issue a permit for the e~ction of a temporary sign if said
sign meets the following standards:
(a) 'Will not be erected for a period in excess of
two months.
(b)
Conforms to all set backs and other requirements
relating to the zoning ordinance.
(c)
Is for a community organization and meets all the
standards.
No administrative approval shall be given for signs of political
candidates or political parties under this provision:lof the
ordinance. Ail signs relating to political candidates and
political parties shall conform in all respects to all sections
of the sign ordinance and the Zoning Code of the City and shall ~R7
be subject to approval or disapproval under this administrative
section of the ordinance.
Attest:
Mayor
Clerk
Adopted by City.Council
Published in Official Newspaper
BILLS .... SEPTEMBER 7, 1982
Aero Asphalt 29,554.52
Air Comm 90.00
All Star Electric 1,480.05
Astleford Equip 16.10
Applebaums 34.24
A A Battery Co. 149.94
Acro Minnesota 140.60
Auto Con Industries 108.60
Bradley Exterminating 55.00
Chris Bollis 178.20
Bowman Barnes 114.16
Burlington Northern RR 533.33
Baldwin Supply 53.19
danet Bertrand 44.10
Brock White Co. 6.70
Sy Cooper 315.91
Commissioner of Revenue 1,408.20
" " 4,853.36
Concord Travel 10].00
Commiss. of Employer Relatn 25.93
C¥'s Mens Wear 574.43
Cheyenne Copy Center 22.00
Fran Clark 9.46
Dependable Services ' 33.00
ELMarketing 6,275.00
Jon Elam 28.24
Judy Fisher 15.75
Greyhound Travel. 179.O0
Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept 274.54
Henn Co. Treas 1,567.50
Robert E. Johnson 23.32
J & R Refrigeration 900.98
Ken & Norm's Cabinets 15.00
Kelley & Kelley 38.00
Sharon Legg 23.88
Glen Litfin Transfer 225.00
Minnegasco 19.61
City of Minnetrista 420.00
Mid Central Fire 59.85
Mound Super Valu 76.47
Metro Fone 11.80
Mound Explorers 56.00
N.S.P. 355.43
M.F.O.A. 12.00
City of Mound 77.73
Metro Waste Control 1,262.25
Mound Postmaster 101.04
MWCC Conference 60.00
Nat'l League of Cities 235.00
Lynn Nichols 51.07
Jerry Longpre
Peat Marwick Mitchell
Pitney Bowes Credit
Don Rother
Bob Ryan Ford
Wm Stewart
State Bank Mound (Bond
II II II
State Bank Mound
Swedlund Sewer & Wtr
Water Products
Xerox Corp
R.L. Youngdahl
Ziegler,. Inc.
Marina Auto Supply
Pymt)
TOTAL BILLS
LIQUOR BILLS
Bradley Exterminating
Butch's Bar Supply
City Club Distrib.
Coca Cola Bottling
Diversified Representtve
Day Distrib
East Side Beverage
Gold Medal Beverage
Home Juice
Johnson Paper
Kool Kube Ice
The Liquor House
City of Mound
Midwest Wine
A.J. Ogle
Pepsi Cola/7 Up
Pogreba Distrib
Real One Acquisition
Thorpe Distrib
Griggs, Cooper
Johnson Bros. Liquor
Old Peoria
Ed Phillips & Sons
Total Liquor Bills
GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS
17.10
464.00
26.00
25.30
24.96
75.oo
18,331.90
18,950.00
17.10
3OO.OO
179.83
191.00
5,538.00
41.25
356.01
96,803.93
]9.00
243.75
3,392.10
285.20
83.72
5,282.64
4,371.06
221.09
29.04
279.55
555.6O
1,177.23
26.40
712.56
2,831.84
337.00
4,237.8O
675.00
6,080.90
2,897.03
1,804.32
168.86
1,560.46
37,272.15
134,076.O8
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO TAX FORFEIT LANDS,
REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IP~OSE CON-
DITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT
LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF
ADJOINING LANDS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department
of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the
City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes, and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a number of tax parcels which
do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes
because of a lack of minimum area, shape, frontage,access problems,
or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions which are
adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this
City, and
WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation
which would allow said parcels to be withheld from public.sale and sold
at a no~n~ublic sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and
to increase compliance with land use ordinances and Minnesota Laws of
1982, Chapter 523, Article 39, Sec. 6 was adopted to provide said
authority to the City and the County, and
WHEREAS, a specific list of tax forfeited lands has been pro-
vid&d'the City and the City wishes to restrict and condition the sale
of certain lands to bring them into conformance with City ordinances
and land use goals,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mound City Council as
follows:
1. The County Board is hereby requested to impose conditions
on the sale of the following described lands, and is further requested
to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoining at a non-public
sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes
and will comply with City ordinances and regulations:
Parcel
Reasons for
and Conditions
to be Imposed
Special Assess-
ments Canceled
or Levied While
Tax Forfeit
Lot 1, Block 38, Wychwood
PID #24-117-24 41 O149
Land Sold to Adjacent Property
Owner - Unbuildable Lot
Levy #8297
$1,987.60
(to be paid by the City)
2. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the
County imposing the aforestated conditions and the lien of special
assessments on said lands.
Attest:
Mayor
City Clerk
RECONVEYANCE OF FORFEITED LANDS TO STATE OF 5IINNESOTA
BY GOVERNI~IENTAL SUBDIVISIONS
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01, Subdivision 1, the STATE
OF MINNESOTA, as trustee under Minnesota Statutes, Section 281.25 conveyed to
CITY OF MOUND ., a governmental subdivision, the lands hereinafter
described, to be used for an authorized public use, and
WHEREAS, Said g'overnmental subdivision *has failed to put such land to the Public use
for 'which is was
CITY OF HOUND .__now desires to reconvey said lands to the State of
Minnesota, as such trustee,
NOW, THEREFORE, This indenture, made :this 7t~h day of September 19 82,
between CITY OF MOUND .a governmental subdivision of the
State of Minnesota, as party of the first part, and the State of Minnesota, as trustee as hereinafter set forth,
as party of the second part,
WITNESSETH, That the said party of the first part, in consideration of the premises and
other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, does hereby Grant, Bargain,
Quitclaim and Reconvey unto the said party of the second part all the tract or parcel of land lying and
being in the County of HENNEP I N in the State of Minnesota, described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 1, Block 38, Wychwood -PID #24-117-24 41 0149
in trust as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section 281.25, upon like conditions and with like effect
as if said lands had not been conveyed to said party of the first part as aforesaid.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all the hereditaments and
appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining, to the said party of the second part and
its successors and assigns, Forever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Said party of the first part has caused these presents to
be executed in its corporate name by its. MAYOR
and its CITY MANAGER and its corporate seal to be
hereunto affixed the day and year first above written.
In Presence of:
CiTY OF MOUND
Name of Governmental Subdivision
By
Its M a ye r
By.
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA}
County of Hennep i n ss.
On this 7th day of September ~ 19 82 , before me,
a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared
I~i0hrnn I inrll~n and Jan Elam
to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn say that they are resloeetively
the Mayor and the C i ty Manaqer of the
governmental subdivision named in the foregoing instrument, and that the seal affixed to
said instrument is the corporate seal of said governmental subdivision, and that said
instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said governmental subdivision by ahthority
of its C i I;Y Cgun~i 1 and said Mayor
and City Manaqer acknowledged said instrument to be the free
act and deed of said governmental subdivision.
J (.,}Jl~l CootthuedtrompngelD~ ":' '-' ~,,~ ?~,,' ;~, ). ~ mqu~totheSBC~llng wllch~ys
' ~ - '~ ~' ~ ~,~; ? % ': ~.~ ,' '~ h~ no pious "relaling to ~be
the d~[Io~ thereo~."
(~ an app~t ~u]~ TOU~ ~. ~ Ton~ ~ conceo~ng'on cuftlO~ '*., '
skidded more ~an a ~lrd th the fl~ :'~ C~ end ~lllng harder. Shank ~ld - Bmmak, t~, bM mcenUy tacked
two ~ee~ o~ July, only ~ ~und ~e com~ny'[ problen~ to ~e ~tu ~ botuta~, but Tonk~ ex~utiv~
~ly On the hae~ of news ~al [ 1~7~ centered ~n "ve~ hl~ ~ deny thai he's Inter.ted In n ~k~
New Jersey investor had acquired
7.3 percent of Tonko stock. Takeover
rumors apparently fueled that rise,
toys.
trend th the tredlUonal toy merket."
Shank said. "But (going electronic)
wu semething that JUSt didn't make.
souse to us. There are lots of compa-
nies well established tn that markeL
And In the toy IndUStry, Intucemers
pay a significant price trying to
liructllres and new types ot competl- over.,. - , .
tloo tn the marketplace*'.~chiefly . '
cheaper toys Imported from the Far "~[ts a~tude wu that (he and h'is
EasL company) wanted o large minority
~ ' holding taa public U.S. company as
The company trimmed ItS prodoc- an investment," Shank said. "They
Uno staff test spring and tS subsOt~l-, didn't want the responsibility of con-
lng word processors for new secre~ trolito~ or managing a company**' '
thrias where possible, It's making ...........
economies in the travel bodgeL can-
doctth8 energy auditS and taking
ar measures "that a company ought
to be doing all the time," said L.
Martin LeBus, vice prasldont and
chief fiannclel officer,
Tonka also sire[relined Itself by sail-
thg it hydraulics sobs]dtary, Gresce
,- . Manufacturing Co., tn January 1981.
cetch up.'" 1 "Although Gresen bad contributed e
Shank expressed confidence that t~- major pertian of Tonka's earnings,
dlUonal play habits are as durable as Shank said it didn't make asnsa to
the Tonka truc~ bulltaroand them, . manage operations as different U
· toys' and hydraulic e~t.quflcturin~.
"The beslc values (of Tonka toy~) AnalystS seemed to agree that Tonka
are imaginaUve play end active play, sold Gresen, for about $37 million, at
capabilities and interacUng with nth- ' proceod~ to buy bach 600,000 sharus
er children. Where the whole play of stock at the end Of 1981,
environment ts not contained within . . '* '
pUShing · button.'* Tonka. according- *'To meet the challongo.of cheaper.
ly, will "broaden the product lien," overseas competiUon, Tonka built a
Shank said, but through an extaestuo ' factory th Jcaraz, Mexico, which bm*
oflistrodltionalprnducts.. 'ghn producUon in March. Althou~lt
the Jnares productS are coming back
Tonka has a tot 'of 'stattsUc~ tu tis ' to the United States for distribuUoa,
corner. First is the #echo*'. baby , LeBUS said Tonka is studying
the
boom, which started th the late 19709 prospects for shipping them to Eu-
and is expected to cenUnue through ~ rope and Cocada, where they might
at least tile ~mid-1980s, Total U.S. * have tariff edvanthses, over U.S.'
births have bean rising about 4 per* produc~. ',
cent · year from their 1975 Iow of~'. ..'!'
3.1 milltuo and Ora expected to hit 4: At the same time, Tonka will t~ to
million to 4.3 milUon by t985 (corn* sell its products harder, with con*.
pared with 4.3 million at the peak Of sneer rebate~ a new advertising
· e original baby boom tn 195'/), said ~ ogenc~ and marketing such as ? full..
Mark Witmer, an analyst who tol-' page ad tu TV Guide.
lows Tonka for Data Bcowort~ Inc. . '
' . Tonka also is hedging its pets. FOr:
The number of women in the main . the first time in itS history ii has
child-bearing years, 20 to 34. hUe .' marketed a better¥-powered tay--*a
increased from 21 million to 1970 to ~ tour-wheel-drive Jeep called the
27 million in 1980, WItmer added. Power Shift Mountain M~tar-.*and
·plans to make more. Shank speaks of
Tonka*s gamble is whether all th0~e new toys thM will offer "more ex*.
~hlldren will bo gobbled up by Pac- cllement and more value for the toy
Men. Shank said he thinks not: . dollar.** ~ . . .
"Tee basic market for our toy~ is Tonka alsor has' cepitutisad on
younger children -- 18 monti~ to g '~ valuable brand came through h ll-
ycers -- which is somewhat below 'ceasing oB~'eomont with £Jkay Indus-
the video inmos market** tries of New York. which will pro-'.
~ , duce boys* wear, bearing the ToaSt.
Still, the analys~ are cautious. - name and logo... . ·
· 'The consumer is vel~ cautious, sa ~*AII this has undergone considerable'
he's going to buy .the one thing that scrutiny On Wall Street. Tonka Stu~k
his kid wants--and tt's probably not ' fell from i9% on June 29 to 12%
a Tonka truck, it probably is a video July 1S, Opparantiy in anticipation of
game," said Richard P~le, a vice weak seCond-quarter earnings news,
president at Piper, Jeffrey and Hop- But it was beck ia the upper teens by
wood, Inc., who follows Tonka and. the end of t~e month, apparently
the toy indUStry, because of a Securities and
............. · ~ . , * change filing by Norman ~ o New
'They're taking It on the chin from Jersey investhr, saying that his film
the video games*** Wttmer said, . had acqt}tred 7.3 percent of Tonka.
'*'even though they' haven y6onger,'**' stock. ~ , ' · . .
clientele and you'd think most of . · ' ' '' ' ·
those kids coaldn*t unders~nd video Shank hadLeBUS say they know,
games. And yet I look at my neigh* nothing Of Llzt's motives, and ana-
l' bor°s kids---they're. $ nod 8--and lysts think.a takeover move unlikely
they play Pa'g-'Mike"ali l/ay; ~A' let of'*' becousa'35.9 percent of Tonka Mock
the toy dollarw that are spent ¥cer-ln' ,is already controlled by Gordon Bra-.
had year-out are being diverted to . ~nmb, a British industrialist who efts
Yet many observers agree with
Shank that there is a futura for
fashioned play habile.
'"I have ~ bard 'Ume beltevtag that
the way children play is Snide to
change that much," said Piper Jar-
· frey*s I~le. "Tboy*re sUII going to be
looking at some action toys to play
On Tonka's board. .
(List pulled off quite h dlfleront ma~!
da citrus concern, In May. After buy.'
lng 350,000 Orange-ce shares at
about $8.50 a share, I.ixt said he'
might try for a takeover and wsa
desc~*iped by the Wall Street Journal
with. ~
"It seemed to me that perbabs a toy
that Tonka might be able to came
out with might be one of their tn~chs
with some sort of memory In it. Mil-
ton Bradley a few yeofl ago came
out with e toy that bad batteries and
o memory. It would go o certain
would think that that type of toy
within Tonka's range,"
Shank admitted that th~ company
has ItS chalicogt~, despite the repot-,
rouen of itS toys. '
· 'Co~sumers r~ce~nise the value of e
well-made toy, but there are ulti-
mately limitations on the price eom-
peri~oes,*' Shank said, **It's harder to
'Orange-co for the equivalent
about $11 a share.)
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AGENDA
Regular Meeting, 8 p.m., Wednesday, August 25, 1982
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
4901~ Manitou Road (County Road 19), Tonka Bay
2.
3.
4.
e
Call to Order
Roll Call
Minutes: June 23, 1982
Treasurer's Report
A. Monthly Financial Report
B. Bills
Committee Reports
A. LAKE USE COMMITTEE
(1) Committee Report
(a) Sp. Ev. Permit: MORC Station 40
(b) Sp.Ev.Permit: Ski Hut
(c) Letter: Sailboat Lighting
(d) Letter: Lake Use
(e) QW Request: Cedar Point West
(2) Action Items
(a) Sp. Event Permit: MORC Station 40
(b) Sp. Event Permit: Ski Hut
(c) Sailboat Lighting-Registration Notice
(d) Lake Use Letter
(e) Q.W. Cedar Point Buoys
(3) Other
B. WATER STRUCTURES & 'ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
(1) Committee Report
(a) P.H.Report: Bruce Frederick
(b) " Park Hill II
(c) '" Greenhouse Eatery
(d) " City of Greenwood
(e) " Lord Fletcher Apts.
(f) Variance Orders
(2) Action Items
(a) Bruce Frederick Dock License
(b) City of Greenwood Dock License Amendment
(c) Lord Fletcher Apartments
(d) Variance Order: Wayzata Yacht Club
(e) Variance Order: Driftwood Shores
(f)' Grays Bay Dam Management Plan
(3) Other
Code Amendments
A. Special Event P~rmit Fees (second reading)
B. Towing in QW Areas (first reading)
Other Business
(f) 1982 Buoy Program
(g) Towing Amendment Review
(h) Water Patrol Report
(i) Other
(g) Future Public Hearings
(h) Dock License Review
(±) Rental vs 4 Boats Discussion
(j) Environment - Dam 0pe~ation
(k) Other
Adjournment
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
REGULAR MEETING
TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL
June 23, 1982
The regular meeting of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District was
called to order by Chairman Brown at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, June 23, 1982
at the Tonka Bay Village Hall.
Members present:. Richard Garwood (Deephaven), Jerry Johnson (Excelsior),
Robert Brown (Greenwood), Robert Pillsbury (Minnetonka), Lois Johnson
(Minnetonka Beach), Jo Ellen Hurr (Orono), Robert Rascop (Shorewood),
Frank Hunt (Spring Park), Ed Bauman '(Tonka Bay), and Robert Slocum
(Woodland).~ Communities represented: Ten (10) o
Hunt Moved, Garwood ~econded that the minutes of the May 26, 1982 meeting
be approved. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Garwood Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the Treasurer's report'be approved
and the bills paid. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Bauman Moved, Hunt Seconded that the 1983 budget be adopted as modified,
and certified to the villages. Motion, Ayes (9), Nays (1), Pillsbury
voting Nay.
LAKE USE COMMITTEE: Pillsbury reported that the committee reviewed the
1982 buoy placement program with the county.. Thecommittee also reviewed
a request for Quiet Waters at Cedar Point and the possibility Of moving.
these channel buoys outside the 150 foot Slow shorezone to reduce shoreline
wave action; trial buoy placements will be made there before determining
the need for a public hearing. Three rule dispensers have been placed at
accesses and have beenmaintained for three weeks without Vandalism or
littering; additional dispensers have been ordered for other access lo-
cations, and additional folders will be ordered. The Special Event Permit
application fee amendment is recommended to the Board for first reading.
The water ski towing amendment is also recommended to the Board for first
reading (to bring the towing section of the Code into agreement with other'
current QW regulations). The committee reviewed the Dock Committee's
Code amendment regarding overwide docks, and is reviewing a Special Event
Permit request for a private.fishing contest.
The Water Patrol reported to the committee that, while activity was slow
in May because of the cooler weather, it has increased in June; a new class
of volunteers is in training; stolen motors and other incidents on the Lake
were reduced substantially last year, but are returning to "normal" levels
in 1982; and changes in personnel were noted: Dave Norberg was introduced
as a regular Deputy, Dave Rasmussen has been appointed Acting Sergeant, and
Larry Peterson is leaving the end of the summer.
Bauman Moved, L. Johnson Seconded that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0). ~
CALL TO
ORDER
ATTENDANCE
MINUTES
TREASURER';
REPORT
1983
BUDGET
WATER
MATRQL
REPORT
LMCD Board Minutes
June 23, 1982
Page 2
WATER STRUCTURES & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: Rascop reported that'the com-
mittee reviewed the Windward }~rine public hearing report and recommended.
that, in agreement with the survey submitted, the Board approve the
necessary variances and a 1982 dock license with the stipulation that the
setback variances be subject to.annual review with the dock license. The
committee also reviewed the upcoming public hearings. Alternative language
was discussed for Code Section 3.08, Subd. l(b) regarding municipal
zoning and parking, and the POssibility of setting marine parking standards
was considered but the committee recommended that the present language be
continued and the issue closed. Review of rental/leased slips and four
boats per lot is continuing. Bridges in Tonka Bay are also still under
review. Lafayette Ridge' Association requested LMCD cooperation in re-
moving an illegal dock on their property, the presence of which places
them in violation of their dock license. Regarding the question of'over-
wide docks, the committee recommends that the Board consider an amendment
to grandfather overwide docks until they are damaged beyond 50%, and then
they must be brought into conformance with LMCD width requirements. The
District is investigating numerous complaints of overuse of residential
dockage, primarily due to rental of dock space.
Pillsbury Moved, Hurr Seconded that the committee report be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
Hurt Moved, Rascop~Seconded that the 1982 dock license and the necessary
variances for Windward Marine be approved subject to village agreement
and with the additional stipulation that the setback variances be subject
to annual review with the dock license. Motion, Ayes' (10), Nays (0).
Bauman Moved, J. Johnson Seconded that the Executive Director take adequate
action in the.Lafayette Ridge extraneous dock matter. Motion, Ayes (10),
Nays (0).
CODE AMENDMENTS: Hunt Moved, O. Johnson Seconded that the proposed Code
amendment to bring the ski towing-section into agreement with other
current Q.W. regulations be returned to committee. Motion, Ayes (10),
Nays (0).
J. Johnson Moved, Pillsbury Seconded that the first reading of the Code
amendment to provide fees for Special Event applications, be accepted.
Motion, Ayes (9),. Nays (1), Slocum voting Nay.
J. Johnson Moved, Rascop Seconded .that the Code amendment to grandfather
overwide 'docks (until they are damaged beyond 50%, at.which time they must
be brought into conformance with LMCD width requirements) be amended to
exclude posts in determining width, that the first reading be accepted,
'that further readings be waived, and that the amendment be adopted
(Ordinance 55). Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
WINDWARD
VARIANCE
& LICENSE
LAFAYETTE
RIDGE DOCK
CODE
AMENDMENTS:
SKI TOWING
UPDATE;
SP. EVENT
AP FEES; &
OVERWIDE
DOCKS
LMCD Board Minutes
June 23, 1982 '
Page 3
OTHER BUSINESS: Upcoming events include the annual boat ride for public
officials on Saturday, August 7; public hearings are scheduled for'June
30; and a discussion meeting regarding the dam is scheduled for June 29.
Brown Moved, Rascop Seconded that the LMCD attorney's explanation of LMCD
prosecution procedures be mailed to all city councils, city managers, and
mayors. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0).
ADJOURNMENT: Hunt Moved, Bauman SecOnded at 9:45 p.mo that the meeting.
be adjourned. Motion, Ayes (10), Nays (0) o
PROSECUTIO]
PROCEDURES
ADJOURNED
Submitted by:
Robert Po Rascop, Secretary
Approved by:
Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SUR E 0 S B. PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
August 19, 1982
Mr. Jon Elam
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject: Tree Replacement
File #5387
Dear Jon:
Yesterday, in a phone conversation with Chris at Mickman Nursery, I was
informed that the optimum time for tree replacement of the Maple trees dead on
the 1981 project was between October 5 and 20, 1982. That is when they are in
their dormant stage. He also stated he was aware of the extent of tree loss
and they either have enough stock on hand or on order to cover the job. I was
told by him that they would be out during that time to fulfill their obligation
to the contract.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
John A. Christianson
JAC/jb
NOTICE OF SALE OF TAX - FORFEITED LANDS
You are hereby notified that a public sale of tax-forfeited
lands located in Hennepin County will be held on the A-Level,
Auditorium, Hennepin County Government .Center, 300 South 6th
Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487.
A copy of the list of lands tobe sold may be obtained from
Finance and Commerce, 615 South 7th Street, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55415 by mailing-75~ and requesting a copy of the
newspaper published on Aun~ ! !~!! ·
DATE & TIME OF SALE: 9-10-82 . 9-00 A.M.
Ii]If you wish to remain on our mailing list for future sales,
please make an X in the square and return this card to:
Department of Property Taxation
Tax Forfeited Land Unit
Public Service Level-Government center
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487
JAMES G. PENBERTH¥
GARY I. ARSON
26Zt WATER STREET
EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331
PHONE (612) 474-1188
August 24, 1982
Charles L. LeFevere, Esq.
LE FEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY,
O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
2.000 First Bank Place West
Minneapolis, MN 55402
The City of Tonka Bay is in receipt of your letter of August 2, 1982.
~The City Council has asked that I write to you in regard to this
matter. 'The first concern of the Council is, by what authority does
the Chairman of the Board have, rather than the Board itself, to ask
you to write such a letter. The Council would like a specific ansWer
to this question.
The City of Tonka Bay takes issue with your position that
misdemeanors occurring in the city may be prosecuted by an attorney
other than the City Attorney. A reading of the statute indicates
that the misdemeanor may be prosecuted in the name of the Lake
Minnetonk~ Conservation District, but must be prosecuted by the city
attorney for the city in which the misdemeanor occurs. I enclose
copy of Minnesota Statutes 488A.27, Subd. 11.
You are hereby directed to not prosecute any misdemeanors in the City
of Tonka Bay, without the written authority from the Tonka Bay city.
council. ·
PENBERTHY & LARSON, LTD.
Gary Larson
Attorneys for the City of Tonka Bay
GL:jo
cc: Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman LMCD
Frank Mixa, Executive Director LMCD
Glenn Froberg, Mayor Tonka Bay
Willie Norfleet, City Administrator Tonka Bay
Marvin Bjorlin, Councilperson Tonka Bay BCC: Tim Madigan
Edward Bauman, Councilperson Tonka Bay Doug Uhrhammer
Ruth Sherman, Councilperson Tonka Bay Brad VanNest
Duane Temple, Counci!person Tonka Bay /Leighton Lindlin ~O~
· BOLAND LAW OFFICES'
August 25, 1982
BERNARD E. BOLAND
THOMAS W. LIES
A3-rORNEYS AT LAW
Mr. Jonathan Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Elam:
This office represents Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., which on
Monday, September 27, 1982 will introduce a new daily newspaper--
USA TODAYNin Minnesota.
USA TODAY will be sold primarily by coin-operated vending devices in your
city. In reviewing your city ordinances, I do not find a provision requiring
permits or licenses for placement of newspaper vending machines. If, in fact,
there is a permit requirement which we have overlooked, please consider this
letter as an application for such a permit.
Enclosed please find a list of public property locations in your city where we
propose to place vending machines. Also enclosed is a photograph of and a
specification sheet for the machine and a prototype of the newspaper.
Wherever possible and acceptable, the unit will be chained to an existing pole
or post for security.
'While USA TODAY will not go on sale until September 27th, it is essential
that placement of these machines begin during the week of September 13,
1982.
Should you or your city attorney have concerns as to the legal authority for
placement of news vending devices on public property, I would be pleased to
answer any questions and to cooperate in any manner possible. Generally,
state and federal courts have held that under the First Amendment to the
Constitution newspapers have the right to plane vending machines on public
property. While my clients rely upon the First Amendment, they also value the
good will of the communities in which they operate and you may be assured of
our cooperation.
15SIXTH AVENUE NORTH * P.O. BOX 152 · ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56302 · TELEPHONE(612)259-1137
Mr. Jonathan Elam
August 25, 1982
Page Two
If you anticipate that the location of any .of these machines may be inimical
to public safety, or if .you would like further information, I ask that you
contact me at the address or telephone number contained on this letterhead.
Very truly yours,
Bernard E.
BEB/sg
Enclosures
USA T(}DA¥ '~CK~ 'L~CAT~IONS
FOR
MOUND
Highway No. 15 at the PARK AND RIDE
BUS STOP next to the Post Office
CITY of MOUND
NOTICE
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Rep. Bob Searles called August 30, 1982, to announce that the Lake Minnetonka
Task Force will be holding a meeting to solicit community input on the Public
Access question.
He would very much like a statement to be presented by the Mayor and the City
Council, either singly or collectively on Mound's position toward:
A. Developing Lost Lake
B. Putting in a Public Access
C. Increasing Parking, etc..
This meeting is set for:
SEPTEMBER 14, 1982, AT 7:00 P.M. AT THE SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL
HEADQUARTERS IN SPRING PARK.
If you have any questions, call 473-8573.
INTEROFFICE
TO: Jun E1 am
FROM: Bruce ~,!ol d
SUBJECT: Hennepin County's Plans For HWY 110
MEMO
DATE Auoust ~1
Jon:
I received a call from a MR. BroWn in the Hennepin County Traffic Department.
Mr. Brown went through a long list of statistics to show.why the speed limit
on Co. Rd. 110 should be changed from 30 MPH to 35 MPH. The change would
effect that stretch of Co. Rd. 110 which is 25g Fro north of Balsam Rd. north
to the city limit. I have requested that t~r. Brown send a copy of the stat-
istics to us. Mr Brown said that he would send a copy of the statistics as
well as a note indicating what the county proposed to do with the t!wy.
I oppose this proposal. ~e are fai'rly tolerant of speed in this area
because we don't expect to see any cars travelling faster than 40 MPH.
I am afraid that a change in the speed limit will cause cars to. average
40 t~PH or faster rn this stretch of H~.~. I am also afraid that the county
is going to act unilaterally and raise the speed limit, I requested that
Mr. Brown make a presentation before the cit~ council so the county could
ge~ some feedback from both'the .council and any citizens that are present
to speak on the issue. I don't expect them to show up. Mr. Brown is going
to communicate my feelings on the issue ~o our old friend Dennis Hanson.
If that isn't the kiss of'death, I don't know what is.
I will let you know when the statistics and the note arrive from the county.
Stay tuned for the next thrilling chapter in the life and times of H~,:Y 110.
'American Legion Post 398
DATE AUC-UST ~1,1982
CURRENT MONTH
Gambling report
~ROSS: ~2160.00
YEAR TO DATE
~13,850.00'
EXPENSES:
Sales tax ~102.81
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
~102.81
~1250.00
~8o5o.oo
PROFIT: ~ 807.19 {' 38a a. a,9 .
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
Leg. baseball ~rlp 4876.00
Leg. baseball equip. 189.aO
Leg. baseball tour. a91.57
Alano 25.00
Savings Withdrawal
~-75o.oo
Checklng..acount ~702.82
~6087.07,,.
~/o0
CITY of MOUND
September 3, 1982
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
I plan, if it's O.K.-, to go to Washington, D.C. this week; leaving Wednesday
afternoon, September 8, for the 9th and 10th.
Since we cannot meet on September 14, because of the Primary Election, a
packet won't be prepared.
I would like to suggest moving that weeks' meeting to Thursday, September
16th, if it is O.K. It will be a short Agenda, but with fairly long
Agendas on September 21st and 28th, we may need to keep the'loose ends
cleaned up.
JE:fc
A.THoMAs WURST
GERALD T. CARROLL
CURTIS A. PEARSON
THOMAS Fo UNDERWOOD
ALBERT FAULCONER ~
JAMES D. LARSON
LAW OF. lc'ICES
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
IIOO FIRST SANK PLACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~
August 25, 1982
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
TELEPHONE
(6~} 338-89II
Re:
(1) Zoning Ordinance - Boat Storage
(2) Improvement Bonds File
(3) Sign Ordinance
(4) County Road 110 Special Assessments
Dear Jon:
This will confirm our conversations of August 25, 1982. You
have indicated to me that there are several problems and directions
that the Council has referred to my office. I will try to get
to them in order.
(1) Zoning OrdinanCe - Boat Storage. When I received the Council's
agenda for the meeting of August 24, I noted a memorandum from you. to
the Council concerning Jerry Rockvam building a boat storage building
in the B-1 District in Mound. You indicated, "Since warehouse
facilities are not permitted under the Zoning Code, a conditional use
permit will be required~,' I called you and told you I knew of no
provisions which allowed the Planning Commission or the Council to
expand permitted or conditional uses through a conditional use permit
process. The zoning ordinance is clear that a district is limited to
permitted uses as established by the ordinance or to uses which could
be permitted subject to a conditional use permit. I referred you to
Section 23.502 of the City Code which reads as follows:
"No use variance (a use different from that permitted in
the district), shall be issued by the Board of Adjustment
and Appeals."
-At your direction, I contacted Robert Chelseth on August 24 about the
matter. He indicated that his knowledge of it was limited to one
short telephone'conversation with Jan Bertrand and his thinking had
been that under Section 23.625.3, boat and marine sales are a
conditional use in that district and the Planning Cor~m~ission might
want to interpret that to include storage. I told him I did not
understand how that interpretation could be attached to the ordinance
wording which is "boat and marine sales".
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
Page 2'
Mr. Jori Elam, City Manager
August 25, 1982
It is my understanding that the Council would like to consider
amending the zoning ordinance to include boat storage. I have
absolutely no'problem with the Counci'l changing the ordinance, but
the "worst case scenario" which I gave to you over the phone is as
follows: The B-1 District as defined in Section 23.365.1 covers the
Central Business District and recognizes its uniq.ue.-character. To
permit warehousing or storage in your most restrictive business
district would be to indicate that the Anderson building could become
a warehouse, or if Minnesota Federal went out of business that could
be used for warehousing, or that a warehou~e~ could be built in Lost
Lake. Ail these things seem to be directly contrary, to the purposes
for which you have established the Central Business District. It is
my understanding that the Central Business District hoped to upgrade'
its image and become a major retail shopPing area. Warehouse and
retail sales by and large are not what would be considerable compatible,
and it would be like building, a large Warehouse at 7th and Nicollet
rather than a department store or a hotel. The major point is that
if you include that type of a Use.in your zoning ordinance, you then
must be prepared to accept that use on any piece of property in the
zoning district, and that includes your entire doWntown or Central
Business ~istrict.
I have suggested that if you wish to consider boat storage, then
Rob Chelseth should be directed to do some research on standards and
other regulations which might be protective of the Central Business
District.
(2) You have directed Sharon Legg and me to get together and
structure an improvement bond issue up to $300,000 and then to attempt
to negotiate the sale of these bonds. It is my understanding that
Sharon is putting the information together and will be contacting me.
(3) Sign Ordinance. A proposed ordinance carrying out the
directions which you have given me and as approved by the Council on
August 24 is included for the Council's consideration. Jon, please
note I have specifically excluded political signs. I believe that if
the City Council wants to regulate political signs, it should do so
with a precise set of standards. I do not think the City Manager
or the City Attorney should be placed in the position of having to
interpret whether our employers or future employers can have a sign.
I believe that the law should spell out who may have the sign, the
size of the sign, the location of the sign, and other relevant
information. I would strongly reco~Lend against your being in a
position where you are required to tell a candidate for public
office that he can have a sign and at the same time be in a position
to turn down his opponent unless the ordinance gives you specific
WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON
Page 3
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
August 25, 1982
direction. I therefore recommend against administrative approval for
anything other than co~,,~unity organizations, which is what you and I
have discussed.
(4) We conferred about special assessments on County Road 110
for the street lighting project. You have asked if the assessments
can be on the basis of use rather than zoning. I discussed this with
you and John Cameron today, and since assessments are on the basis of
benefit, I have no difficulty in finding that commercial-properties
which are being co~nercially used receive a higher benefit from the
improvement than residential homes which happen to be in a commercial
zoning category. It is my understanding that John Cameron will be
preparing the roll accordingly.
I hope this takes care of ali the assignments transmitted to me
today. ~.
Very truly yours~.~
0~-rtis A.'Pearson
CAP: lh
Enclosure