Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
85-03-12
CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of February 26, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. PUBLIC HEARING: To Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Gas Station/Convenience Store at 53XX Shoreline Blvd. - Super America Pg. PUBLIC HEARING: To consider Pelican Point Appli- catins for Rezoning from R-1 to R-4; Height, Setback and Parking Stall Size Variances; Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Planned Unit Develop- ment; Preliminary Plat Review and a Comprehensive Plan Amendement for Lands Lying Generally Easterly from Tuxedo Blvd. & Southerly of East Port Road Pg. Continuation of Public Hearing on A New Sign Ordinance from January 8, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. 5. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present. Resolution Proclaiming April 14 thru 20 "Building Safety Week" Pg. Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit for a Class 3 Restraurant at 5241 Shoreline Blvd. - Captain Billy's Restraurant SUGGESTED DATE: APRIL 9, 1985 Proposal to Install Three Street Lights ~on Auditor's Road ~ Pg. Pg. Proposal to Install Two Street Lights on Three Points Blvd. Pg. 10. Extension of Gambling Permits until June 1, 1985, when the State will take over. Pg. 11. Oiler Quotations Pg. Payment of Bills Pg. 570-579 58O-608 609-680 681-699 700 701 702-707 708-710 711-713 714-722 723-730 Page 568 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Be C. D. E. F. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Schedule for March 1§th Council Meeting. Letter and Contribution to Mound Police Dept. News Clipping on HEI, Inc. News Clipping on Tonka Building Letter from LMCD on Liquor Licenses Met Council Review - February 15, 1985 Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. 731-733 734 7B5 736 737-740 741 -742 Page 569 32 February 26, 1985 CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on February 26, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at'5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present, were: Mayor Bob ?olston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith..Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Dan $icheneder. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The M'inutes of the February 12, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the February 12, 1985, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DELIN6UENT UTILITY BILLS FOR,FEBRUARY The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council with rega6d to a delinquent utility bill. No one responded. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded, the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-21 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS. FOR FEBRUARY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,568.38 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT.OFF WATER SERVICE~ FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~89-407; DANIEL SICHENEDER,,_,1742 SHOREWOOD LANE, PART OF 'LOTS 20 & 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT, FRONT YARD VARIANCE & FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission approved the setback variances, but denied the 7 foot high fence request, allowing only a 6 foot high fence. 33 February '26, 1985 The applicant, Mr. Sicheneder was present and stated that he would still like to have the 7 foot high fence for privacy and a noise barrier. Councilmember Jessen asked if he would build the 6 foot fence if he were denied the 7 foot fence. The applicant answered yes. Councilmember Paulsen asked if the fence post would impede drainage. The City Manager answered no. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-22 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR PART OF LOTS 20 AND 21, BLOCK 4, SHADYWOOD POINT (1742 SHOREWOOD LANE ) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $8~-402.;. CAL HAASKEN/VAL. WIRTZ~ 3501 WARNER.LANE, W. 1/2 OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE~.SHORES, REAR YARD VARIANCE' The City Manager explained that the applicants are requesting a 9 foot rear yard setback variance in order to construct a new dwelling. The Planning Commission recommended approval due to the shallowness and topography of the property. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolut£on: RESOLUTION #85-23 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR THE WEST 1/2 OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID ~25-117-24 21 0154 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion ca'tried. CASE ~8~-410; TIM WHITE, 2157 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOTS 29 ~ 30, BLOCK ~r ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK SETBACK VARIANCE The City Manager explained that the applicant is asking to be allowed to construct a deck 0 feet to an accessory building and 11-17 feet from the alley right-of-way. He further explained that the applicant put the connection (with a garage door .and dirt floor) between the house and the accessary building without a permit. Now he wants to replace the connection with a deck. Councilmember Paulsen asked the Building Inspector if the structure would have to be modified even if denied. The Building Inspector answered yes. The City Manager suggested tabling this item since the Planning Commission has recommended denial and the applicant is not present. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to table this item. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF DISTRICT PROVISIONS AND,, PERFORMANCE ,,STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO, 422 TO REGULATE SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS The Council discussed the proposed date and decided April 9 would be a better date than March 26. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set April 9, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. for a Public Hearing on a proposed amendment of district provisions and performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance No. 422 to regulate satellite dish antennas. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CHANGE OF COUNCIL MEETING DATE IN MARCH The Council decided that since 3 of them would just be getting back from the National League of Cities Conference at 7:00 P.M. on March 26, 1985, they would like to reschedule that meeting for March 19, 1985, .at 7:3Q P.M. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to reschedule the March 26, 1985, Regular Council Meeting for March 19, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION DENYING A REOUEST FOR A LOT SIZE VARIANCE AT 1721 DOVE LAND AND STATING FINDINGS OF FACT The City Attorney had prepared a resolution according to the Council's wishes on the above item. ' Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-24 RESOLUTION DENTING A REQUEST FOR A LOT SIZE VARIANCE AT 1721 DOVE LANE.AND PREPARING FINDINGS OF FACT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager then submitted a report from the Building Inspector regarding the structure at 1721 Dove Lane. This report was based on a letter and inspection of the general structural condition by Mr. Max J. Daubenberger of Van Doren, Hazard & Stallings. The City Attorney advised that the Council defer action on this 35 February 26, 1985 item until it can be referred to Staff for compliance with the State Statutes. The Council agreed. QUOTATIONS TO. ABANDON CITY WATER WELLS NO. 2 AND NO. ~ AND REMODEL WELL PLUMBING IN NO, The City Manager explained that Wells No. 2 (on'Commerce Blvd.) and 5 (behind Donnie's) are not being used and we have quotes now to remove them.. He further, stated the No. 7. needs to be remodeled to try to eliminate a,ir surges. The City asked 5 different well companies for quotes but received only 2. They were as follows: Ae Pull Well - Pump No. 2 Keys Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well Co. 950.00 808.00 Jessen moved and Peterson seconded at motion to approve the quote of Stevens Well Co. in the amount of $808.00 to'pull Well Pump No. 2. The vote was unanimously in favor.' Motion carried. Pull Pump #5 and Grout Keys Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well. Co. $2,300.00 $1 ,692.00 Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the quote of Stevens Well Co. in the amount of $1,692.00 to pull Pump ~5 and grout. The vote was unanimously in' favor. Motion carried. Remodel Plumbing in Well No. 7 Keyes Well Drilling Co. Stevens Well Co. $2,550.00 $2,513.00 Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a mo%ion to approve the quote of Stevens Well Co. in the amount of $2,513.00 to remodel plumbing in Well. No. 7. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from citizens present. There were none. REQUEST TO USE PUBLIC LAUNCH NEAR MOUND BAY PARK FOR BASS TOURNAMENT. JUNE 8, 198~ The City Manager explained that this has become a yearly event and the Minnetonka Bass Club is again requesting permission to use the public launch area near Mound Bay Park on June 8, 1985, during the hours of 5:30 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. for their Bass Tournament. 36 F bru ry 26, lg85 Peterson moYed and Smith seconded a motion to approYe the request of the Minnetonka Bass Club to use the public launch near Mound Bay Park on June 8, 1985, from 5:BO A.M. to P.M. The Yore was unanimously in fa¥or. Motion carried. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1985 The City' Manager explained that the Finance Director has asked that the following be added as official depositories for.1985. Dain Bosworth, Inc., Kidder PeaBody & Co., and Offerman & Co., Inc. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 85-25 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ADDITIONAL OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 1985 The vote was uhanimously in favor. Motion carried. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE DISCUSSION The City Manager stated that he has given.the Council all the material sent b~ the City Attorney regarding a 'Shoreland Management Ordinance and would now suggest that maybe the Council would like to set up a committee to study this as they had on the Weltlands Ordinance. Councilmember Smith asked if the Commissioner could impose an ordinance on the City if it did not chose to pass one themselves. The City Attorney stated that yes they can. Councilmember Smith asked how many other cities in the area have this ordinance. The City Manager stated 3 or 4. The Council discussed the fact that this has come up because of the Pelican Point proposal for a PUD. ,The fact that the developer has completed and EWS (environmental worksheet) but does not want to prepare an EIS (environmental impact statement) and would be required to" do so if the City does not have a Shoreland Management Ordinance. Councilmember Paulsen asked if the City could ask for a waiver of the EIS from the Environmental Quality Control Board. The City Attorney stated that if the Council is going to consider Pelican Point, they need the Shoreland Management Ordinance in place. The City Manager stated that he tried to explain to'the DNR that the Zoning Ordinance already does alot of what is included in the Shoreland Management Ordinance but is not called that. He further stated that the Mound has been within one unit of needing this ordinance in place twice (Chapman Place and the Lost Lake development) recently. 37 February 26, 1985 ~,~0 The City Attorney stated that if a Shoreland Man~agement Ordinance is not in place and the development of over O~9~units, then the Environmental Quality Control Board can require the developer to submit an EIS. Councilmember Peterson suggested that the Council ask the Planning Commission to study this further and submit their recommendations because certain parts of the model SMO are in definite conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Jessen stated that after reading the material she feels the DNR was trying to cover small towns that have no .development around their lakes and that this ordinance would not work for towns like Mound. Mayor Polston stated that the problem is we are two weeks away from a public hearing on Pelican Point and we don't have any answers for the developers. The Council agreed this is a dilemma. The City Attorney reminded the Council that the first issue of Pelican Point will be the rezoning which takes 2/3rds~ or 4/5ths of the Council to adopt and if the rezoning is not approved there is no further issue. To change the zoning of an area requires that the Count. il make a finding that there was a mistake in zoning when the zoning ordinance was passed or there has been a change in the circumstances of the property. Councilmember Jessen stated that she feels that when the' zoning. was done it was on what was there and that we cannot use an old use for the present proposal. Councilmember Peterson stated that he thinks if the property is used an single family residential the developer would have difficulty selling homes that would abut Lakewinds Condos. The Council discussed having the DNR come out to meet with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Shoreland Management Ordinance and referring the ordinance to the Planning Commission for further study.. Th~ City Attorney suggested that the Spring Park Ordinance looked the best for a model with regard to substandard lots. The Council asked the City Manager to give the Planning Commission the Shoreland Management Ordinance material, let them study it and then set up a joint Planning Commission/Council Meeting and invite the DNR to give their presentation. 38 February 26, 1985 LICENSE.. RENEWALS; AND BINGO PERMIT CIGARETTE LICENSES, GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSES, The following licenses expire on February 28, 1985. applied for renewal. All have Cigarette-Licenses A1 & Alma's Supper Club American Legion #398 Ben Franklin Bob's Bait Shop Donnies of the Lake, Inc. Duane's 66 Getty Oil Co. Grimm's Store Martin & Son Boat Rental Meyers Mound Service Mound Lanes. Mound Municipal Liquor Store Mound Superette PDQ Food Stores of MN., Inc. Quast Vending/Mobil Station Stevens Market (new store) Super America Station Snyder Drug Mound Super Valu (2 months) Garbage Haulers Blackowiak & Son Dependable Services Westonka Sanitation Woodlake Sanitary Service Village Sanitation, Inc. ~i.nKo Per.~i.t Mound Fire Dept. for March 26, 1985, 7:00 to 10:00 P.M. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of the above Cigarette and Garbage Haulers 'Licenses and the Bingo Permit as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROCLAMATION; MARCH 3-1.0, 1985, VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK' The Mayor explained that he has received a request from the Volunteers of America to proclaim March 3-10,, 1985, as Volunteer's of America Week, commemorating the founding of the organization on. March 8, 1896. ~' Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following proclamation: RESOLUTION ~85-26 PROCLAIMING MARCH 3-10, 1985, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of 39 February 26, 1985 $117,173.33, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried, SET DATE FOR PUBL!~ HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO, OPERATE A MAJOR AUTO REPAIR BUSINESS AT 1632 COMMERCE BLVD, - PID ~13-117-2q 22 0016 Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set March 19, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on an application for a Conditional Use Permit to, operate a major auto repair business at 1632 Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. EXTENTION OF RESOLUTION f8~-23 FOR O, NE MORE YEAR The City Manager explained that he had forgotten to bring this before the Council at the last meeting. Mr. Helland has requested a one year extention of Resolution #83-23 until February 15, 1986. The Staff recommends approval. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85r27 RESOLUTION GRANTING ANOTHER. ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #83-23 The vote was unanimousYy in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae Letter of resignation of Chris Bollis, Park Director. Councilmember Jessen stated that he will be sorely missed and that she has enjoyed working with him over the past few years. The Council agreed. Letter of resignation of Officer Bill Roth. The Council expressed regret that he was leaving the,City's employ. Gambling Report from American Legion Posti 398. Listing of Property sales thru February1, 1984, from the County Assessors Office. E. Donation from Helen Skaret from the Gift Catalogue.. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to thank Mrs. Helen Skater for her contribution of $100.00 for a tree'from the Gift Catalogue. .The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Jessen stated that this contribution was given in memory of Mrs. Skaret's Father who managed a restaurant in Mound at one time. 4O February 26, 1985 F. Article on IRB Bond Issue. G. Minutes of ?lanninE Commission Meeting 2/11/85. H. Letter from Hickok & Associates to MWCC. I. Letter from Gen Olson regarding wine in grocery stores. J. Leaf Compost'ing Informationi K. Twin Cities Labor Market Information - February 1985. L. 1985 Legislative Program Regional Transit. Paulsen mowed and ?eterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:05. P.M. The wote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Fran Clark, City Clerk Jon Elam, City Manager BILLS -FEBRUARY.2'6, 1985 Computer run check register 2/15/85 page Computer run check register 2/21/85 page 10,292.72 106,880.61 Total Bills 117,173.33 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 84-33] NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GAS STATION-CONVENIENCE STORE AT 53XX SHORELINE BOULEVARD PID NUMBERS ]3-]]7-24 34 OO61/OO64 AND PART OF ]3-]]7-24 34 0065 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, t~arch 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Ha]], 534] Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing wi]] be held on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for a gas station-convenience store at 53XX Shoreline Boulevard, Mound. Legal Description. That part of Block 4, 'SHIRLEY HILLS, UNiT F, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as beginning' at the northeast corner of said Block 4; thence southerly along the easterly line of sa'id Block';~ a distance of 212.00 feet; thence westerly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees O0 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 225.00 feet; thence northerly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees 00 minutes O0 seconds a distance of 215.19 feet to the southerly right-of-way of Couhty Road No. 15; thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 15 to the point of beginning. Property Identification Number. The property contains all of parcels 13-117-24-34-0061 and 0064 and a portion of 0065. persons appearing at said hearing wl]~ be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February ll, 1985 Present were: Chair Liz Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, Michael Vargo and Frank Weiland; Council Repre- sentative Steve Smith; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark Koegler; City Engi- neer John Cameron; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Steven E. Amick, Bill Habicht, Joseph G. Fink, Lewis R. Cradit, Maurice D. Miller, Dan Sicheneder, Jerry Babb, Don Bryce, Mike Gilbertson, Duane Gilbertson, Paul Kroening, Freda J. Olson, Mark Anderson, Ferner Johnson, Doug Easthouse,,Joe Darling, Steve CorJ, K.H..Erickson, J. Ramier, R. A. White, John Schluter, Mark SchieJ, Dean Sulander, John Winston, Oran D. PoweiJ, John T. Adams, Scott Powe11, Greg Kopischke, M. H. Schmelzer, Matt · L. Ruppert, Tom Roden, C. J. Briggs, T. C. Turner, Ron Johnson, Mrs. Bee, Jim Hirsh, Jim Regan, Paul Madson, Keith Kullberg and Councilmember Gary Paulsen. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1985 were presented for consideration.' Weiland moved.and Michael seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the January 28, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 84~331 Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit - =Superamerica Stations, Inc. for site at 53XX Shoreline Boulevard Metes and Bounds Description, part of Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F. PID Numbers.13-117-24 34 OO61/0064 and part of 0065° Steve Am ick and Attorney Bill Habicht represented Superamerica. The City Planner Mark Koegler commented 'that the request Superamerica made in April of 1984 to relocate to the former Metro Station site had been denied and now they have been involved in a land exchange'and are requesting a conditional use permit for construction of a new station/store at the corner of Cypress Lane and Shoreline Boulevard. He reviewed his report. Basically the lot size and setbacks of the proposed structure exceed the minimums. He commented that a preliminary plat will be required for splitting portion of Lot 4, Shirley Hills Unit F. A driveway entrance variance will be required for accesses wider than 22 feet. He further stated that the Engineer's r~commendatlons should be in- corporated as Item 11 of the Staff's recommendations which are as follows: 1. Superamerica should not'be required to construct a bumper type fence between the station and the adjacen~ commercial property. Such a fence seems un- ..~ necessary due to the open nature of the site. 2; The exterior of the building shall contain a brick veneer on all appropriate wall surfaces. 3. The Planning Commission has determined that 14 off-street parking spaces are adequate to serve the needs of the SuperAmerlca station store. 4. SuperAmerica shall submit a sign permit application for the proposed statlo, store prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Grading and drainage plans should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning Commission Minutes February Il, 1985 - Page 6. Landscaping plans should be submitted to the City Planner prior to issuan'ce of a building permit. 7. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline Boulevard shall be secured from Hennepin County. 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District for reviewand permit approval. 9. Concrete curbing shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveway and parking areas. A preliminary plat consistent with the City's subdivision requirements shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Incorporate the recommendations in the City Engineer's letter of February 6, 1985: A. A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which includes all proposed improvements such as signs, underground storage tanks and piping, hard surfacing, curbs, etc. B. Submit plans showing existing and proposed grading with approval con- tingent upon the approval of the grading and drainage plan. C. Inclusion of an utility plan and its approval; plan to show all utilities including gas, electric, etc. D. Approval of a landscape plan and a lighting plan also to be a condition. I0. 11. William Habicht, Attorney for SuperAmerica, stated that SuperAmerica wants to erect and maintain a nice station which will provide better service for the people of the City. They are wi'lling to'accommodate any reasonable request. Steve Am lck explained the proposed construction of the structure -- exterior will be a brick veneer embedded in concrete. All signage will comply. They-have already communicated with Hennepin County as to the driveway access permits. Lighting will be included in the landscaping plan. The land exchange and ownership of the land was discussed briefly including that the tanks are to be removed from the Metro Station site. The Commissioners had questions and comments on outdoor displays, whether landscaping plan would be comparable to the plan on previous site and what traffic might be generated. The Chair then opened the public hearing. ~No one prelsent had any questions or. com- ments. The public hearing was Closed. Michael moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the 11 stipulations. The vote was unanimously in favor. The City Council~will be asked to set the public hearing for March 12, 1985. e Case No. 85-405 Pelican Point - Rezoning, pDA (Conditional Use Permi't) Approval, Site Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Metes & Bounds Description - Lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Boulevard and southerly of East Port Road; PID Numbers 19-117-23 31 0003/0087/0088 and 19-117-23 42 0001 The Planner stated that the project is back except for the preliminary plat. most noteworthy change is the reduction of height of structures from 8 to 6 stories and to 96 units instead of the originally proposed 126 units. EaCh The 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 P~ TO: Planning CQ[,'~%ission and Staff _.~/ FREt4: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: February 6, 1985 SOBJ: Conditional Use Permit APPLI~: SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. CASE NO: 84-331 EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-i) (X]4P~IVEPLAN: Cammercial ~ON: Southwest corner of Shoreline Boulevard and Cypress Lane BA/2KGROUN[k. In April of' 1984, the zoning ordinance was amended to allc~ motor fuel stations, convenience stores as conditional uses in the B-1 zone. SuperAmerica has suk~itted a request for a conditional use permit approval for the construction of a new station/store at the corner of Cypress Lane and Shoreline Boulevard. PROPOSAL: SuperAmerica has been involved in a land exchange and purchase including the subject parcel, the old Metro 500 Station and the existing SuperAmeriCa Station which has resulted in the availability of the parcel at' the corner of Cypress Lane and.Shoreline Boulevard. Upon construction of the new station/store, they plan to abandon the existing station making it available for a new use, specifically excluding gas stations. The exi. sting Metro 500 structure will be removed. SuperAmerica is proposing to construct a new 5,000 + square foot station store on a 46,938 square foot site. Their previous request to construct a new store on the old Metro 500 property included a 1900 + square foot store on a 16,532 square foot parcel. -- Planning Cu~u~,~ssion and staff Page Two February 6, 1985 COMMENTS: The SuperAmerica proposal involves the review of the following issues: ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS - Auto serVice stations and stations/convenience stores are required to meet the provisions of the B-1 District and the performance standards found in Section 23.718 of the zoning ordinance. The. followir~ items are outlined in the performance standards: ~t_~e - The standards require 20,000 square feet of total area for stations/convenience stores. The SuperAmerica site consists of 46,938 .~are f_eet.~ ''''"--- - ------ ' Setbacks - Perfonmance standards require a front ymrd setback of 35 feet a~ and rear yard setbacks of 10 feet. The subject proposal contains a 118 foot front ymrd setback, an east side yard setback of 84 feet, a west side yard setback of 34 feet and a rear yard setback of 34 feet. The proposed structure exceeds the minimum setbacks established by the performance standards. Curb and Gutter - The ordinance requires curb and gutter around all paved driveway areas. The site plan does not indicate whether or not curbing is proposed. ng - Perfozmance standards require a bumper type fence · between the service station and adjacent commercial property. SuperAmerica's site plan does not indicate fencing of any type. Architecture - The standards require that the architecture of the -building ".s, hould be of a type that ~s ~ea~nn~hl_v ~nm~_*~N_~-.~*h t~ _sDrroundi_r)gs.," The applicant previOUsiy proposed an exterior of either a metal panel system or ~brick,,,,v,,ene,er~ The current submittal did not contain building elevations nor did it indicate proposed materials. It is suggested that SuperAmerica be asked to elaborate on their proposed exterior treatment for the station/store. Outdoor Displays - The ordinance permits display of goods in a maximum of two locations "well back .from the street right-of-way." Plans do not call for any formal display areas, however, the applicant should be aware of this restriction. .~~- The zoning ordinance does not contain specific parking standards for motor fuel, convenience stores necessitating a detezmination of the required parkir~ by the Planning C~t~ttission and City Council. The plan proposes 14 off-street parking spaces in addition to the pump island areas. This parking seems to be adequate to serve the needs of the facility. Plannirg C~,,~.fssion and Staff Page Three February 6, 1985 LANDSCAPING - The applicant has not sutmitted a landscaping plan with the ~en~tional use permit request. As a part of a previous request, they submitted a well conceived landscapirg plan for the proposed station store. It is assumed that the landscaping theme for the new proposal would be consistent with the previous one. It is Suggested, however, that staff review a landscaping plan prepared specifically for this site prior to issuance of a building permit. ~- Signage plans were not included with the application packet. As a result, a sign review and permit issuance will have to occur prior to the issuance of a building permit. ._PLATTI_NG- The property dimensions contained on the boundary and location survey d6 not match those on the City's half-section maps. Presumably, SuperAmerica will be splitting a portion of Lot 4 of Shirley Hills Unit F. If this is the case, a preliminary plat will be required. The preliminary plat can be reviewed and apprOVed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. ~IANCES The off-street parking provisions of the performance standards state t~at driveway accesses shall not exceed 22 feet in width. The SuperAmerica proposal contains driveways that range frcm 30 to 44 feet in width. These entrances will require a variance from the' performance standards since they exceed the maximum 22 foot width. 7. rACCESS PERMITS~- The two proposed driveway accesses onto Shoreline Bou~e~rd will require access permits frc~a Hennepin County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec~tends approval of the conditional use permit and -d'r'iv-~w~y"ent-r-~nce variance for SuperAmerica subject to the following conditions: SuperAmerica should not be required to construct a bumper tYPe fence between the station and the adjacent ccmmercial property. Such a fence se~ms unnecessary due to the open nature of the site. The exterior of the building shall contain a brick veneer on all. appropriate wall surfaces. The Planning C~..,ission has determined that 14 off-street parking spaces are adequate to serve t_he needs of the SuperAmerica station store. SuperAmeric~ shall submit a sign permit application for the proposed station store prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning C<~',,,~ission and Staff Page Four February 6, 1985 ® ® ® ® 10. Grading and drainage plans should be subnitted to the city engineer for review ard approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscaping plans should be submitted to the city planner prior to issuance of a building permit. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline Boulevard shall be secured fr(~ Hennepin County. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. Concrete curbing shall be installed around the perimeter of all driveway and parkir~ areas. A preliminary plat consistent with the City's subdivision requirements shall be submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS ~ PLANNERS February 6, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Ms. 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Haywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Hound Super America (Conditional Use Permit) Case #84-3~1 - File #6467 Dear gan: As requested, we have reviewed the plan submitted by Super America with their application for a Conditional Use Rermit. The application does not in- clude plans as required to show the-proposed utilities, grading and drainage, landscaping, lighting, etc. The site plan submitted is very incomplete. We have reviewed the limited information included and have the following comments and recommendations. Site Plan A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which includes all proposed improvements such as signs, underground storage tanks and Piping, hard surfacing, curbs, etc. The driveways shown on the plan submitted are over the maximum of 22 feet allowed and would require a variance. If approval of a Con- ditional Use Permit is granted, it should be contingent upon staff approval of' a revised site plan. Grading and Drainage The plan submitted does not show any existing or proposed grading, there-. fore the approval should be coptingent upon the applicant obtaining approval of a grading and drainage plan. Utilities The application did not include any information on utilities, therefore any approval shoUld be contingent upon the applicant obtaining approval of a utili- ty plan. This plan should show all utilities including gas, electric, etc. The zoning ordinance also states that a landscape plan and lighting plan may be required as additional information, In this case we would recommend that this condition also be part of the approval. If you or the Planning Commission have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, NcCONBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OC: kr printed on recycted paper CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property 2. Legal Descrlpti.on of Property: Addi tion Case No. 331 ' Fee Pai d Owner's N~me Address Date Filed ~-/ Lot Tonka Corporation 4144 Shoreline Boulevard. SDrin~ Park. MN /4. Applicant (if other than owner): Block PlO No. Day Phone No. 55384 47~-qsnq Name SUPERAMERICA STATIONS, INC. Day Phone No. 887-6100 - Address 1240 West 98th Street, BloominEton, MN 55431 Type of Request: ( ) Variance (X) Conditional Use Permit (' ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( )'Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Parking Lot - l~n~mprnv~d Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of app]ication, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) See Addendum Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify:that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or Upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the .City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature ~f Applicant .--'~ ~, .~./J Date ' 2 1-85 Planning Commission Recdmmendation: / ~// Date Counci 1 Action: Resolution No. Date Procedure for'Conditional Use Permit (2) Case # ?'~/-j~ [ 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 Conditional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: I. Condltlonal Use (Specify): ~as station - convenience store 2' Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Hound B-1 Central Busines~ Distric~ . De Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this applicatlon providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate' of cost of the project: $ 300~000.00 (See Addendum) Density (for residential developments only): 1. Number of structures: 2. Dwelling-Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency, ' 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwelling unit: 4. Total lot area: IV. Effects of the Proposed Use Ae List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited'tO'traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. See Addendum ?Y-Z31 EXHI BIT A ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY OF MOUND e ® .L. egal' Description. That part of Block'4, SHIRLEY HILLS, UNIT F, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as beginning at the northeast corner of said Block 4; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Block 4 a distance of 212.00 feet; thence westerly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds a distance of 225.00 feet; thence northerly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds a distance of 215.19 feet to the southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 15; thence easterl.y along said southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 15 to t he .poi nt of .be yin nin g. Owner of the Property. Tonka Corporation, the present owner of t'he pro- perty, has entered into a purchase agreement with Balboa Minnesota for the sale and purchase of the Property. Balboa Minnesota Co. has in turn entered into an agreement with John K. Ogren and whereby Mr. Ogren will acquire the property. Finally, Mr. Ogren has or will shortly hereafter enter into a lease agreement with SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. for lease ol~ the property. All of the transactions referred to in this paragraph are contingent upon the successful closing of the transaction between Tonka Corporation and Balboa Minnesota Co. We anticipate the closing of the respective transac- tions on or before February 23, 1985. Property Identification Number. The property contains all of parcels 13-11'7-24'34-0061 and 0064 and a portion of 0065. Prior Application for Conditional Use Permit. On or about February 14, 1984 -SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. submitt'e'd an application for a conditional use permit regarding the existing Metro 500 site located at 5377 Shoreline Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota 55422. Mr. John Elam, Mound City Manager, has indicated his preference for a gas station/convenience store to be located on the present site as opposed to the existing Metro 500 site. Therefore, Mr. Elam has stated this conditional use permit application may be treated as an amendment to the existing application and no additional fee for.the application will be required. Mr. Elam's assistance in this matter is greatly apprec'i ated. .Development Schedule. We anticipate commencement of construction within sixty (60) days of the issuance of a building permit and expect completion of the facility to be accomplished within four (4) months of the date of commencement of construction. The use as proposed (see site plan) will Be ® require ingress and egress from Shoreline Boulevard which is subject to approval' of Hennepin County. In addition, the site plan details ingress and egress from Cyprus Lane via the use of a forty-five (45) foot. wide driveway to reduce and eliminate congestion in and out of the proposed facility. Effects of Proposed use. There will be little, if any, increase in traffic, noise or smoke/odor in the area if our request is approved. The proposed facility is placed where we can take advantage of the existing traffic flow and does not increase the flow of traffic. We do not anticipate a negative impact, on the surrounding community in any of these areas and, as stated above, we feel that the community will be benefited by closing the existing Metro 500 facility and rebuilding a new, modern facility. The new facility will comply with the City's requirements for off-street parking. We comply with all electrical codes and City requirements when installing lights surrounding the facility, and will take care to place them to avoid glare to passing traffic. Adjacent Property Owners. The original list of adjacent property owners to the Metro 500 site which was submitted with the first application has been resubmitted with this Application. MIS30/SAI.1 -2- July 10, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-106 RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.~04, SUBSECTION 5, FROM JULY 31, 1984, TO JANUARY 31, 1985, FOR PROPERTX LOCATED AT 5377 SHORELINE BLVD. WHEREAS, property located at 5377 Shoreline Blvd. (described as, "eom at NW cot of Blk 4 th E along· road 150 feet 'th S par with line of said Blk dis 100 feet th W at Rt angles to W line thereof-th N to beg, Shirley Hills, Unit "F", PID #13-117- 24 34 0063), has been used as a gasoline filling station for many years; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has enacted changes in its Zoning Ordinance over the years and the aforementioned property does not conform to the current Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Super America has leased said property and has done a great deal of planning to use the property for a modern motor fuel station and a convenience store and said plans have been presented to and considered by the Mound Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended'to this Council that the request of Super America for a new station, at this location, be denied because the site is undersiZed'.and for other reasons contained in their report; and WHEREAS, the City Staff recommended to this Council that a public hearing on Super America's request be delayed until August 14, 1984, because the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is currently studying the lands lying west and south of 5377 Shoreline Blvd. to determine if there is hazardous waste in the area; and " WHEREAS, the City Staff feels this Council should have all the information possible before'conducting the public hearing to determine if Super America can use the site, therefore the delay in making a decision has been caused by the City; and · ' WHEREAS, Section~ 23.404, Subsection (5), of the the City's Zoning Ordinance provides as follows: "Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land i's discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Chapter." and the owner of 5377 Shoreline is Mr. John Ogren, and he has acknowledged that the site has not been operated as a motor fuel station since July 31, 1983, meaning that on July 31, 1984,'any rights he would have to operate a station on the site would terminate; and WHEREAS, John Ogren and Super America have indicated, to this Council, a desire to obtain additional time to consider Super America's request (i.e. City Council public hearing, August 14, 1984) or to make other plans to construct facilities and to improve the area; and '. WHEREAS, Mr. Ogren would have to reopen the station prior to .July 31, 1984, to preserve his rights for the use on the land; and WHEREAS, Kraus-Anderson is doing planning work in the area to construct a quality housing development and the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority is studying the area for redevelopment; and WHEREAS, this area is a"window for the community"as it is located on the main road entering Mound and the current gasoline station is not aesthetically pleasing and the City is attempting to improve the area and the City is currently in District Court attempting to register lands South and West of this site; and WHEREAS, acting as a Board of AdjUstment and Appeals, pursuant to Section 23.502 of the City Code, this Council ~plieves it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to extend the time all~wed by Section 23.404, Subd. (5), from 12 to 18 months. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as"follows: The property at 5377 Shoreline Blvd. (as described above) is a nonconforming use when operated as a motor fuel station. Super America has a plan which will be considered for the site on August 14, 1984, at a public hearing. ~ The MPCA is studying the area re hazardous wastes and it is important that the City know the results of that study before considering the storage and sale of food on the site. The City is registering the abutting property and this action is being contested. The results of that litigation may determine if the lands will be used for public purposes or sold for private development. Paulsen July 10, 1984 ® The property owner has acknowledged that the property has not been used as a mo-tot fuel station since July 31, 1983. He would'have to reopen°the business to preserve his property rights and this would not be in the best interest of this property owner or the City. For all of the aforementioned reasons this Council extends the nonconforming use provisions for the lands at 5377 Shor~line Blvd. from July 31, 1984, to January 31, 1985, and the property owner does not have. to forfeit his rights to use.the property during that period of ~ime. This resolution is intended to show that the extension is given to improve the public health, safety and general welfare and shall not b~ considered .as a precedent for any other nonconforming use which may come before the Council in the future· The feregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and' Polston.. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: nbne. Mayor - · Attest: City Clerk PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84- 331 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MOTOR FUEL STATION/CONVeNIENCE STORE ON PID# 13-117-24 34 0061 AND 0064, AND PART 'OF PID#13-117-24 34 0065, (53XX Shoreline Boulevard) WHEREAS, the City Council on March 12, 1985, held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for PID#13-117-24 34 0061, 0064, and part of 13-117-24 34 0065, described as that part of Block 4, Shirley Hills Unit F, according to recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as beginning at the northeast corner of said Block 4; thence southerly along the easterly line of said Block 4 a distance of 212.0 feet; thence westerly, deflecting tothe right 90 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds a distance of 225.00 feet; thence northerly, deflecting to the right 90 degrees O0 minutes O0 seconds a distance of 215.19 feet to the southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 15; thence easterly along said southerly right-of-way of County Road No. 15 to the point of the beginning, to construct'a motor fuel with convenience store, to be known as Superamerica; and WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and WHEREAS, the Superamerica site consists of 46,938 square feet of land in the B-1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the B-1 zoning district provision and the performance standards found in Section 23.718 require 20,000 square feet of total.area for stations/convenience stores, front yard setbacks of 35 feet, and side and rear yards of 10 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval upon staff recommendations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of th~ City of Mound, Minnesota does approve the conditional use permit for the Superamerica Motor Fuel/Convenience Store at 53XX Shoreline Boulevard, PID#13-117-24 34 0061, 0064 and part of 13-117-24 34 0065 and shown on Exhibit "A" with the purchase agreement stipulations of Exhibit "B" made .part of the approval and upon the following conditions: 1. Superamerica should not be required to construct a bumper type fence between the station and the adjacent commercial property. 2. The exterior of the building shall contain a brickiveneer on all appropriate wall surfaces. 3. The Planning Commission has determined the 14 off-street parking spaces are adequate to serve the needs of the Superamerica station store and that the driveways that range from 30 to 44 feet in width are necessary to facilitate access to and from the site. 4. Superamerica shall submit a sign permit application for the proPosed station store prior to issu~,~ a building permit. 5. Grading and drainage plans ~be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approva .pr~r to issuance of a buildingpermit. 6. Landscaping plans~be submitted to the City Planner prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline Boulevard shall~ be secured from Hennepin County. 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and approval. 9. Concretecurbing shall be installed around the perimeter of all driv. eway PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 84-331 (2) and parking areas. 10. A preliminary plat consistent with the City's subdivision requirements shall submitted and approved prior to the issuance of a building permit. ll. Incorporate recommendations in City Engineer's letter dated February 6, 1985: Ao A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which incl'udes all proposed improvements such as signs, underground storage tanks and piping, hard sur- facing, curbs, etc. Inclusion Of an utility plan and i~s approval; plan to show all utilities including gas, electric, etc. C. Approval of a lighting plan. PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT.made and entered into this "Z_~_~ day of~ 1984, between ~n~. among BALBOA MINNESOTA CO., 'a Minnesota corporation (here~n ~Balboa~), ~OHN K. ~Et~ and ~ARGARET A. ~REN, husband and and SUPER~ERICA STATIONS, INC., ~ Minnesota corporation (herein "SA"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Balboa has entered into a purchase agreement with Tonka Corporatto~ (herein 'Tonka') for the purchase of certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and containing approximately 47,?00 square feet ("Balboa Site"); and WHEREAS, Ogren is the owner and holder of the vendee's interest of certain real property and the building situated thereon located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, containing approximately 16,352 square feet and legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto ('Ogren Site"); and WHEREAS, Ogren desires to purchase the Balboa Site upon the terms and sub- Ject to the conditions stated herein; and WHEREAS, Ogren is willing to transfer to Balboa the Ogren Site in partial consideration of the purchase price of the Balboa Site; and WHEREAS, SA ts willing to release its leasehold interest in and to the Ogren Site. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, and the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, the parties agree as follows: 1. Balboa Site. The Balboa Site is located in the City of Mound, County of i4enneptn, State o~.Minnesota, and consists of one parcel of land, the aggregate of which is approx.~mately 47,700 square feet and which is located at the inter- section of Cyprus Lane and Shoreline Drive n~asurtng 225 feet along Shoreline Drive and approximately 212 feet n~asured along Cyprus Lane. lhe actual description of the Balboa Site and the square footage as deter- mined by the survey provided in Paragraph' 11 shall control the actual legal description and square footage of the Balboa Site. The parties agree to amend this Proper.ty Exchange Agreement to provide the legal description and square footage, all as shown on the survey. 2. ?gren Site. The Ogren Site is located in the City of Mound, County of Henneptn, State of Minnesota and consists of one parcel of .land, the ~g(~regate of which is approximately 16,362 square feet and which is located on Shoreline Drive ~asurtn9 150 feet along Shoreline Drive and situated in the northwest corner of Block Four (4) of Shirley i4ills. The actual description of the Ogren Site and the 'square footage as determined by the survey provided .in Paragraph 11 shall control the actual legal description and square footage of the Ogren Site. The parties agree to amend this Pr.operty Exchange Agreen~nt to provide the legal ~escriptton and square footage, all as shown on the survey. 3. Purchase Price of Balboa Site. The total purchase price of the Balboa Site to be paid by Ogren to Balboa is $143,100.00 to paid as follow~: a) $52,10D.00 to be paid in cash on or before Closing Date, as herein- after deft ned. b) $91,000,00 by Ogren conveying to Balboa, by Warranty Deed, the Dgren Si re. The parties hereto agree that $20,000,00 shall be allocated to the Ogren Site real estate and $71,000.00 shall be allocated to the building and personal property located on the Ogren Site. c) The p~'~chase price for the Balboa Site is determined upon the sum of $3.00 per square foot of the Balboa Site. The parties agree that not- withstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the purchase price of the Balboa Site shall be amended by the determination of the actual square footage determined by the survey provided in Paragraph 11. d) Balboa shall convey the Balboa Site to Ogren by Warranty Deed, 4, Warranties of Parties a) Ogren warrants, covenants and agrees that, subject to contingencies contained in Paragraph 6, Ogren will have good and marketable title to the Ogren ire on the Closing Date, as hereinafter defined, b) Balboa warrants, covenants and agrees that, subject to contingencies contained in Paragraph 6, Balboa will have good and marketable title to the Balboa Site on the Closing Date, as hereinafter defined. c) SA warrants, covenants and agrees to release and/or convey by Quit Claim Deed, its interest, if any, in the Ogren Site to Balboa on or before the Closing Date, d) The parties hereto agree that the sale of the Balboa Site and ~the conveyance of the Ogren Site is on an "as is" basis and none of the parties hereto make any representations or warranties with respect to the condition of the Balboa Site and Ogren Site and/or any buildings or personal property located thereon. 5. Clostn~l. The closing of the sale of the Balboa Site and the conveyance of the Ogren Site shall be a mutual agreeable date within ten (10) days after Balboa completes the purchase of the Balboa Site from Tonka or such sooner date as agreed upon by the parties, Balboa agrees to give Ogren notice of c~mpletto~ f, ol of the purchase by Balboa of the Balboa Site from lonka as soon thereafter as reasonably possible'... .~. 6. Contingencies; Sale of the Balboa Site and the purchase thereof by Ogren and the conveyance of the Ogren Site and the acceptance thereof by Balboa, are specifically contingent upon the following~ a) Closing of the acquisition of the Balboa Site by Balboa from Tonka$ in the event Balboa has not closed on the acquisition of the Balboa Site on or before~l~v~--I ~t .., 1985, this Agreement shall be voidable by either party at any time thereafter by sending written notice t~ the other party of its inten- tion to terminate this Agreement, b)' lhts Agreement is specifically contingent upon Ogren and/°r SA obtaining all necessary approvals requited for the development and opera.tton of a convenience st~re and service station on 'the Balboa Site. Ogren and SA agree to use their best efforts' t~ obtain all necessary approvals required by the Cil~ of Mound for the development of the Project, as hereinafter.defined, on or before the Closing Date. All expenses and-costs incurred, by Ogren and SA in obtaining all necessary approvals shall be borne by Ogren and/or SA. In the event Ogren and/or SA have not obtained all necessary approvals on or before the Closing Date, this Agreement shall be voidable'at the election of Ogren by sending written notice t~ Balboa of its intention to terminate this Agreement. 7. Non-Competition. Balboa warrants, covenants and agrees that upon the clost'ng Of the trans~ctton contempated herein, Balboa, its successors and assigns, will not operate a convenience st~re or service station on the Ogren Site or otherwise conduct any business which would compete with the operations of SA or Ogren on the Balboa Site. 8. Government Approval of the Project. Ogren and/or SA agree to make application for all requisite government approval to allow Ogren and/or SA to evelop the Balboa Site in the manner proposed by SA and Ogren, to-wit: for the development and use of a convenience store and service station located on the Balboa Site (herei'n "Project"). The sole cost and expense incurred in attempting to obtain said approvals shall be borne by Ogren and/or SA. Ogren and/or SA agree to submit its application on the City of Mound's (herein 'City") form (herein "Application") and in a manner consistent with the City's development application procedures as soon as reasonably possible after the date of this Agreement. SA and/or Ogren will use their best efforts to obtain al 1 requt site approval s. g. Real Estate Taxes. The real estate taxes and installments of special assessments together With interest payable thereon which affect the Balboa Site and Ogren Site and are due and payable in 1985 shall be prorated between the )arttes as of the Closing Date. Balboa shall pay all real estate taxes and the installments of special assessments for the Ogren Site for the year 1986 and thereafter. 0gren and/or SA' shall pay all real estate taxes and the installments of special assessments for the Balboa Site for the year 1986 and thereafter. 10. Special Assessments. All levied or pending special assessments as of the Closing Date on the Balboa Site shall be paid in futl by Balboa or Tonka. All levied' or pending special assessments as of the Closing Date on the 0gren Site shall be paid by 0gren and/or SA. 11. Survey. Balboa shall provide at its sole expense, a boundary survey of the Balboa Site by a registered surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota showing boundaries, easements of record, utility lines and encroachments, and showing square footage and acreage for the Balboa Site. Ogren and/or SA shall provld'e at its sole expense, a boundary survey of the 0gren Site by a registered surveyor licensed in the State of Minnesota showing boundaries, easements of- record, utility lines and encroachments, and showing square footage and acreage for the Ogren site. 12. Title and Default. Balboa shall provide to Ogren, as soon hereafter as reasonably possible but no later than 20 days from the date of this Agreement, a commitment for an Owner's policy of title ins,urance, issued bY Title Insurance Company of Minnesota ("Commitment"), in the amount of $143,100.00 which policy of title insurance shall be a commitment to insure good and marketable title to the Balboa Site in favor of Ogren, subject to the permitted exceptions which shall be attached as 'an exhibit to this Agreement or identified to Balboa in writing prior to the Closing Date. Balboa agrees to also provide a registered property abstract within 10 days of the date of this Agreement for examination by Ogren. On the Closing Date, Balboa shall execute and deliver to Ogren a Warranty Deed conveying good and marketable title to the Balboa Site, subject · only to the lien of all unpaid special assessments, real estate taxes, and the permitted encumbrances. All title insurance premiums and closing costs with respect to the Balboa Site shall be paid by Ogren and/or SA. In the event the title shall p.rove to be unmarketable or if Ogren objects in a wMtten notice sent to Balboa to the matters contained in the commitment within 20 days from receipt of the Commitment and the copies noted above, then Balboa shall have a period of 120 days after notification thereof within which to cure such defects in title (which Balboa shall diligently pursue), and this transaction shall be closed within 10 days after written notice of curing if the period of time to cure would extend past the scheduled Closing Date. Ogren shall make all objections in writing to Balboa within said 20 day period or they will be deemed to.be waived. If said title to the Balboa Site is not marketable at the Closing Date this Agreement shall be null and void, at option of Ogren, and neither principal shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other principal. All money there- tofore paid by ogFen, if any, shall be refunded. If the title to the Balboa Site be found'marketable at the Closing Date, and Ogren shall default in any of the agreements, then 'and in that case, Balboa may terminate this Agreement and on such termination all the payments made upon this Agreement, if any, shall be retained by Balboa, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. This 'provision shall not deprive either party of the right of seeking money damages nor shall it deprive either party of the right of enforcing the specific performance of this Agreement provided such Agreement shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be :ommenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. 'Ogren shall provide to Bal'boa, as soon hereafter as reasonably possible but no later than 20 days from the date of this Agreement, a commitment for an Owner's policy of title insurance, issued .by Title Insurance Company of' Minnesota ("Commitment"), in the amount of $91,000.00 which policy of title insurance shall be a commitment to insure good and marketable title to the Ogren Site in favor of Balboa, subject to the permitted except,ions which shall be attached as an exhibit to this Agreement or identified to Ogren in writing prior to the Closing Date. Ogren agrees to also provide a registered property abstracl~ within 10 days of the date of this Agreement for examination by Balboa. On the Closing Date, Ogren shall execute and deliver to Balboa a Warranty Deed conveying good and marketable title to the Ogren Site, subject only to the.lien of all unpaid special assessments, real estate taxes, and the permitted encumbrances. All title insurance premiums and closing costs with respect to the Ogren Site shall be paid by Balboa. -7- In the event the title shall prove to be unmarketable or if Balboa objects in a written notice.sent to Ogren to the matters contained in the commitment within 20 days from ~eceipt of the Commitment and the copies noted above, then Ogren shall have a period of 120 days after notification thereof within which to cure such defects in title (which Ogren shall diligently pursue), and this transaction shall be closed within 10 days after written notice 'of curing if the period of time to cure would extend past the scheduled Closing Date. Balboa shall make all objections in writing to Ogren within said ZO day period or they wi I 1 be deemed to be wai red, If said title to 'the Ogren Site is not marketable at the Closing Date this Agreement shall be null and void, at option of Balboa, and neither pr.~nctpal shall be liable for damages hereunder to the other principal, All m~ney there- tofore paid by Balboa, if any, shall be' refunded. If the title to the Ogren Site be found marketable at the Closing Date, and Balboa shall default in any of the agreements, thenland in that case, Ogren may terminate this Agreement and on such termination all the payments made upon this Agreement, if any, shall be retained by Ogren, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. This provision shall not deprive either party of the right of seeking money damages nor shall it deprive either party of the right of enforcing the specific performance of this Agreeme.nt provided such Agreement shall not be terminated as afore.said, and provided action to enforce such specific performance shall be commenced within six nonths after such right of action shall arise. 13. Notices. Any notices required or permitted hereunder shall be deemed properly given on the date mailed, if mailed certified or registered mail,. postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: Balboa Minnesota Co. 5311 Topanga Boulevard Woodland Hills, California John K. Ogren 1221 Third Avenue South Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 91311 wi th a copy to: SuperAmerica Stations, Inc. Attn: W.W. Seiffert 1240 West 98th Street Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 and a copy to: Gustafson & Adams, P.A. 7400 Metro Boulevard, Suite 411 Edina, Minnesota 55435 Attn: Gregory O. Gustafson 14. Assignment. No assignment of this Agreement or of any rights in and to the Balboa Site by Ogren and SA shall be made without the prior written consent of Balboa. No assignment of this Agreement or any of the rights in and to the Ogren Site by Balboa shall be made without the prior written consent of Ogren. 15. Commissions. The parties acknowledge that no real estate agent has been employed or involved in this transaction by any of the parties hereto and each respective party will indemnify and hold the other parties harmless from any claims for commissions due. ~ 16. Miscellaneous. a) Governing Law. This Agreement is to be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. If any part of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, it will not effect the enforJ ceability of the remainder of the terms of this Agreement. -9- ~0~, b) Entire Agreement. All understandings and agre.ements made previous to this Agreement between the parties in relation to the sale of the Balboa Site and Ogren Site are. merged into this Agreement, which fully and completely expresses their agreementj and that this Agreement is entered into after full investigation, neil~her party relying upo.n any statement or representation made by the other not embodied in this Agreement. This Agreement may~ not be recorded. c) Modifications. This Agreement may not be modified orally, but only by written agreement duly executed by all parties and specifically referring to this Agreement. d) 'Binding Notices. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, personal representatives, admi- nistrators, successors and assigns of the parties. e) Time. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. f)~ Attorney's Fees. If either party, prevails against the other in a legal action concerning any part of this Agreement, the successful party shall be entitled to his reasonable attorney's fees and costs connected with such action, through appellate proceedings, in addition to all other recovery or 'rel t ef. g) New Lease. Ogren and SA agree to enter into a lease agreement for the Balboa Site on the Closing Date. The lease agreement shall be on the same terms a6d in the same form as the current lease for the Ogren Site with pro-rata adjustments to the terms for the increase in Ogren'$ cost of the Balboa Site and such other terms as are hereafter mutually agreed upon between Ogren and SA. h) Execution. The parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. i) Demolition. Ogren agrees to remove the underground storage-tanks and demolish the structure now existing on or under the Ogren Site. Such remo- val and demolition shall occur concurrently with the construction to occur on the Balboa Site, bdt in no event later than August 1, 1985. Ogren shall bury said tanks and structures on the Ogren Site, and/or remove the. same, at no cost or expense to Balboa. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Property Exchange Agreement the day and year first above written. BALBOA MINNESOTA CO. BY :~ Joh"n K. Ogren~ Margare't A. Ogren 'SUPERA)4ERICA STATIONS, INC. BY: ~ts: IAGRTA/SA1.1 -11- CASE NO. 85-405 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota HEARING 'ON MODIFIED PROPOSAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PELICAN POINT APPLICATIONS FOR REZONING FROM R-1 TO R-4; HEIGHT, SETBACK & PARKING STALL SIZE VARI- ANCES; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR. A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA; PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMEND- MENT FOR LANDS LYING GENERALLY EASTERLY FROM TUXEDO BOULEVARD.& SOUTHERLY OF EAST PORT ROAD - PID NUMBERS 19-]17-23 31 0003/0087/ 0088 AND 19-117-23 42 OOOl NOTICE IS .HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, March 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 534] Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the applications for Pelican Point for Rezoning from R-] to R-4; Height, Setback and Parking' Stall Size Variances; Conditional Use Permit approval for a Planned Development Area; Preliminary Plat Review and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed for those lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Boulevard, southerly of East Port Road and northerly of a llne drawn 1OO feet north of Dorchester Road and easterly of the Shoreline of Lake Minnetonka - generally referred to as the Turnquist property and bearing a street address of 2884 Tuxedo Boulevard and described by the following PID Numbers: 19-117-23 31 0003/ 0087/0088 and 19-117-23 42 OO~1. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to-be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk I ~',"3 "x"t;t E. /Tx, f~c~. t'~ %oo© T~ PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW: NAME 13 14. 15. (RETURN TO THE CITY CLERK) ADDRESS ~oll 17~;L INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Zoning Ordinance Amendment Schedule for March 19th Council Meeting. Pg. 731-733 B. Letter and Contribution to Mound Police Dept. Pg. 734 C. News Clipping on HEI, Inc. Pg. 735 D. News Clipping on Tonka Building Pg. 736 E. Letter from LMCD on Liquor Licenses Pg. 737-740 F. Met Council Review - February 15, 1985 Pg. 741-742 ¥: < =state, break-up brings affluent settlers by Evelyn Burke The fast big parcel of land from Lake Minnetonka ~tates in the Loser Lakes has been sold. The Winston estate in -~Tonka Bay was ~sold to Tom War:man of Landform Inc., Ex- celsior, .for an estimated price in excess of_~ million. and slots for boats Wimton Estates, the working title of the development, has a day tennis court. iug repaired a' -i~.d,~iJ --tiff--~i' h-Sr/i/e0Wrk'irs of ~e loLs awni~ final approwl of the plat by ~e Tonka Bay ~uneil, but one or two of plus of woods, gardens, a tm'n- back lots are tentatively priced 0f_the_c?nt__u_u_u~ rei]'-B~]_~!'a~- at._$1~on a pre-sale arrange- i~ion and some 2,~t of prime ~e~ft. One' o-~f'th~-'h-6iig i} .*, -o n the .... but War:man, the 33-vear-olo two or three of the smalk'r president and owner of Land- buildings will be lorn down. form, platted the land into 24 one-acre singl6 residence ~~ites: 'fie-W--d6' ~)me t:~.~leli~l--~h the house, built in 1007 and occupied since then by members of the family. The sale is the first time the estate has passed from Winston bands. !~ l.~t~._w_j_!! ha.¥..e_ from those in the ~-'oo:q/~-s~fi-dii-'m back will have shore privileges i~qndform is an archtectural and building firm as well as developer and will put up some of the houses. I~mt Septetnber contents of the big houses were sold at a week-long estate sale, conducted by Dottle Robb ~Mrs. E.F, Jr.) of Deephaven~ Throngs of buyers and "just-lookers" crowded the winding road to the house and the Tonka Bay highway for the duration of the sate. Wartman is no stranger to big estates, h lan ca gammer himself, his company handled redevelopment of Boulder Bridge Farm, the summer home and farm of the late George Nelson Dayton on the Upper Lake. Itc and his wife ard their tkree sons, aged .I, 3 and six months, now live in the elegant Dayton. "farm house." War:man is -a three- generation residen[ of the area. He was born at Howard's Point, Shorewood, where his father Philip, who was born in St. Boni, lives. }lis gl'andfather, Joseph, was a St. Boni pion~r. He had the first saw mill and made sorghum syrup whch he bottled and sold all over the state. Almost up until his death a few years ago. at ~, he was putting out his famous War:man's Sorghum Syrup which is still be- ing sold. -unit condo plan By ,iud)' Soukup dominium projcc! rising high on the shores of l.ake Minnctonka has had local e~l~t)tit,~s in a turn)oil since rumors of building plans bcgaa cir- culating. Those emotions have run thc gamut from fear of dam~3:,: to a quict, sleepy lakc~horc of an ilnprovcd ;-conol)ilc Ih thc middle ,~/' fl;c upheaval is thc Mound Cit; cji, charged wid~ ~hc tcsp~m.~bility cd' interpreting thc (tty's ordinance,;. c~l' t~c residcnls arm of which ,ff those rcxklcnrs hdurc of thc oily. Thc proF~rty in qticMioti is about L;_Lk_¢~ind~ (~'.!2~j(.J,,)m imq.;!!s_on_]ku x- the ~mn kris( ptot~'~'F, is cur 'cntiy Powcll ami k~rl Swccn tits, '.~ ,c with a rcquc~ for a ?oaiug change anti variauccs that would allow them wgn}st_~.gig~.l_S~)qes high (85 'ibc planning comm~s~k)h m~animously :~gain4 fl)at pl:m When thc dcvci,-l','ts ........ dm piamfing con)mis'.d.,n agDin v , hat,ge and v:,riaacc:~. ]1)3f three budding>; lh:kcd by tile Lakcwinds side of tm? point and F.:)rking for 2.19 ~ar~;. t92 are in,:lu6cd in the plan's. 'Ibc con- d,)nuni;~ms are cx/~ct,zd to sell for '[hough [he planning commts.~ion voted t(, rc:ommcnd denial oi thc devclt)~rs' rcqtlcsls, th,: a~;}!h:r ,.vii go to th.2 oily coui;cil for a hearing oa Maich i4. Ibc dcxclo~rs have ibc ngh; to) h) re- quest a hearing by tho COUU.~I ;Arid did exercise that right. When :he council ct)ash.ici', thc whcthc~ ;o giant fi~c 30-fi)o{ hcight- v,aiano::. If thc council t.l(*.:~ appmxc ~hal 35-f(~)t v:):ivncc, (.'ir',~ Mark Kocglcr suggest:; thai thc may need to consider a r{vision tim height standard throuF, hodt thc city. Currently thc i~ropcrty Ctl, ttlC Ct)U:ICII wouIdTmvc to aurce ZONING ON PHELPS ISLAND PARK ZONING DISTRICT Ri R2 R3 R4 + B3 Pelican Point Proposal PERCENT OF LAKESHORE ON ISLAND PARK PERCENT OF ALL LAND ON ISLAND PARK 17% * 28% 74% 48% 6% 20% 3% 4% DENSITY 4.4 units/acre 7.3 units/acre 7.3 units/acre 14.5 units/acre 6.4 units/acre *The Pelican Point property represents 45% of the 17% of lakeshore currently zoned Ri on Phelps Island Park. 72% of Phelps Island Park is currently zoned for a higher density than the Pelican Point proposal. The density allowable for the Pelicn Point property is 65 units for Ri, 110 units for R2 or R3, and 218 units for R4. The density we're requesting is 96 units and is less than allowable under R2. February 11, 1985 City Planning Commission CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound Minnesota 55364 RE: PROPOSED PELICAN POINT HOUSING -MOUND, MINNESOTA SITE VISIT AND PLANT MATERIALS ASSESSMENT Dear Commission: On February 6, 1985, Mr. Lee Campbell of Arvid Elness Architects ~and I visited the site proposed for Pelican Point Housing. The site visit was made to review three basic considerations crucial to the project's impact upon Lake Minnetonka and the surrrounding lands. The three factors assessed included 1) the visual impact of a 65 foot (six story) building situated on a ridge line as proposed. 2) the overall vegetative coverage and plant massing to be protected and retained through the projects's construction and 3) an inventory of existing vegetation on site (including size, variety, maturity etc.). The visual impact of a facade was studied using helium filled balloons positioned at a height of approximately 65 feet off grade. Numerous balloons were located at specific points along the ridge to represent the building's footPrint. Balloons were rarely visible above the tree canopy. This suggests that any planned development should be screened by existing trees. To document the structure's impact upon the lake user photographs were taken. These photos illustrate that even during the winter months the red balloons depicting the building's edges were barely visible. The vegetative cover present on site is comprised primarily of Maple, Basswood and Ash. Retaining these mature trees when imp- lementing a comprehensive design is very important. It is our consideration that because of the variety and condition of the material on-site it should not be difficult to buffer and screen the development from off-site views. 311 FIRST A',/E¢;UE NOR] (612) ;332 7522 The tree species noted above tend to reach 60 to 75 feet in height upon maturity (dependant upon soil, aspect and a variety DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES February 11, 1985 Page Two City Planning Commission-Mound of other site related factors). From our site visits and observations through Fall of 1984 and this past Winter many of the overstory trees appear to be mature. The understory vegetation is made up of younger Basswood, Maple and Ironwood and will eventually succees the canopy of present material. It is our opinion that if implemented in a proper and sensitive manner, the proposed housing project can offer its residents and the city of Mound an exciting and well designed and Planned exterior environment. 'If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact us with your questions and comments. Sincerely, DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES INC William Scott Midness 311 FIRST AVE~',~UE ~,~ORTN MIr,~/,[_~APOLIS ,"JI!J[','ESOTA 55401 (612) 332-7522 WSM:d CITY UNIT,,' 'SEWER, AND WATER 'REVENUE City Unit Charges City Sewer Charges (SAC) City Water Charges (WAC) $28,000 12,000 12,000 PARK DEDICATION FEE 10% of the Assessed Market Value $42,000 TAX BASE FIGURES Estimated Total Sales Average Estimated Sale Price Number of Units Average Estimated Tax Per Unit Total Estimated Annual Taxes $26,000,000 270,000 96 6,925 664,800 BREA~KDOWN 'OF ANNUA'L TAX REVENUES School District Hennepin County City of Mound Metro Council & Transit Area Vocational School Minnehaha Watershed 48.30% $321,098 28.42% 188,936 16,74% 111,288 5.03% 33,439 1.45% 9,640 .06% '399 Total 100.0:0% THESE FIGURES WERE COMPILED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE. DON HOLICK LYLE ~OHNSON MILT HILK 348.-7835 348-3255 348-3046 Planning Commlssion Minutes February 11, 1 85 - Page Z 6. Landscaplng plans should be sul~mltted to the City Planner prior to i~u~n¢~ of a building permit. 7. Access permits for the driveway entrances onto Shoreline Boulevard shall be secured from Hennepin County. 8. Grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Water- shed District for review, and permit approval. 9. '.Concre.te curbing shall be installed around the per,imeter of all driveway and parking areas. 10. A preliminary plat consistent' with the City's subdivision requirements shall be submitted and approved prior'to the issuance of a building permit. ll. Incorporate the recommendations in the City Engineer's letter of February 6, 1985: A. A more complete site plan needs to be prepared which includes all proposed improvements'such as signs, underground storage tanks and piping, hard surfacing, curbs~ etc. B. .Submit plans showing existing and proposed grading with approval con- tingent upon the approval of the grading and drainage plan. C. Inclusion of an utility plan and its approval; plan to .show all utilities including gas, electric, etc. D.' Approval of a landscape plan and a lighting plan also to be a condition. William Habicht, Attorney for Super.America, stated that SuperAmerica wants to erect and maintain a nice station which will provide better service for the people of the.' City. They ark willing to.accommodate any reasonable request. Steve Amick explained the proposed construction of the structure -- exterior will be a brick veneer embedded in concrete. All signage will comply. They have. already communicated with Hennepin County as to the driveway access permits.~ Lighting will be included in the landscaping plan. The land exchange and ownership of the land was discussed briefly including that the tanks are to be removed from the Metro Station site. The Commissioners had questions and comments on outdoor displays, whether landscaping plan would be comparable to the plan on previous site and what .traffic might be generated. ,, The Chair then opened the public hearing. No one present had any questions or com- ments. The public hearing was..cl.osed. Michael moved and Weiland seconded a motion to recommend approval of the conditional use permit with the 11 stipulations. The vote was unanimously in favor. The City Council ~will be asked to set the public hearing for March 12, 1985. seNo 85-405 Pelican Point - Rezoning, PDA (Conditional Use Permit) Approval, te Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. tes& Bounds Description - Lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Boulevard and southerly of East Port Road; PID Numbers ~19-117-23 31 0003/0087/0088 and 19-117-23 42 OOO1 The Planner stated that the project is back except for the preliminary plat. The most noteworthy change is the reduction of height of structures from 8 to 6 stories and to 96 units instead of the originally proposed 126 units. Each Planning Commi'ssion Minutes February ll, 1~)85 - Page 3 building would have 32 units. A total of 249 parking stalls would provide 192 underground spaces and 57 outdoor spaces. He stated that the City Council seemed dedicated to beginning a draft of a Shoreland Management Ordinance. The DNR has expressed concerns about the ' bridge and also the project's height and density. Responding to these issues, the applicant has removed the bridge, relocated the docks to the north side of the point and modified the building height and number of condominium units. The 'Planner reviewed the approvals that would be required and that the two major issues concerning the project remain unchanged (height and density); although the reduction of the height from 85 feet to 65 feet should substanti- ally reduce the visual impact. He r~viewed the comments and recommendations in his report including that the rezoning remains a prominent issue. John Adams, Project Manager, introduced Oran Powell, one of the developers; John Winston; Paul Madson from Arvid Elness Architects and Greg Kopischke from Westwood'Planning and Engineering and then briefly reviewed the modifications, their intention and desire to build a project of the highest possible quality while preserving' the amenities of the site. Paul Madson reviewed the number of and square footage of the various units of each building, placement, amenities of the site, proposed phases for construc- tion--gave a brief overview of the project. After which he showed photographs taken from various points of helium balloons at the 65 foot height to show how building height would compare with the height of the mature trees on site. Also addressed shadows cast and how they wouldn't reach across Tuxedo. The revised plans, are for.five story buildings plus a pent house as 6th story with a 10 foot setback to help minimize the height of the buildings. Greg Kopischke addressed utilities and traffiC. He stated that Minnegasco, NSP and Contel believe they have sufficient capacity for this project. He thought the site does have adequate water pressure to serve the 65 foot buildings. They will take some pressure tests and see exactly what pressure they'll have at the upper floors; it may mean auxiliary pumps are needed--this would be the problem of the developer. The sanitary sewer could be available from one of two locations; Dorchester or Tuxedo; they will have to be reviewed by the City Engineer. He has looked at traffic and feels the typical user in project will not fit the normal mode; times would be off peak and a good number would be away during the winter months or on the lake in the summer months. The park dedication feq of approximately $42,000 could bq used to upgrade t~e neighborhood parks. Taxes generated would be approximately $664,800. John Adams concluded the reports with the hope that the project.would be a welcome addition to the community. The utilities were discussed. Council Representative Steve Smith questioned, if in the event of an overload, were the developers willing to stand the cost of the improvements. The City Engineer, John Cameron, advised that a prelimi- nary Study of the sanitary sewer at Wilshire and Tuxedo showed it to.be at or near capacity/any additions would probably overload the wet well---talking about $12 to $15,000 to put wet well in to upgrade either location of sewer. The Chair opened the public hearing. The following persons had questi'ons or comments: Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 - Page 4 SKIP joHNsoN, 3018 Island View Drive, noted that regardless of screening effect of trees, the overall length of the three buildings makes a huge mass. RON JOHNSON, 4416 Dorchester Road, commented he would not have built out here if land had been zoned R-4; doesn't want or like tall buildlngs; if this is rezoned, he wants assurance his land will be zoned R-4 so someday he can move home out and derive a big profit. MRS. BEE, 4333 Wilshire Boulevard, commented lake is bombarded with boats now from-Lakewlnds and these people"that will buy $200/$400,000 units will buy very large boats and the docks will be very close. MR. K. H. ERICKSON.of Casco.Point stated she was right about the boat traffic and population. You'don't dare go into Excelsi.or Bay now and it looks like Mound is going to do the same as the tax hungry Excelsior Council. JIM HIRSCH, 3054 Island View Drive, questioned what should be considered in changing the zoning and what was the number of docks requested. The Chair responded~to his questions. SKIP JOHNSON stated that if the City is putting together a Shoreland Management Ordinance, it appears the ordinance would have a lot to say what happens to this project. The Planner advised that the Commissioner of the .DNR has final reviewal. Steve Smith wanted clarification that the Council had only requested they be provided with a model ordinance to look at. ,, STEVE CORL, 4~25 Wilsh'(re Boulevard, asked if Shoreland Management Ordinance deals with height of buildings and stated no building on Lake Minnetonka is over 3 stories, why should Mound be first? JIM REGAN, 5334 Piper Road, is opposed to'any rezoning from R-l; believes a mistake was made on Lakewinds. City is now negotiating on a two lane highway; at minimum it would mean 96 cars vs 60. Believes traffic would be backed up all the way to Al & Alma's in morning. MARK ANDERSON, 4513 Montgomery Road, commented City has no long.range plan; sort of patch work; and believes.that is cause o~I a lot of problems the City has. Weiland stated the City has a .plan and he should come in and see the Comprehensive Plan. . ' .... [: ..... DON BRYCE, Fire Chief,'spoke'in favor of the project and the fire protection and roads these people are planning for this complex. He stated we have to grow. Doesn't think we should be so.concerned about boats as 85~ of boats are trailered in. He's watched the City - been out here 42 years~ ORAN POWELL stated they want to move into-this project themselves; make it a deluxe project---a real success. Correction: DOUG EASTHOUSE, 3042 Island View Drive, noted he was at the first meeting, of an organization called "Save the Lake" formed in opposition to IDS' plan to* RON JOHNSON commented that Turnquist had a beautiful plan for about 26 units and thinks they ought to think about just 26 to 30 units. * do a complete rebuilding of Navarre after the tornado; meeting was at Powell's home and Easthouse~s comment was that Powell's statement was a double-edged sword. Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 1985 - Page 5 MIKE GILBERTSON, 2888 Tuxedo Boulevard, is against the 6 story buildings. Thinks 800 feet of 6 story buildings not for any part of the lake and especi-. ally not this area---feels property values will do down. He'd like theirs rezoned to R-4 too, if this goes to R-4. T. J. EFFERTZ,'4757 Island View Drive, commented no one is rezoning his more than FREDA OLS6N, 4414 Wilshire Boulevard, objected to anything over 4 stories in height. The Chair closed the public hearing.', Reese addressed the ~ssue as he sees it and read an article from the Minne- apolis Star which appeared February 4th relative to,the.development on the shores of Lake Calhoun.: ',In summer as wind surfers glide out on Lake Calhoun and in winter as cross- country skiers glide arOund its edges,'they see a wide, flat expanse reaching to'a distant'horizon, But city officials see the horizon closing in on the lake, with buildings cluttering its profile and more and more people trampling its shores. For example: Since 1975 more than l,O00 housing units have been built or are being planned for the nort'hwest quadrant near the lake .... What's. happening on the north shore illustrates many of the Problems.the city is facing in its attempts to preserve one of'i.ts most.attractive amenities-- its chain of'lakes: h6w to.encourage development andbest use of the land while keeping the lake as open'and unspoiled as possible and available to everyone. .One Councilmember said she fears.that the high-rise buildings could'diminish the landscape on Calhoun's north shore. This a'rea could become the Cedar- Riverside for the rich." Reese stated if we act in haste, we'll repent in leisure. Primary concern is -what we are doing to our shore and feels we better wait for tomorrow's proposal. He's opposed. Michael stated he's lived in community only 8 ' years; he is opposed to the height; but he's for the project. Thinks it certainly o~ght to be looked at from all angles. Good project and developers ought to at least be commended for coming back with a more workable plan; Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend turning down= the approval of the rezoning from R-1 to R-4. Vargo thinks .this is an appropriate use. Steve Smith concerned with who.has to pay for overloading the utility system. He resents anyone, but the citizens telling him to pass the Shoreland Management Ordinance - against the project. Reese feels they'd be opening pandora's box by expanding the R-4 zoning. Chair Jensen stated she's not for R-4 around the lake; but would like to promote ex- pansion growth of the City. Kenneth Smith feels there.is kind of blackmail by both sides. Feels project is nice; they did drop.height and he doesn't believe development is going to stop, He'~ for the project. The vote was: Byrnes, Meyer, Reese, 5. Smith and Jensen in favor of the denial; Michael, K. Smith, Vargo and Weiland opposed to the denial. Motion approved by 5 to 4 vote. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-195O TO: Plannir~30mmission and Staff FRf]M: ~4ark Koegler, City Planner ~/ I~TE: February 6, 1985 SUBJECT: Pelican Point - Rezoning, Planned Development Area (Conditional Use Permit) Approval, Site Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment CASE NO: 85-405 APPLICANT: P/S Development Ccmpany LOCATION: southeast Quadrant - Tuxedo Boulevard and Eastport Road EXISTING ZONING: Sir~le-f~aily Residential (R-I) OCMPREHS~SIVE PLAN: Single-family PREFACE: On January 14, 1985, the Planning CuLi,tission reviewed the Pelican Point proposal and denied the request. The applicant has modified the proposal and is again seeking approval frcm the City. This report will not duplicate the information contained in the January 9, 1985, Planning Report. It will focus on changes in the plan and their potential ramifications to the City. PROPOSAL: P/S Development C°~pany is proposing to construct 96 units of condcminiLm housing instead of the..originally proposed 126 units. The project will consist of three 6-story buildings approximately 65 feet in height. A total of 249 parking stalls will be provided with 192 underground spaces and 57 surface parking stalls. PROBLEMS: As the previous, staff report indicated, the City's lack. of a shoreline management ordinance puts Pelican Point in a mandatory environmental impact statement classification. Additionally, the DNR expressed concerns about the bridge and the project's height and density. At a recent City Council meeting, staff was directed to prepare a draft shoreline management ordinance for further review. It is assumed that this process will take approximately three to four months. In order to address some of the'DNR's concerns, the applicant has modified the site plan by reducing the building height, removing the bridge and relocating the docks to the north side of the point. Plannir~ C~Lission and Staff Page T~D February 6, 1985 APPROVALS: Pelican Point is requesting rezoning from R-1 to R-4, a conditional use permit for the planned development area, a height variance and a comprehensive plan amendment. The City has not received a subdivision application nor a mDdified preliminary plat drawing and as a result, plat approval will have to occur at a later date. ISSUES: The'two major issues concernin~ this project remain unchanged: building height and density. Pelican Point has been reduced frc~ 85 feet in height to 65 feet~. This reduction is significant and should substantially reduce the visual' impact of the project. The developer will have some photoc3raphs at Monday's meetin~3 portrayir~ the relationship between the height of the proposed structure and the surroundin(3 tree cover. Prior to additional discussion of project details, it is suggested that the Planning Cc~mission determine if a 6-story buildin~ height is acceptable. Rezonir~3 remains as the second most prominent issue. Rezonir~3 the parcel from R-1 to R-4 would accommodate the Pelican Point project. As revised, Pelican Point would ha'ye a density of 6 units per acre. The maximum density accoL~u~odated in the R-4 zone is 14.5 units per acre. If the project was approved as proposed, the applicant could not construct more that 96 units on the property despite the maxim~ R-4 zonin~ district provisions. The planned development area integrates the site plan into the apProval process prohibitir~ future develo~nent not in accordance with the current plan. Rezonin~, like the buildi~ height, is a policy decision to be made by the Planning Commission and City Council. If the C~tission finds the buildin~ height and density of the project acceptable, it should determine that the rezoning is valid on the grounds that the project "reflects chan~es in the goals and policies of the c~unity as reflected in the comprehensive plan or chan~es in conditions of the City." OOMMENTS: If the building height and density (rezonin~) is acceptable, the Plannin~ Cc~mission needs to consider the followir~ topics: 1. Height: The R-4 standards limit the height of a structure to 3 stories or 35 feet. The revised Pelican Point proposal calls for 65-foot structures requiring a 30-foot height variance. If the Plannin~ Ca~,~ission finds the height acceptable, staff suggests that the city reevaluate the current height restrictions found in th.e zonin~ ordinance. The approval of a 30-foot variance frcm a 35-foot height restriction · ' would seem to imply that the height standard may need revision. o Setbacks: .-The revised proposal meets or exceeds all of the setbacks found in the R-4 provisions of the zonin~ ordinance. Density: The gross density of 6 units per acre is low for any type of attached housing. The lot area per dwellin~ unit far exceeds the City's minim~ requirement of 3,000 square feet per dwellin~ unit. Plannin~ Cc~mt%ission and Staff Paoe February 6, 1985 Lot Usage: The project exceeds the City's standards on lot usage and would not require any variances. Parking: The revised Pelican Point site plan exceeds all of the City's parkir~ requirements except stall size. As proposed, the 9 ft. x 18 ft. exterior stalls would require a variance from the stated ordinance standard of 10 ft. x 20 ft. Circulation/Access/Traffic: The developer has prepared a stat~nent on traffic impacts (enclosed) which has been reviewed by City staff. The staff does not anticipate that the construction of 96 units will have a substantial negative impact on the surrounding local and county road syst~ns. 0 Amenities: The revised plan retains all of the project's original amenities with the exception of the access to the island. RECOMMENDATION: A§ has been acknowledged previously, Pelican Point is a unique project. It has established a number of issues, many of which have become controversial. Throughout the process, the developer has been extremely cooperative in supplyin~ base information, photographs, perspectives and conducting neighborhood meetings, all of which should helP the Plannin~ C~u~ission and City Council to arrive at an informed decision. As was noted earlier,.othe key decision involves building height. The developer's removal of t~ stories will significantly reduce the visual impact of the project. It is the task of the Planninc3 Cumt~ission and City Council to determine if the proposed 6-story buildin~ is consistent with the policies of the City of Mound. In effect, does it represent an appropriate use of Lake Minnetonka shoreline? If the Cum~ission determines that the scale of the project is appropriate, the staff rec~..~ends that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for the planned development area, height variance, parking stall variance, rezonir~3 and ccmprehensive plan amendment f~or Pelican Point subject to the followir~ conditions: The project shall conform .'to' all applicable state requirements pertaining to environmental assessment worksheets and/or environmental impact statements. Additionally, Pelican Point shall conform to the requirements and/or variance provisions of the Mound shoreline management ordinance which is currently being prepared. Dockage permits shall be obtained frcm the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and/or the Department of .Natural Resources as appropriate. The City Engineer's recc~-endations frcm the staff report of February 6, 1985, shall be incorporated into these conditions. Plannin~ Ccnmission and Staff Pa~e Four February 6, 1985 A landscaping plan shall be prepared for the revised building configuration and shall be approved by the City Planner. Such plans shall be in substantial conformance with the landscaping plan originally sukstitted by the applicant. The City shall elect to receive cash in lieu of park land dedication in accordance with the Mound park dedication ordinance. The Mound Comprehensive Plan shall be amended to designate the subject parcel as R-4. density residential, ~ubject to review and approval 'of the formal ~mendment by the Metropolitan Council. The applicant shall sukmit a detailedphasir~3schedule for staff review. The phasin~ schedule shall contain the limits of each phase and the anticipated starting dates. Fire access to the entire parcel shall be maintained throughout all phases. Grading a~d drainage plans shall be su~x~itted to the Minnehaha Watershed District for review and permit approval. Upon City Council approval, the City ~u~-snazz prepare a development contract which shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of any gradin~ or buildin~ permits. 10. Pelican Point is approved as a planned develo~nent area which requires that all phases be substantially completed in accordance with the approved site plan. Future deviations frcm present plans will require review and approval by the City. 11. The developer shall be required to submit and receive approval of a preliminary and final plat in conformance with the Mound Subdivision Ordinance prior to the issuance of any gradir~3 or buildin~ permits. ® ® Required Lot Area (R-4) 22,000 sq. ft. Height setbacks Front Lake Northeast Side Southwest Side 35' max. 97.5' 50' 65' 65' Density Lot Area Per Dwellin~ Unit 3,000 sq. ft. min. Lot Usage Principal Structure Landscaping/GreenArea Parking3, Driveways, Etc. 30% max. 30% min. 40% max. Parkir~3 Total Spaces Indoor Outdoor ' ' 240 96 144 Stall Size Indoor Outdoor Aisle Widths 22'x22' 10 ' x20 ' 25' Proposed 696,960 sq. ft. 65' max. 350' min. 100' min. 65' 100' 7,260 sq. ft. 8% 60% 32% 249 192 57 Not Available 9'x18' 25' Variance (30' V) (v) ENGINEERING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City of Mound, Planning Commission and Staff 3ohn Cameron, City Engineer February 6, 1985 SUB3ECT: Pelican Point Plan Review - Preliminary Plat, Grading and Drainage, and Utiiities CASE NO: 85-405 · MKA FILE NO.: 7419 I NTRODUCTI ON A revised site plan has been received by the City along with a cover letter indicatin9 that the preliminary plat, 9radin9 plan, and utility plan~ previous- ly submitted on 3anuary 2, 1985 should be used for review. The.changes on the new site plan do not appreciably affect the other drawings. COMMENTS 1. Gradin9 and Drainage: The grading plan provided indicates very mini- mal gradin9 to be done on the site. Besides the normal excavation required for the buildings, grading of the proposed access road, parking lots, and the con- struction of a sedimentation basin in the existing natural low area will be done. The outlet for this holding pond will be in the area of the existing gulley along the northeasterly property line. Some grading is planned to reshape this area. · 2. Streets: One entrance from Tuxedo Boulevard is proposed for the. development. This-will be a controlled access since the Interior road system will be private. The original site plan showed a fire lane along the east side and across the backside of the buildings (lake side) for access of emergency vehicles. We are assuming this access will be retained with the new proposal. 3. Utilities: The original plan submitted showed an eight inch watermain connected 'to the eight inch main in Tuxedo Boulevard and looped around the buildings back to Tuxedo. The water supply appears to be sufficient, but as we previously mentioned, there is a question whether the pressure will be adequate in the upper floors of the proposed buildings. Separate connections for domes- tic use and fire fighting should be made to this proposed main. The sanitary sewer is proposed to connect to the eight inch main in Tuxedo Boulevard, which flows to the City's lift station No. F-1 located east on Wilshire Boulevard. As we mentioned in our previous letter, it appears the ad- ditional flows from this project may overload this lift station. There is an alternate route that could be pursued, which would be to connect to the manhole 'at the intersection of Dorchester Lane and Island View Drive. This main flows to the City's lift station No. 3-1 located in Avalon Park. Since this station is very similar to F-1 in size and capacity, the additional flows may also overload it. We a~e in the process of trying to determine the affect that a~- ditional flows would have on either or both of these lift stations. We hope to have a more complete answer with cost estimates for the plannin9 meeting on Monday night. 4. Preliminary Plat: A revised preliminary plat was not submitted with the most recent application. RECDMMENDATIONS 1. Grading~ Dra~nage~ and Erosion Control: Prior to final approval, the developer's engineer should provide the City with storm drainage calculations, drainage boundaries, proposed pipe sizes, invert elevations, and grades for the entire site. 2. Streets:. The developer should be required to construct the private streets to minimum City standards. They also need to submit a plan which indi- cates the type of surfacing intended for the fire lane. This surfacing needs to be of an all-weather type to allow for access at any time of the year. 3. Utilities: We are under the assumption that the utilities within the site wili be private; even so, they should be constructed to City standards. As previously mentioned, the results of a flow test on the existing eight inch watermain in Tuxedo Boulevard needs to be submitted to the City. In addition, a plan should be required indicating how the required water demands for both domestic use and fire fighting will be met. If it is determined that the lift station receiving the additional flows from this project is inadequate, we would recommend that the developer stand the cost of any upgrading required. We hope to have more information regarding the lift station problem for Monday night's meeting. 4. Preliminary and Final Plat: Since no preliminary plat was included in the latest submission, we feel the developers should be required to obtain sep- arate preliminary plat approval. This would then be followed by final plat approval. CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS March 6, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Oon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Relican Roint - Rroposed Condominiums Sanitary Sewer, File #7419 Dear con: As requested, we have done a more in-depth study of the impact 96 addition- al units would have on the city's sanitary sewer system. As previously mentioned in our report to the Rlanning Commission, there is a choice of serv- ing this proposed complex from two different directions. By connecting to the main in Tuxedo, the flows would go to Lift Station F-1 located on Wilshire Boulevard next to the entrance to Lake Winds. The other direction would be to the south and connect to the main in Island View Drive at Dorchester Lane, which flows to Lift Station O-1 located in Avalon Rark. The following is a summary of the present conditions of each of the lift stations and the affects the additional flows from the proposed development would have on each. Lift Station F-1 (Wilshire Boulevard) This lift station was constructed about 20 years ago at the same time the collection system for the entire city was installed. It is equipped with 2 - 7-1/2 H.P., 200 GRM pumps and a 4' diameter wet well. With the existing flows, the pumps in this station are presently at design capacity. The prob- lem that exists with this lift station is the inadequate size of the wet well. If the additional flows from the 96 unit development were added to this lift station, not only would the pumps be inadequate, but the problem with the undersized wet well would be compounded. There are a number of alternatives that could be implemented to correct both of these problems. The most feasible solution would be to convert the existing dry well to a wet well and install new, larger submersible pumps. The cost for this would be approximately $15,000. The city has done this in a number of their smaller lift stations in recent years. Mr. 3on Elam March 6, 1985 Page Two Lift Station O-1 (Avalon Park) This lift station was constructed at the same time as F-1 and is very simi- lar in size and capacity. It is equipped with 2 - l0 H.P., 250 GPM pumps and a 4' diameter wet well. The pumping equipment in this station are well below de- sign capacity for the existing flows, but the volume of the wet well is at or very near capacity. If the additional flows from the proposed development are directed to this lift station, the present pumping equipment would be adequate, but the wet well would then be undersized. The problem that is created by the small wet well is the constant cycling off and on of the pumps and thus putting a strain on the pumps. If the proposed development is to be handled by this lift station, one of two improvements should be done. One alternate would be to convert the dry well to a wet well in the same manner as previously mention- ed for Lift Station F-1. We would estimate this cost to also be approximately $15,000. The other method would be to construct a new wet well connecting it to the existing wet well. By doing this, the existing pumping equipment would not be affected, since the capacity required for the additional flows is al- ready there. The estimated cost for installing a new wet well at this lift station site is approximately $16,500. This cost estimate includes ~ewatering because of the close proximity of Lake Minnetonka. Conclusions and Recommendations We would recommend tha~ the sanitary sewer for the proposed 96 unit devel- opment be run to the south and connected to the main at IslanO View Drive and Manchester Road, which flows to the City of Mound's Lift Station O-1 in Avalon Park. The city has retained a 25 foot permanent utility easement over the pri- vate alley from Dorchester Lane north to the southerly property line bf the proposed development, which would be used for the connection to the city main. We would further recommend that this lift station be upgraded at the developer's expense by adding a new 6 foot ~iameter wet well. We are recomm- ending this method of upgrading this lift station because: l) the equipment in the existing dry well is in good operating condition, and 2) this method would cause the least disruption to the present operating procedures. If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please Go not hesitate to contact us. ~ Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $C:sj printed on recycled p;~r~er CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM:. DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager ~:~F-~ Jan Bertrand, Building Official February 12, 1985 Developers Estimated Costs for Pelican Point During a preliminary plat approval, the City of Mound sets up the criteria for final platting of the property, including estimated costs of the project for grading, sewer, water, streets, storm sewer, lighting, etc. The 100 per- cent total costs plus 15% is required to be submitted as a bond, letter of credit, or equal. A development contract is then drafted and approved by the City Engineer, City Planner and City Attorney setting up the staging of the improvements to the property and spelling out the developer's responsibilities du~ing the project phases. An escrow fund is established before final approval to cover City costs for consulting fees such as legal, engineering and planning. Currently, we have a $2,000 escrow fund under the PDA (Planned Development Area) provisions. Any amounts not used under this fund are returned to the developer. If it becomes deficit, they a~e billed an additional amount. Park dedication fees may be accepted in lieu of park land in the amount of 10% of the total fair market value of the land being subdivided. The present assessor's value for 1984 is estimated at $428,000 , 10% equals $42,800~. As the building permits are obtained for the three buildings, the City sewer and water availability is charged at $125.00 for sewer and $125.00 for water @ 96 units equals $24,000. The Metro Waste Control Sewer Availability charges are $425.00 times 96 units equals 40,800. The deficient sanitary sewer.unit charges from the previously assessed 21 units woUld be 75 additional times $292.00 equals divided by the 3 phases or $28,900 each phase. 21,900. $'~6,700. The past City practice has bee~ to collect park dedication fees as the prop- erties are built upon, which would be divided by the 3 phases of the pro.iect. $42,800 ~ 3 equals $14,267. The project will also include purchasing of public works equipment and repairs to the sewer lift station, water meters, etc. in excess of $15,000. Jan Bertrand cc: M. Koegler J. Cameron FIRST AYE~'~UE NORTH MI~NEAPOLI$. MINNESOTA 55~O1 (612) 332-7522 February 11, 1985 City Planning Commission CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound Minnesota 55364 RE: PROPOSED PELICAN POINT HOUSING-MOUND, MINNESOTA SITE VISIT AND PLANT MATERIALS ASSESSMENT Dear Commission: On February 6, 1985, Mr. Lee Campbell of Arvid Elness Architects and I visited the site proposed for Pelican Point Housing. The site visit was made to review three basic considerations crucial to the project's impact upon Lake Minnetonka and the surrrounding lands. The ~hree factors assessed included 1) the visual impact of a 65 foot (six story) building situated on a ridge line as proposed. 2) the overall vegetative coverage and plant massing to be protected and retained through the projects's construction and 3) an inventory of existing vegetation on site (including size, variety, maturity etc.). The visual impact of a facade was studied using helium filled balloons positioned at a height of approximately 65 feet off grade. Numerous balloons were located at specific points along the ridge to represent the building's footprint. Balloons were rarely visible above the tree canopy. This suggests that any planned development should be screened by existing trees. To document the structure's impact upo? the lake user photographs were taken. These photos illustrate that even during the winter months the red balloons depicting the building's edges were barely visible. The vegetative cover present on site is comprised primarily of Maple, Basswood and Ash. Retaining these mature trees when imp- lementing a comprehensive design is very important. It is our consideration that because of the variety and condition of the material on-site it should not be difficult to buffer and screen the development from off-site views. The tree species noted above tend to reach 60 to 75 feet in height upon maturity (dependant upon soil, aspect and a variety February 11, 1985 Page Two City Planning Commission-Mound of other site related factors). From our site visits and observations through Fall of 1984 and this past Winter many of the overstory trees appear to be mature. The understory vegetation is made up of younger Basswood, Maple and Ironwood and will eventually succees the canopy of present material. It is our opinion that if, implemented in a proper and sensitive manner, the proposed housing project can offer its residents and the city of Mound an exciting and well designed and planned exterior environment. If we can be of further assistance please feel free to contact us with your questions and comments. Sincerely, DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES INC William Scott Midness 311 F!RST AVENtJE ~OF~TM MINt~EAPOLiS. Mtt4,'4ESOTA 55401 (612) 332-7522 WSM:d TAX BASE FIGURES Estimated Total Sales Average Estimated Sale Price Number of Units Average Estimated Tax Per Unit Total Estimated Annual Taxes $26,000,000 $ 270,000 96 $ .6,925 $ 664,800 BREAKDOWN OF ANNUAL TAX REVENUES School District Hennepin County City of Mound Metro Council & Transit Area Vocational School Minnehaha Watershed 48.30% 28.42% 16.74% 5.03% 1.45% .06% Total 100.00% $ 321,098 $ 188,936 $ 111,288 $ 33,439 $ 9,640 $ 399 $ 664,800 THESE FIGURES WERE COMPILED BY THE HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSORS OFFICE. DON HOLICK LYLE JOHNSON MILT HILK 348-7835 348-3255 348-3046 /IFA/ID ELNESS ARCHITECTS lINC CASE NO. 85-405 30 January 1985 Mr. John Elam City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Elam, Planning Commission and City Council Members: Enclosed you will find a site plan which shows our project resubmitted in the form of 3 s/x-story (65') buildings (32 units each) or a total project development of 96 units. The drawings which were submitted on January 2, 1985, include grading plan, preliminary plat and schematic landscape plan which remain virtually as is. The illustrative site plan enclosed makes the following changes: the set back along the southwest property line has been increased to 100 feet and the northeast property line set back has been reduced to 65 feet. The number of enclosed parking stalls has been reduced to a total of 192 spaces with 57 surface parking spaces. You will also note that the docks have been relocated to the north side of the point, the swimming beach to the south side, the bridge has been deleted. A/so enclosed you will find a memo from Westwood Engineering relating to the traffic count and utility availability. Please contact me if questions arise on our submission. Sincerely, ARCHITECTS, INC. Paul Madson /ce8 cc: John Adams Greg Kop tschke David Davenport 200 BUTLER NORTH. 510 IST AVE. N., MINNE4POLIS, MINNESOTA 55403. PHONE: (612) 339-5508 MEMBER,4MERICAN INSTITUTE OF,4RCH!TECTS · p~snb~ ~q IIS~ 'XuT--J'7 's~so~ pu~ s~u~m~ao~dms ~eq~ pu~ p~zsIS~n ~q plnoqs m~sXs q~q~ ~usma~op o~ $Ss~I~U~ ap 3snm ~S ~SD 3hq ~e3sXs a~q~Se 03 p~oSnaes XIaedoad ~uSpva~ ~$s ~u~a lsom ~q~ uo p~s~q s~ulpllUq p~sodoad aql a0lAaas al q~noua ao~ suotl~Aala laanus aaeq q3oq p~oH aou~ o3 uos3emao~uT la~ssa~au aq3 IVaaaa lisa suos3~InoI~o gq IITa 's~uTpilnq /glIv3 uT i~oTdX3 ~sdmnd I~3uamTIddns IT · 3uamdolaaap ~az~ Xavsssoau aq3 aa~q iie laql pasoIOSSp auoqdala& Ie3UaU$3UOD pu~ aaao6 sa3~3S uaaq3aON 'o~s~auuTH q~lm suosssn~sT~ 'I :~uTaolIo~ aq3 uaoqs s~q '~uT3eem uossssmmoD 2uTuueI& punoH V86I 'VI &a~nu~£ aq3 3~ suoT3sanb moa~ ~uT2insga '~T~l~a3 pu~ sgT~TiT~n uo qo:vasa~ e3osauu$~ 'punoH smepv -uqoF : HH :HO~& g86I''6~ faenue£ ANVdlNO0 ~)NIElqqNIDN=I ~' ~)NINNV'Id (300N~J.$=ifA ,~'~ 'ON 35¥3 CASE NO. 85-405 John Adams January~ 29, 1985 page 2. The following traffic compansion is based on an assumed 50-60 single family detached units that could be developed on site versus the proposed 96 condominium units· The standards for trip rates are from the TriP 'GeDeration report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. LAND USE Single family 50 Detached Housing 60 Condominiums 96 TOTAL TOTAL PEAK A.M. PEAK P.M. UNITS ADT HOUR TRIPS HOUR TRIPS 500 40 50 600 48 60 490 48 58 These figures show very similar traffic counts for ADT (Average Daily Trips) and peak hour trips such that little to no difference in the impact on adjacent streets would be noticed. Because of the luxury nature of the Project, the anticipated buyer profile will probably show they are older with few children yet at home and above average income· Those not retired will probably not have your typical 8 to 5 job. Long winter vacations and summers on the lake may be very typical. This profile would suggest a traffic impact even less than what the above figures indicate, especially at critical peak traffic periods. A city traffic count taken in 1983 on. Tuxedo Boulevard between County Road 125 (Wilshire Boulevard) and Clyde Road shows an ADT of 2750 trips. This would '.relate to 275 single family detached units, assuming 10 ADT per unit. Calculations on 275 units show and A.M. peak hour of 220 triPs and a P.M. peak hour of 275 trips. This compares very closely with an A-M. peak hour of 245 trips (230 northbound) and a P.M. peak hour of 293 trips (215 southbound) observed on JanuAry 23, -~985. It's expected that the site trip generation from. the proposed 96 units, especially considering the anticipated buyer profile, will not have any significant impact on Tuxedo traffic movement nor cause any additional problems given the peak h=ur traffic movement frequency. anoadm~ plnoa g! p~o~ X~uno3 o~ s~uamano~dm~ aan~n~ ao~ suvI~ auIIamOqS) gl Pwoa l~unoo puw (pmwmaInoi amlqsI$~) gll pvo~ aq~ Iaa~ ~ou psp ~uam~medafl uo$~e~modsuwml ~lunoo-usdauuaH '£ ~86I '6~ ~nu~f smep¥ u~o£ ciO(l-58 'ON 3SV3 Planning CommiSsion Minutes January 14, 1~85 - Page 7 Se Case No. 85-405 Pelican Point - Rezonlng from R-1 to R-4, Helght, Setback ; Parking Stall Size Variances; Conditional Use PermJt Approval for a Pl'anned Development Area; Preliminary Plat Review and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Metes & Bounds Description - lands lying generally easterly from Tuxedo Boulevard and southerly of East Port Road; PID Numbers 19-117-23 31.0003/0087/ 0088 and 19-117-23 42 O001 Chair Liz'Jensen advised that this was a pub]lc hearing. She asked the City Planner Mark Koegler to give him comments, then the architect or people from Pelican Point to give.their presentation after which, it would be opened~up for comments/questions from the audience and then brought back to Commission. The Planner stated the action this evening is consideration of the Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Approval, Planned Development Area Approval which is a conditional use under Mound's ordinance, Site Plan Review and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Pelican Point site. Pelican Point is obviously unique project in Mound given the size and complexity of the issue, it is one that we don't frequently encounter. As such, it will require extensive review by the C'1~y as well as a number of other jurisdictions which are outlined in the staff report. The proposal you have basically seen before consists of 3 eight story buildings approximately 85 feet in height. There are two swimming pool and clubhouse buildings that actually connect the tower so at ground level it is an integrated structure with three separate towers being the residential portions. Each tower consists of the same unit composition at least at this stage; however, it may change later due to market conditions. Phase I - (middle building of model) consists of 15 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units. The pro- ject takes access off of Tuxedo Boulevard and as proposed, there is a secured entrance that would the facility from that side. The composition of the staff report is somewhat different than a norm that we've encountered and what I've attempted to do at the initial stage is to point to a couple of problems that came up basically when this report was being written last week. Those problems are still somewhat hanging in limbo and we'll get into more detail on that as this evening progresses. But essentially there were two things that~ were en- countered early on; one was in looking at the project and what would be required for the environmental review'portion, the current )aw requires that an environ- mental impact statement for this project be prepared simply because Mound does not have in place an adopted and approved shoreland management ordinance. If the City had such an ordinance in place, the project would not come under the mandatory threshold of an ElS, nor would it fall under the threshold for an environmental assessment worksheet which is a much less complicated procedure. The second item we encountered early on was a preliminary draft of a letter from the DNR that pointed out that they had some problems with four areas of which we subsequently have attempted to address. As a matter of fact, there were meetings this morning between the Developer, the DNR, that the City was privileged to sit in on a portion of that. But the DNR still has a couple of major concern with regard to the proposal and I think there may have been some changes in the proposal that Paul Madson will get into later that respond to some of the DNR's comments. There is an item in my report on the second page where it stated "The DNR's comments on density and height would have no'bearing on the decision process if the City had an adopted and approved shore)and management ordinance that was consistent with the project". That statement was Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 8 clarified for me this morning and perhaps is not totally accurate because accordi'ng'to the DNR under the State law provisions for'Shoreland Management Ordinance, they still would have a review in a PUD or a PDA as Mound handles this type of setting; they also would have a review if conditional uses and variances under anybody'~s shoreland management that may be assembled. Given the-genera! problems I've identified, I had some concerns that it would be very prudent for the Planning .Commission to go ahead and totally review this proposal and provide detailed recommendations Until some of these major questions were addressed. 'At the present time and I think rightfully so, the developer asked to be heard on the agenda, this evening so'that they could begin their review process and really formatly get your comments. In the sketch plan review, you offered some, but I think they obviously have more substance for you'to'look at and.really give some feedback on. The Pelican Point project will require a number of approvals from various.agencies and the City really is the first step. Plans have been submitted obviously'to the DNR which triggered their response, they will be submitted to the Watershed District, ultimately to the Pollutlon Control Agency and the list goes'on. The.Health. Department approves the water and sewer; the Metropolitan Council gets involved with the Comprehen- sive Plan Amendment. And these are all the types of approvals that'are commonly found in a number of communities that are in more of a developing stage than 'Mound where the land pattern is more built up.. There are a fairl'y'extensive list of topics that are identified in the Staff report for dlscu~sion.and I would be glad to elaborate on any of those you would like at a later time. I don't know that it is necessarily essential rlght now to run thru.all, of those because as we get further into the staff report, the concluslon.really focuses on 'a couple of majo'r topi.cs rathe'r than the specific detail items~-all of. the ~ items I would notetho that were pointed out in the staff report were assuming that.the proposal'of rezoning from R-1 to R-4 would be granted. In going thru the report obviously we needed some standards for comparison and we used the R-4 sta'ndards since that is what they had proposed. I wobld skip all the com- ments on the landscaping and the plat and the clrculatJon--all those things we get into and really get back further into the staff report and looking at the recommendations that have been offered. We would recommend that the Planning Commission address the issues identified in the report from a local perspective to give the developer a feel of what your sentiments are, but table further action on the plan until such time as the applicant addresses the concerns noted by the DNR. The additional item that has to be addressed here is if the City needs to consider the possibility Of enacting a shoreland management ordinance which in this case would remove the necessity of an environmental impact state- ment, In looking at the project, it seemed imperative that the developer n6eds to 'resolve some of the major.issues that potentially.threaten the form of the project--the docks, the bridge, some of those kinds of things, and at the same 'time, the City needs to give the developer feedback on what I consider to. be the two biggest issues of the project; on~ the rezonlng which would h~ve a relationship to the density of the project and the other, perhaps the more con- troversial is the building height of the proposal.itself.' And then upon resolution of these items and subsequent staff reports,.we would get into the nltty gritty 'detail of all of the parking and any variances required and so forth. Those are clea'rly outlined in the report, however, for your information. I'n looking then at the two issues, there seems to be precedence in the neighbor- hood for higher density than R-l, whether it is R-3 or R-4, it is part of your determination. The property is bordered by a number of various zoning districts, R-4, B-3, R-3, R-1 and R-2. It is immediately adjacent to the Lakewinds complex; 'it is across from Donnies and clearly it has been indicated that that area has Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 9 established somewhat of a precedent for.higher intensity land use. Obviously = you have to define how high the intensity should be, but there is a h'igher scale of development there than strictly R-1. The other major issue that.needs to be addressed is the height and in looking at that, staff has some major reservations with the appropriate scale of the project that has been identified. Looking at that in terms of any precedent that is on the. lake, we don't feel that there is any valid precedent for this project. Potentially, it will be a new policy and a new precedent. Don't feel that the comparison with the Tonka headquarters in Spring Park is necessarily valid, because there are some signifi- cant difference in the amount of structural mass of the two; altho the height will essentially be the same. And'wh!le I guess we are critical of the building height, we do recognize the fact that obviously if you build up, you do pre- serve open space and I think that is clearly demonstrated in the figures that indicate approximately 60~ of land area is maintained in a landscaped type of treatment which I think is quite high. It is in excess of the Ordinance 40% standard. The major items then to address pertain to the Commission's senti- ment on rezonlng, and specifically on'the height issue and then ! think we need to subsequently address what the Commission's feeling is on a shoreland manage- ment ordinance, and I don't know what order we take these in. The City Manager and-I will be glad to provide you with additional material on what a shoreland management ordinance would entail should that be appropriate. Weiland asked if building height should be taken before rezoning?. The Planner responded possibly so, if you consider that to be the more controversial of the two. There was a letter from the legal counsel.that was requesting that the City adopt a Shoreland Management Ordinance and the City Manager and he feel that before the City needs to respond to that request, we need to look at the development first of all and gets some sentiments from you -- is this an acceptable or close to being'an acceptable development pattern and then we can address the procedural on how the City may employ an ordinance. The City will have to undertake a shoreland ordinance anyway eventually, the question is when. Technically, the ordinance was supposed to have been adopted in 1975, and it has not happened in the last ten years and may not happen in the next ten years without a push from a project like this. However, the DNR has indi- cated that they are beginning to be a little more responsive checking up on communities and conceivably could be coming knocking on Mound's door fairly soon. If the City doesn't adopt an ordinance, the DNR, by State Statute, has the authority to adopt an ordinance on the City's behalf. So it is an issue that we will be addressing ultimately. THe Commission asked if neighboring communities have one. The Planner stated Wayzata presently does and there are a number of communities throughout the Metro area that do. There are a number of communities that are going' through the process also. The City Manager showed areas of Mound that would be affected--all within 1000 feet of the lakeshore--only areas not affected would be high part of the Island, part of the Highlands, Woodcrest and a small area behind Tonka. It is opening up a new zoning overlay like the wetlands ordinance does. The real conflict is that they would not allow anything less than 15,000 square foot lots on lakeshore properties. The rest of the system is fairly in concert with what we have. DNR will have review authority over variances, conditional use permits and PUD's in this entire area, as the attorney for the developers points out accurately. Without this ordinance, this project would be very time Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page '10 consuming and expensive and may not even be viable. With the ordinance and we are still going to have 2 or 3 months to get an ordinance together - along' with whatever the DNR does - the project would be in limbo.at that point, except that they do want to move as forward as much as they can considering those liabilities. And, at such time as the Shoreland Management Ordinance is adopted, they would'be in position to move aggressively ahead, but they would at least know where they are coming from. Thus, I think the real issue that you need to give them direction on', aside from this issue, is that issue -of height and appropriateness of this project. Because if you didn't like the Project, it doesn't make a lot of sense working on all these other areas under pressure. The planner stated the important thing to keep in perspective is that the ordinance'decision is secondary to.the development. You have to decide first · of all if this deve)opment is something you're interested in and if the scale is appropriate or if a somewhat revised scale may be appropriate. There have been some changes and the developer could enunciate what those would be. John Adams, Project Manager, started hls presentation by introducing Earl Sween, one of the developers (Oran Powe.ll is the other and was unable to be present tonight); Tim Butler, Environmental Attorney-with Lindquist & Vennum; Greg Kopischke, Engineer with Westwood Planning & Engineering and Paul Madson, Architect from Arvid Elness. They are proposing a first class luxury condo- minium project on the sensational 16+ acre Turnquist property. The proposed plan calls for 126 units to be built in 3 separate.phases. Each phase will consist of 42 units in an 8.story building. .The price range of our units will be approximately $180-$400,OOO. with. a full sell-out price of $30,000,000. ~ We will hope to start construction on Phase I in the late Spring or Summer of 1985 and complete the p~oject in 1988 or 1989. We.wish to do an environ- mentally sound project that will disturb as little of the natural beauty of the site as possible. We are in the process of applying to all .necessary governmental agencies for all required permits and approvals. Some of the amenities we've planned for the site are nature trails winding thru the prop- erty, underground heated parking, indoor swimming pools, tennis courts, fire- places, screened porches, decks, security fence, guard gate and the most important aspect was to preserve as much of the openness and natural beauty of the site as possible and still achieve the density that would make the project economically feasible. Our site plan design has only about 8% of the site being used for buildings and principal st,ructures while 60% of site' area would be used for landscaping and green area.i The Zoning Ordihance would allow us to develop up to 30% of site area for bui:]dings. We have also doubled the minimum requirement of 30%"for landscape and green area. These.figures can be found in Mark Koegler's planning report. As a strong evidence of our desire to preserve the natural beauty of the site, we realize there are some concerns about an 8 story building height. Our reason for proposing an 8 story bui)ding was to limit the number of buildings to three and stil. 1 achieve the minimum density needed to make the project economically feasible. By only having 3 buildings on the site, we were able to attain our goal of mai. ntaining as much openness and natural beauty as possible. We considered a plan that would have proposed 4 buildings, 6 stories.high with 32 units in each building. This would give us approximately the same density, but doesn't give us the site openness that 3 buildings provide for. The market we are attempting to appeal to wants to be on the lake, to have good scenic lakeviews; they also desire a lot of openness and many natural site amenities. This goal is far be(ter Planning CommiSsion Minutes January 14~ 1~ - Page 11 achieved by the 3 building 8 story plan. If we are unable to recelve approva~ on the 8 stories, our only alternative woUld be to consider more buildings on the site which we feel would be an undesirable option and. would not be in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhood, the community or our project. Paul Madson started by elaborating more on the site plans and reiterated a few things about the market required to make this a financially viable project, they had to offer lake exposure for all 126 units. Given the land costs, the market'price we were shooting at, the 126 units becomes kind of a critical number, and to get 126 units on 1'350 lineal feet of lakeshore frontage has certain limitation, and we thought this was the most sensitive site.plan that we.could arrive at. Access is off of Tuxedo Boulevard to a private roadway system within the site. The parking requirements of the site'are met. Some amenities he pointed'out on the model were the tennis courts, a putting green will be developed, about 1 mile of hiking paths,.storm pond that will take care of the internal storm run off. A lot of site would be left as natural as possi- ble and then they would supplement that with new landscaping. Having met with the City regarding fire access, we are proposing to develop a fire lane around the lake side. of the project. Buildings will be accessible from both sides with the new equipment the City has purchased. As the DNR has taken a position against dockage on the island, they are looking at the proposal .of moving the docks back to main land. Still plan on bridge; will have to find out what DNR will let them do. The buildings are 8 stories high plus the parking level be- low grade; they will be built of concrete with a brick veneer, fully sprinkled, 6 elevators in the entire project, amenity buildings previously referred to would contain pools, community rooms, exercise rooms, etc. The Chair opened the meeting for comments/questions from the audience: Mrs. Robert Lyckholm asked how this will impact water, sewer and gas lines on the island; she thought they were running to capacity now; also not happy to having towers built in our backyard. Feels buildings will act like a wind tunnel. Koegler responded City Engineer prepared a staff report and he commented on concerns with one of the lift stations and had concerns with water in the upper Floors of structure itself. Item would be addresSed& have to be satisfactorily solved. When it comes to sanitary sewer, if this plan proceeds, the City will have to undertake a comprehensive plan and Metropolitan Council will review & they will look at the sewer capacity quite closely. All of the ut'ilities will be thoroughly addressed. Greg Kopischke reviewed the opti'ons for sanitary sewer and water and the upgrading of the lift stations. Mike Hayes asked about impact study done on excess traffic pattern; is load going to create problem.' Greg Kopischke gave some comparisons with single family homes and felt that the difference from this project of traffic would not be that great. Hayes asked if this first building'on lake that would be that high. Steve Corl asked "how many. R-1 (single family homes) could ~e built in this area? Concerned about putting more people on the island. Chair responded about 65 homes. Kopischke stated you get higher traffic from R-~ areas than from condominiums. Ron Johnson stated he had some facts from Hennepin County Highway Department. They figure 6 trips per unit per day. With 126 units, that is 756 more trips per day on Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 12 County Road 125 which they figure is overused already. Gave figures of traffic ~ on County Road 15. He stated he came out here to get away from all these high rises, came out for suburban type of living---he doesn't see where any of the' citizens of Mound or elected officials have a right to guarantee a developer or person selling land a profi~. Just as soon see it developed as Mr. Turnquist planned 4 or 5 years ago. Dave Griffin asked where sanitary sewer would possibly be run down Dorchester Road? Chair stated issue we have to address in future. Kopischke. stated there is an ease- ment connecting Dorchester to this site; but present proposal doesn't require using this easement. Ron Johnson stated easement comes down his drive; thinks water and sewer lines would have to be completely rebuilt and the lift stations have to be upgraded. Also have a lot of power outages inlsummer; basements in area could get flooded. Steve Corl commented that lake use on summer weekends between this island and.Goose Island is hazardous. Asked number of docks~ Docks are limited to 60. dim Hirsh had question on maximum number of single family homes and number of docks that could be put on land; also disturbed by density. 'He questioned channel--some people think it is public waterway. Koegler stated 52 or 53 homes taking out 25% for non-usable land. The LMCD controls number of docks. Jim Hirsh had question on shoreland management ordinance. City Manager explained. Doug Easthouse stated there are several things he's uncomfortable about. Just received notice of this development within the week and have not had time to gather~ information--without an environmental impact study, how can any of us know if it is a desirable asset to the"communlty and secondly, we are overburdened and we don't know what the costs are. It should be encumbent on developer to provide the impact study. Is it conceivable that the shoreland ordinance would be developed to bypass an environmental impact study and accommodate this project?' Think most people don't want a bridge.and yet we have not had time to generate public opinion. I would hope we have more time before these kinds of decisions are made, have more citizen imput. Tim Butler responded that the City of Mound has to have a Shore- land Management Ordinance with or without Pelican Point. State law. If the City 'had this Ordinance, the project would not have to have the mandatory ElS. These developers are going to live there and they are attempting to have the highest possible quality. They've met with the DNR, they're g'oing to do the EA¥t on a volunteer basis--it will address the issues discussed because it is important to them.. Mrs. Olson who lives at Wi.lshireand..Tuxedo stated cars come from Wilshire and. try getti~ng onto Tuxedo and. are backed up; can sympathize with fellow trying to get out of his drive. Also, she heard, if condominiums come in, taxes will be going up. She's concerned about traffic and the 8 story buildlngs--thlnks it's quit.~ unnecessary. City Manager responded he can't image how taxes would go up--project would not add to services; no more police, no parks to be maintained and private roads s~o no more plowing. Mrs. Lyckholm asked if land is to be leveled; like to know plan -- doesn't seem to fit topography. Concerned that putting bridge over channel would keep the small boats from going through, Attorney Tim Butler answered if navigable, it would be kept open. Ron Johnson stated 40 foot boats have been going through there. He also commented that with all the proposed security system, it will make it difficult to get up into buildings for emergencies. He has not heard one remark for this type of development. Planning CommiSsion Minutes January 14, 1~85 - Page ]3 Mike Gilbertson agreed it was a beautiful piece of property. He thinks 8 story buildings are totally inappropriate; feels he won't see the sun til noon ~nd view of sunrise would be blocked. He questioned if there wasn't a regulation to have to provide a community park? The height, if allowed, will set a precedent for the rest of'lake; thinks it subtracts from the aesthetics of lake. City Manager ex- plained the land dedication provision of ordinance (10% of value and land on tax rolls for $420,000.) John Kroll stated he's having difficulty grasping terms--if Mound adopts Shoreland Ordinance, who would grant variances to a project like this. Weiland stated Mound would recommend to the various agencies. DNR would have als° to approve as well as other agencies concerned. Council Representative Steve Smith questioned if pressure is not necessarily from the DNR,. but from the project itself to pass a Shoreland Management Ordinance. Tim Butler thinks it's unfair to make them. the lightning rod for adopting the ordi- nance. They have commenced the EA worksheet process--have a draft document they are reviewing with appropriate City personnel and DNR. Mary Hayes was upset they were not notified; wants to stop so many variances. The Chair advised that this is just the beginning process. The Council will hold a public hearing at appropriate time and notices will be mailed and published per Statutes. John Adams commented he"s hearing, citizens don't like this project; bu.t he feels it is best use economically of the land. He asked for direction to take. It was questioned how Shoreland Management. Ordinance would be done assuming the City enacts one. The City Manager explained process and that a public hearing would also be required. He will probably write a news story explaining how ordi- nance will work and citizens can keep in touch with the office. The major points in the guidelines concern density (no more than 30% of residential lot can be built on and lot size within the lO00 feet of shoreline is 15,000 square feet rather than our lO,OO0 or less. minimum). Over the next two months, we will be trying to come up with an ordinance that makes sense. The Chair closed the public heari.ng and brought it back to the Commission. Reese is opposed to any density more than R-3 and also feels height is inappropriate. Kenneth Smith is also against. .Meyer is not opposed to R-4 Zoning, but thinks 3 to 4 stohy would fit in better. Weiland thinks 8 story is too much. Vargo still thinks minimal construction area is appropriate way to address, but he does not think any longer that 85 foot height is appropriate; favors a scaled down versi'on. Byrnes does not want to see buildings above the trees. Kenneth Smith would like buildings set back from lake and Reese wants one and two family homes. Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to recommend to the Council denying the rezoning and the height variance requested. All voted in favor of the denial except Vargo voted against and Michael abstained. Motion carried. Case No. 85-406 Conditional Use Permit for 8 Townhomes on Eden Road Lots 21, 22, 23, 24; Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F Eugene Schlee was present. Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 14 The Planner reviewed Mr. Schlee's request. Townhouses are permitted within the B-1 District by Conditiona) Use. Mr. Schlee has developed about 8 proposals and a couple were pretty viable. They are 4A and 4B. Essentially they are two banks of.4 attached townhouse units per grouping. They are arranged on'lot lines so that eventua)ly they can be split and applicant can sell them if he so.chooses. Initial pr~mlse is to rent. There was concern about having another wall across the street from the back of the former "No Frills" store so the Planning Commission could consider staggering buildings using a combination of .the 30 foot and the 22 foot setbacks. Staff recommends approval subject to the six conditions as follows: 1. The townhouse configuration shall be staggered so that there is a combination of frontyard setbacks ranging from 30 to. 22 feet. 2. Building 1 should be rotated to meet the pattern established by Buildings~4, 5 and 8. A complete, landscaping plan should be submitted to and approved by the City Planner. 4. A subdivision plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements must be approved and filed with the City prior to the sale of any property. 5. The grading, drainage and utility plans are to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. · 6. A site plan containing all grading and drainage information should be submitted to and approved.by the Watershed District. Weiland moved and M~yer seconded a motion to recommend the conditional use permit be approved subject to the staff recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. At the January 22, 1985 Council meeting, they will be asked to set the public hearing for February 12,'1985. ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Michael seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at ll:15 P.M. All in favor, so meeting was adjourned, Liz Jensen, Chair Attest: 3050 HarBor tane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Plannin~ C~,t~ission and Staff FRK3M: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~/ January 9, 1985 SUBJECT: Pelican Point - Rezoning, Preliminary Plat Approval, Planned Development Area (Conditional Use Permit) Approval, Site Plan Review and Conprehensive Plan Amendment CASE NO: 85-405 APPLICANT: P/S Development Ccmpany ~TION: Southeast Quadrant - Tuxedo Boulevard and Eastport Road EXISTING ZONING: Single-family Residential (R-I) O3MPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single-family PREFACE: Pelican Point is a unique project in Mound due to the size and complexity of the proposal. The 126-unit, 3-building complex will involve reviews by the City, the DNR, the Watershed District, the PCA, Metropolitan Council, Corps of Engineers and other agencies. Additionally, the project will require the preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet or an environmental impact statement. The multi-agency review of Pelican Point officially commenced with its subnittal to the City of Mound. As is the case in any development, Mound's review will focus on all issues which impact the co~uunity. Final action by the City of Mound will incorporate review and C~,ut~nts provided by regional, state and federal agencies. PROPOSAL: P/S Development Company is proposing to construct 126 units of condcmini~n housing. The Pelican Point project will consist of three 8-story buildings approximately 85 feet in height. Two swimming pool and clubhouse buildings will connect the three separate tower portions of the structure. Phase 1 will consist of 15 one-bedroom, 24 two-bedroon and 3 three-bedroom units. Phases 2 and 3 are likely to have a similar unit ccmposition, however, future market conditions will determine the final unit size and bedroom count. Plannir~ C(m~ission and Staff Page Two January 9, 1985 The project features a secured entrance off Tuxedo Boulevard and a private driveway circulation system. Parking will be accommodated in both surface lots and underground facilities. A pedestrian trail syst~ meanders through the property and connects to a proposed bridge which links the property to an island containing a marina and gazebo structure. A fire lane along the lakeward side of the building provides emergency vehicle access to all sides of the structures. Project amenities include tennis courts with an adjacent shelter building, a stormwater pond, puttin~ green, pedestrian trails and a swimmir~3 beach. Tree cover along the lakeshore and adjacent to Tuxedo Boulevard will remain undisturbed. PROBLemS: At the time of the writing of this report, two major problems pertainin~ to Pelican Point have surfaced. State statutes require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for any attached residential project exceeding 60 units if the local unit of government has not adopted a state approved shoreland management ordinance. Mound has not adopted a shoreland management ordinance. As a result, the developer is forced to either prepare and EIS (considerable cost and a 10 to 12-month delay) or wait until the City prepares and adopts a shoreland management ordinance (probably a 3 to 4-month delay). If ~he City adopts a shoreland management ordinance, the project will not require an environmental impact statement nor will it require an environmental assessment worksheet which is approximately a 4-month review process. The second problem involves preliminary review cc~ents by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR has offered preliminary comments on the Droposed plan (see attached letter). Their cc~ents question the'project's density, height, marina and the bridge connection to the island. The DNR's comments on density and height would have no bearing on the decision process if the City had an adopted an approved shoreland management ordinance that was consistent with the project. Keep in mind, however, that the DNR has to approve any ordinance adopted by the City. DNR's staff indicated that the agency has yet to approve any shoreland management ordinance with a building height in excess of approximately 40 feet. The first problem presents a proc.edural situation whfch can be worked out with some resulting delay to the project. The second problem, however, may threaten the viability of the project. Docks, building height, the bridge and density are major issues which the developer will have to resolve. It is of questionable benefit for the Planning C~,.mission to conduct a detailed review of the proposal only to find that another review of the project is necessary at a later date to examine a substantially modified project. At the present time, the developer has requested that the review by the City of Mound continue. Plannin~ Ccnm~ission and Staff Page Three January 9, 1985 APPROVALS: Pelican Point will require a number of formal approvals by the City of Mound including rezoning from R-1 to R-4, setback variances, a conditional use permit for a planned development area, preliminary plat review ar~ a ccmprehensive plan amendment. Additionally, the project will require approval of the bridge by the DNR, dockage approval by LMCD, grading and drainage plan approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, sanitary sewer approval by the Polution Control Agency, watermain approval by the Department of Health and approval of the cc~prehensive plan amendement by the Metropolitan Council. The balance of this report will focus on the City approvals that are necessary. REZONING: The applicant has requested that the entire 16-acre parcel be rezoned frc~ R-1 to R-4. Rezonir~ to R-4 would permit a maximum density of 14.5 units per acre. The density of the Pelican Point project is 7.9 units per acre. Under the planned development area ordinance, density is tied to the underlying zoning district. If the underlying zoning district was R-l, the project would be limited to 4.4 units per acre instead of a maximum of 14.5 units per acre under R-4 zoning. According to the zoning ordinance, ~endments can be granted "as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the c~u~unity as reflected in the plan or chan~es in conditions in the city." In order to rezone the' property, the City would have to find that _the Pelican Point proposal 'represents a change in the conditions of the the City and the Lake Minnetonka shoreline. (/I~MENTS: Discussion of the planned development area, site plan review and c~mprehensive plan a~endment' will be incorporated into the following review of issues. For discussion purposes, this review assumes R-4 zoning. Height: The R-4 standards limit the height of a structure to three stories or 35 feet. Pelican Point involves eight-story, 85-foot high buildings. Construction of such buildings will reqUire a 50-foot height variance. Height is probably the single most important issue involved in the Pelican Point project. The City of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area con~unities generally contain low-scale, suburban developments. The only. precedent on the lake for any building height is the Spring Park Tonka headquarters which is similar in height to the proposed structures. That structure, however, is narrow and considerably less massive than the three Pelican Point towers. Building height is particularly important along the lake side of the project. Frcm Tuxedo Boulevard, the site drops off approximately 50 feet to Lake Minnetonka. This chan~e in topography coupled with mature tree cover will effectively screen a significant portion of the development from the street. On the lake side, however, an 800-foot wide, 8-story mass of buildings will be fully visible. Planning Ccm~ni ss ion and Staff Page Four January 9, 1985 e The building height issue will involve a policy decision by the City of Mound regarding the .appropriate scale of development within the ca~munity and particularly of shoreline projects. Setbacks: Since Pelican Point is being processed as a planned development area (PDA), setbacks are applicable only around the perimeter of' the project. The Pelican Point towers are-not subject to the standards pertaining to the minimum distance between multiple buildings since the PDA permits clustering. The R-4 provisions of the zoning ordinance require a front setback of 127.5 feet, side setbacks of 85 feet and a lake setback of 50 feet from the mean high water line. Pelican Point has a front yard setback (from Tuxedo Boulevard) of a minimt~n of 356 feet, a lakeshore minimum setback of 100 feet, a northeast side yard setback of 78 feet and a southwest side yard setback of 86 feet. The northeast side yard which abuts Lake Winds condcminiums will require a 7-foot variance as proposed. Density: Under the planned development area, density is related to the underlying zonir~ district. If a PDA was proposed for the property with R-1 zoning, the site could accommodate a maximum of 70 units which corresponds to a density of 4.4 units per acre. If the Pelican Point site was zoned R-2, it could acccmm~)date 116 units at 7.3 units per acre, R-3 would allow 174 units at 10.9 units per acre and R-4 permits a maximum of 232 units.at a gross density of 14.5 units per acre. The Mound zoning ordinance establishes density through standards pertaining to the amount of lot area per dwelling unit. Under the provisions of the R-4 district, Pelican Point is required to 'pro~,ide a minimum of 3,000 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. Based upon the mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units proposed for the first phase, the project provides 5,531 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. Lot Usage: The performance standards in the R-4 provisions of the zoning ordinance establish a maximum of 30 percent of the site area for the principal structure, a minimum of 30 percent,of the site as landscaped area and up to 40 percent can be used for parking, driveways, etc. The principal structures of Pelican Point occupy 8 percent of the property, landscaped areas account ~or 60 percent of the site and parking, driveways, etc., occupy 32 percent of the site. Parking:° As the summary table indicates, Pelican Point exceeds all of the City's parkin~ requirements except stall size. The ordinance calls for an indoor stall size of 12 feet by 22 feet and an outdoor stall size of 10 feet by 20 feet. The proposal does not contain information on the indoor stall size, and outside spaces appear to be 9 feet by 18 feet requiring a variance. The recent approval of Chapman Place permitted both outdoor and indoor stall sizes of 9 feet by 18 feet. Planning Cu,.~ission and Staff Pa~e Five January 9, 1985 ® 10. 11. PDA Concept Approval: The developer has identified three phases for the project and has supplied specific information on the unit cc~position for the first phase. In order to retain reasonable flexibility for Phases 2 and 3, the City could approve the site plan as a PDA concept plan and specifically provide final approval for the first phase and final approval, for Phases 2 and 3 providing that the building footprints and parking layouts remain unchanged and that there is no increase in the total number of units. Landscaping: Placement of the buildings and parking areas will permit retention of existin~ tree cover around the perimeter of the site. The landscaping plan provides a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrub mass plantings. Plant materials are used to provide visual separation, color, texture and variety to the project. The landscaping plan is adequate to present the overall concept but does not contain sufficient detail for final plan approval. Prior to the issuance of any permits, a detailed landscaping plan for Phase 1 should be submitted for staff review and approval. Detailed plans should be consistent with the ~heme presented in the overall landscaping concept plan. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat divides the property into one large common lot, two small common lots to accommodate the recreation buildings and three lots containing the residential towers and acccmpanyir~3 parking structures. Drainage and utility easements are shown in conformance with utility plans. Specific comments on the preliminary plat are found in the City Engineer's report. Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans: The City Engineer has prepared a supplementary report pertaining to these topics. Park Dedication: Pelican Point will be required to provide land for park dedication or cash in lieu Of land at the City's discretion. Presumably, the City will require a cash donation which is based upon 10 percent of the value of the land. This will result in approximately $42,000 in park dedication fees. It is possible to collect the park dedication fees in · conjunction with the development of the various phases. One-third of the required fee could be collected at the time of the first phase building permit issuance with the subsequent two phases being handled in the same' manner. The City will haue to establish the exact value of the land frcm tax records in order to specify the amount of the cash payment necessary to satisfy dedication requirements. Circulation/Access/Traffic: The project contains one entrance off Tuxedo Boulevard which leads into an entry control structure. Circulation is provided by a private driveway system that connects to the parking areas and buildings. The site plan also depicts a fire lane along the eastern side of the ccmplex. The surface material of this fire lane has not been finally determined. Plannin~ Cc~raission and Staff Page Six January 9, 1985 Tuxedo Boulevard crests along the project's frontage. The optimum location for the entrance to the project is at the crest of the hill since it provides the most advantageous site distance to the northeast and southwest. The existin~ driveway entrance lies east of the crest of the hill. The plans submitted by the developer do not clearly identify the existin~ driveway and its relationship to the proposed entrance. For safety reasons, the entrance should be located at the' crest of the hill. Development of condominiums on the Pelican Point site will increase traffic on Tuxedo Boulevard and connectin~ streets. The developer has indicated in the draft EAW that the project will generate an additional 643 trips per day on Tuxedo Boulevard. Staff calculations indicate an increase of 630 trips which is consistent with the developer's submittal. The 643-trip per day increase in traffic due to construction of the condominiums is equivalent in traffic generation to the construction of 67 sir~le-family homes on the site. 12. Architectural Style: At the previous Planning C~u~ission review, the developer presented a preliminary perspective of the project depicting brick structures. During the upccming review, the Planning C(m~ission may want further clarification on the appearance of the buildings, materials to be used, etc. 13. Amenities: Pelican Point is a luxury condc~inium development and as a result, the .project contains high quality amenities. The focal point of the amenity package is the connection of the island to the project itself. The meandering trail system connects to the bridge which provides access to the proposed gazebo structure and marina on the island. Additionally, the project provides tennis courts, 'security, extensive landscaping, convenient underground parking, a pending area and a putting green for the use and enjoyment of Pelican Point's residents. Due to the extensive provision of amenities and recreational resources within the project, it is unlikely that project residents will frequently utilize the Mound park system. Several problems have been identified by state agencies pertaining to the proposed bridge and marina. Undoubtedly, these aspects of the project will receive considerable.discussion as the ireview of Pelican Point continues. Despite these problems, the concept is extremely attractive and would further enhance the high quality development. 14. Docks: Dockage will ultimately require review and permit by the Lake MinnetonkaConservation District. The Department of Natural Resources has expressed serious concern with the dock location as noted in their attached letter. Plannir~ Cc~ission and Staff Page ven January 9, 1985 15. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The Pelican Point site is currently identified as single-family residential in the Mound c~-~prehensive plan. In order for the project to proceed, the City will have to amend its ccmprehensive plan to designate the parcel as high density, equivalent to the R-4 zonin~ provisions. The ccmprehensive plan amendment will have to be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to their guidelines and authori{y. The Metropolitan Council review will specifically focus on the project's impact on regional systems such as sewers, transportation and parks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Cat,L~ission address the issues identified in this report frcm a local perspective but table further action on the plan until such time as the applicant addresses concerns noted by the DNR. Additionally, the City needs to consider the possibility of enacting a shore!and management ordinance in order to resolve the issue of a mandatory environmental impact statement for this project. Because of the' recommendation to table Pelican Point, staff has not included an extensive list of reccmmendations on the project. It seems imperative at this time for the developer to resolve scme of the issues that threaten the form of the project and for the City to address two major issues: rezoning and building height. Upon resolution of these issues, subsequent staff reports will contain detailed recut. Lendations on all topics applicable to the project. In general, staff sees the rezoning of the property as appropriate due to the planned development area approach and the zoning designations of the surrounding parcels which include R-4, B-3, R-3, R-1 and R-2 Districts. The Pelican Point property is adjacent to the existing Lake Winds condominiums project and the neighborhood cc~mercial zone, both of which have established a precedent of higher intensity development in the area. Staff has serious reservations regarding the appropriate scale of the .project and, specifically, the building height. There is no reasonable precedent for the 8-story building proposed for the Pelican Point site. The height and mass, particularly alorg the lakeshore, seems inconsistent with the City of Mound as well as with the scale of surrounding lake area cure,unities. The Tonka headquarters in Spring Park is the tallest structure on the lake with' the Excelsior Gables and some of the apartments in Wayzata probably constituting the second tallest structures. There are significant differences between Pelican Point and any of these structures due to Pelican Point's combination of both height and width which creates and extensive amoUnt of building mass. Plannin~ Cc~missionand Staff Page Eight January 9, 1985 While being critical of the building height, staff acknowledges that clusterin~ and high-rise buildings preserves open space on the site. The Planning Commission needs to weigh all of the tradeoffs i~volved and assess the impact of the proposed85-foot buildings in order to provide the applicant with direction on the height issue. As this report is being finalized, meetin(3s are being established to review details and problems associated with the Pelican Point project. As appropriate, staff will provide the Planning C~u~ission with a verbal update at Monday night's meetir~3 relatin~ to issues and the potential resolution of identified problems. PROJECT SUMMARY 1. Lot Area (R-4) Required 22,000 sq. ft. Proposed 696,'960 sq. ft. Variance Height 35' max. 85' (50' V) e Setbacks Front Lake Northeast Side Southwest Side 127.5 50' 85' 85' 356' min. 100' min. 78' 86' (7'V) e Density Lot Area Per Dwellin(3 Unit 3,000 sq. ft. min. 5,531 sq. ft. e Lot Usage Principal Structure Landscaping/Green Area Parking, Driveways, Etc. 30% max. 30% min. 40% max. 8% 60% 32% Parking Total Spaces Indoor Outdoor Stall Size Indoor Outdoor Aisle Widths 315 126 min. 189 12'x22' 10,x20, 25' 324 252 72 Not Available 9'x18' 25' (v) RE~JIP~ED REVIEws, APPROVALS AND/OR PERMITS ® 6. 7. 8. 9. A~ency City of Mound Department of Natural Resources Environmental Ouality Board Corps of Engineers Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Health Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Metropolitan Council Jurisdiction Planned Development Area Conditional Use Permit, Rezoning, Variances, Ccmprehensive Plan Amendment, Site Plan Review, Grading Permits and Building Permits Bridge and Docks EAW, EIS or Alternate Review Any Fill Material Placed into Lake Minnetonka Grading and Drainage Plans Sanitary Sewer Watermain Docks Cc~prehensive Plan Amendment January 9, 1985 C MBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ~.NGIN£[RS t LAND SUR¥1:YORS I PLANNrr-RS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (61:2) 559-3700 Ms. Jan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: City of Mound Pelican Point Proposed Condominiums #7419 Dear Jan: As requested, we have reviewed the preliminary plans, dated January 2, 1985, for the Pelican Point project and have the following comments and recommendations. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Prior to final platting, the developer's engineer should provide the City with storm drainage calculations, drainage boundaries, proposed pipe sizes, invert elevations, and grades for the entire site. Streets When final plans are submitted, they should indicate the typical sec- tion to be used for drives, parking areas, and the fire access lane. Utilities - Sanitary Sewer and Water We are assuming that all the sanitary sewer and watermain within the project will be private. Results of a flow test on the existing eight inch watermain in Tuxedo Boulevard should be submitted to the City. Along with these tests, a plan needs to be submitted indicating how the required water demahds will be met in the upper floors of the proposed buildings. Be We are assuming from the preliminary plan that the domestic and fire fighting water supplies will be from the same source. We understand the Fire Department wants these two uses to be separated; this ques- tions will need to be resolved. Ms. Jan Bertrand January 9, 1985 Page Two e The sanitary sewer main in Tuxedo Boulevard, which would serve this project, flows to the City's lift station No. F-1. It appears the ad- ditional flows from this project may overload this lift station. A more in-depth study should be done to determine if the present pumps are of adequate size. If the lift station should .need to be upgraded, we feel the developer should stand a portion of the cost. 0 We should mention that in addition to the Metro Sewer Availability Charge (SAC), the City also has a service availability charge to be paid per unit for each, sewer and water. There may also be additional fees to be collected for the City's unit charge on both the sewer and water. The amount of these charges should be clarified with the City staff and you may consider that these would cover the cost of Item 4. Preliminar~ Plat The preliminary plat shows drainage and utility easements in the area of the storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain. We were under the assumption that all these utilities were to be private, therefore easements should not be needed. The ownership of these utilities should be clarified. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:sj printed on recycled pap~r ~ STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 1200 Warner Road, Saint paul, Minnesota 55106 296-7523 FILE NO January 4, 1985 Mr. Greg Kopischke Westwood Planning & Engineering 7415 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 RE: PELICAN POINT, LAKE MINNETONKA (27-133P), CITY OF MOUND Dear Mr. Kopischke: We have reviewed the plans for the above-referenced development as well as the old permit application (78-6171) by Pelican Enter- prises and find that the project as proposed is quite similar to the original proposal under permit application 78-6171. Our position regarding this site development has not changed. Be advised that the bridge to the island was eliminated and mooring was allowed for only 38watercraft(28 slips, 10 moorings) at the northeast property boundary. Our regulations were amended in 1983 and still support our previous position. Specifically:' 1) Footbridges are prohibited under Minnesota Code of Agency Rules 6MCAR 1.5025 C.l.f.(2): New walkways across any portion of protected waters to provide ~rivate access to an island will be prohibited. 2) Dock structures and related dredging are prohibited under 1.5023 B.2.b. and 1.5022 B.2.c. when the structure and/or' the proposed excavation will be detrimental to signifi- cant fish and wildlife habitat. The original docking layout proposed under permit application 78-6171 (located generally in the same location'as your proposal, but for about half the number of slips) was determined to be detrimental to'fisheries habitat. 3) The issuance of any permit for private docking facilities bases the number of slips on the amount of developable shoreline (1300 feet) divided by the local unit of govern- ment's lot frontage requirements (50 feet) (1.5023 C.3.f.(2)). Using such a formula, the developer would be allowed 26 slips (1300 % 50). The island (former peninsula) is not developable and is not used in this calculation. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MR. GREG KOPISCHKE January 4, 1985 Page Two 4) The entire project must be consistent with state land management programs (1.5020 A.). Generally, a planned unit development (PUD) allows for increased densities in shoreland districts provided setbacks and common space are increased, and common docking facilities ~re utilized. Our preliminary analysis (determining lot-block densities and increasing that density based on DNR PUD guidelines) indicates an allowable density of approximately 80 units. In addition, building heights should not exceed 35 feet, and impervious surface coverage should not exceed 30 percent of the site area. 5) As proposed, the project meets the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)--6MCAR 3.039 M.2.a.-- because the City of Mound does not ~ave a state-approved shoreland ordinance. We are willing'to meet with you at your convenience to further discuss our position and to work out specific alternatives to the proposed plan. Should you have any questions, please contact myself or Area Hydrologist Judy Boudreau (296-7523). Sincerely, Kent Lokkesmoe, Regional Hydrologist Metro Region Division of Waters KL/JB:ch cc: ~y of Mound MCWSD LMCD NOf~MAN L.N~'WNALL KURTIS A, GR£ENLEY LAUR£$$ V. ACKMAN ~0~T V. ATMOR~ GERALD E. ~AGNUSON HOWARD J. KAUg~AN EDWARD ~.GL~NNON JOHN B,WIN~TON i I, ORENST~IN LAU~ANC~ ~,WALDOCH T J, SHE~AN THOHA~ H, GARR[~ ~ JANE5 P. HARTINEAU MARK R.JOHNSON PHILIP J, ORTHUN ~. WALTER BACHMAN UER~OLD r. B~GrAL~ ROBERT G, ~ITCH~LL,JR. WILLIAH T. DOLAN J. HICHA~L DADY January 8, 1985 LINDQUIST &, VENNUM 4~00 IDS CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~ TELEPHONE (612) 371-3~11 TELEX :~9 0044 TELECOPIER |612}371-3:~07 CABLE ADDRESS: LINLAW WAYZATA OFFICE 740 EAST LAKE STREET I~IARY [. CUR?IN NARTIN R. ROS[NBAUM · DONALD C. 5WENSON DEBRA K. PAGE ALAN C. PAGE DAVID A. OREN~TEIN THO~A5 E. GLEN~ON Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager .City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Pelican Point Development Environmental Review Procedures Dear Jon: As you know, our office represents Pelican Point DeveloPment Co., Inc., which proposes to develop a multi-family planned unit development in the City of Mound to be known as Pelican Point Condominiums. We have been working with Westwood Planning and Engineering Company to develop the site plans, architectural plans and other related documentation for the project, including environmental documentation. In the process of developing a draft Environmental Assessment Worksheet ("EAW"), together with appropriate applications for permits to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and other agencies, we have uncovered a significant problem which seriously affects the ability of this project to go forward on a timely basis. Under the rules of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board governing the preparation of environmental review documents, it is specifically provided'in 6 MCA 3.039 Subd. M(2) that an Environmental Impact Statement (."EIS") is required for construction of residential developments of more than 60 attached units if the local governmental unit has not adopted state-approved ~horeland management ordinances. In our planning process, we assumed that the City of Mound had in place proper municipal shoreland ordinances. On January 7, 1985, as part of our normal review of applicable laws and regulations, we were advised by representatives of DNR that the City of Mound has never adopted a municipal shoreland management ordinance in a form required by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, even LINDQUIST & VF_.NNOM Mr. Jon.. Elam City of Mound January 8, 1985 -Page 2- though such ordinances were required under Minn. Stat. 105.485, Subd. 6 to be adopted by July 1, 1975. Similarly,. it is our understanding that the Commissioner of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources did not take appropriate steps to adopt such ordinances on behalf of the City within one year of July 1, 1975 as he was permitted to do under the same statutory provision. As a result, Pelican Point is now required under the rules of the Environmental Quality Board to complete an EIS on the project, and this is a time consuming and costly process. Our preliminary review suggests that the Pelican Point development would qualify for a negative declaration in the EAW stating that an EIS is not required, if environmental evaluation were Conducted under the EAW procedure set forth in the rules of the Environmental Quality Board. Obviously, the imposition of an EIS requirement will add significantly to the costs associated with the development, and will seriously affect the ability of Pelican Point Development Co. to proceed with the development along the time schedule which has been planned to this point. Thus, the Pelican Point project'is'negatiVely affected not by real-world environmental considerations, but by the operation of state law and regulation which results from the failure of either the city or the state to follow the Minnesota laws in this- area. Accordingly, Pelican Point Development Co. hereby requests the City of Mound to adopt the model shoreland management 'ordinance published by the Commissioner of Natural Resources as the city shoreland management ordinance, at least on an interim basis, at the earliest possible time., It would seem to us appropriate that the City make such an adoption on a short term basis, giving the City time to draft revisions and changes to the model ordinance which would be suitable to the City's needs, and thereafter adopt its own shoreland management ordinance to replace the model ordinance adopted by r~ference. Such a procedure would place the Pelican Point development (and other developers similarly situated) in.a position to proceed with development using the EAW procedure, and avoiding the unnecessary delays and expenses associated with a mandatory EIS requirement. We wish to emphasize our intent that the Pelican Point develop- ment be evaluated according to established environmental review principles to ensure that the completion of the project will minimize or eliminate any adverse environmental impacts LIN DQUIST &'VEN NUM Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound January 8, 1985 -Page 3- which could result. If the Pelican Point project can go forward, we remain committed to the construction of a project of the highest possible quality,.ensuring that the amenities of the site are preserved not only.for potential future residents, but for the public at large. We perceive the present situation as one in which the letter of the law should · not be allowed to defeat a project which has been designed to go forward with the spirit of the law fully in mind. Please advise us at your earliest convenience of your intentions in this matter. We will be happy to work closely with personnel of the City in attempting to resolve this problem and we will be available to meet with you and answer any questions you may have. Since~ely,...-'~2 /2 DaVid J. Dave~9ort DJD:cap / CC: Mr. R. Mark Koegler Mr. John F. Adams ,,4BVID ELNESS IRCHITECTS INC 2 January 1985 Mr. John Elam City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Elam, Planning Commission and City Council Members: Enclosed you will find an application for a Planned Development Area (PDA) which involves a conditional use permit as well as our request for rezoning. The exhibits which are enclosed include an illustrative site plan of the development, grading plan, preliminary plat and schematic landscape plan, and a plan showing dimensions, setbacks, fire lanes, etc. Please contact me if questions arise on our submission. Thank you. Sincerely, /~ Paul M' Madson, A~IA Vice Presit vjl dent Enclosures 200 BUTLEI~ NORTH° 5'10 'IST AVE, N,o MINNE.4POLIS, MINNESOTA 55403° PHONE: (6'12) 339-5508 ~./~ MEMBER,4MElYlCAN INSTITUTE OF ,41YCHITECTS ' PELICAN POINT A Condominum Project in Mound, Minnesota Pelican Point is a proposed condominium development of approximately 16 acres on Spring Park Bay on the former Turnquist Estate. Building Development Description The project will ultimately comprise 126 units of three eight-story buildings, built in three separate phases of 42 units each. Although the unit mix may change as a result of. marketing analysis, the 42 unit Phase I building will consist of 15 one bedroom plus den units (1,400 - 1,6'00 sq. ft.), 24 two bedroom plus den units (1,950 - 2,500 sq. ft.) and 3 three bedroom plus den units (2,800 - 4,500 sq. ft.). The units will have market prices beginning in the low $200,000 range. The buildings are designed to give all of the units lake views. Each of the buildings will contain three units on the entry level with six units typically on each of floors two through seven and three larger penthouse units on the eighth floor. An amenity building will be built contiguous to the south of the Phase I building which will include an outdoor swimming pool, exercise rooms, sauna, whirlpool and workshop. These amenities will be shared by the Phase II building once it is developed. A similar building will be constructed linking Phases I and III when the Phase III building begins. Each of the three buildings will contain their own community party room, entry lobby and two elevator lobbies. Structurally, the buildings will be constructed of concrete columns and post-tensioned concrete floor slabs with a brick veneer curtain wall. Each of the units will have balconies oriented toward the lake. Below the eight-story buildings will lie a level of parking which actually extends out beyond the building footprint to accomodate two covered, heated parking stalls per dwelling unit. Site Development Description The site will be developed to provide a self contained condominium. community. The development will have its own internal roadway system, surface parking to accomodate the balance of the required 2.5 space/dwelling units, perimeter wrought iron security fence, securty gate, two tennis courts, putting green, a maintained pond (primary purpose as storm water holding pond) and one and one half miles of compacted gravel trails througoQt the site. The project will also include a swimming beach on the mainland and the development of 60 seasonal boat docks and a picnic gazebo on the peninsula. A bridge will be constructed to reconnect the mainland with the peninsula. -2- The landscape concept will provide manicured lawn areas around the building, but will allow the majority of the site to be left in a "natural" state. The roofs of the parking decks will be fully landscaped to minimize their impact upon the site. A 20 foot wide fire access lane will be extended off of the internal roadway system to provide access to the lake side of the buildings. A turn around- at the southern end of the fire lane will allow'emergency vehicles to maneuver and exit back out to the roadway system. The fire lane will be designed to carry the weight of a fire truck; however, it is our intention to study alternatives to ashpalt such as pavers, precast concrete turf blocks, etc. The route shall be posted as a fire lane and shall be maintained to allow free and easy access. Zonin~ Change Because of the nature of the development, the cost of the property and the desire to keep the prices of the units reasonable, we feel that 126 units presents a minimum number of units which must be developed upon the site in order to keep the per dwelling unit land cost in place. This number of units would require a zoning change from R1 to R4. Planned Development Area (PDA) We are also making application for a PDA because of this major reason: We feel that the criteria qutlined in the ordinance meets our objectives quite well. Since we feel that it is crucial that each of the units has direct lake exposure, we have limited shore line and desire to keep as much of the site open as possible, therefore we propose the following: 1. Constructing eight-story buildings (plus parking level) in lieu of three stories, which will rise to a height of 85' instead of the 35' maximum allowed in the ordinance. 2. Our distance between buildings will be less than the required height of twice the combined buildings. Conclusion We feel that the project is .qu.ite feasible if we ~are able to acquire the sought after zoning change and variances contained within the PDA. We are certain that the develompent will be a definite asset to the city of Mound. As is shown on the attached environmental assessment worksheet, we feel that the development will have little negative impact. The. amount of traffic generated, utility capacity and storm run off can all be handled. CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Case Fee Paid Date Filed Legal Description of Property: Addition Owner's Name Ralph Turnquist 1. Street Address of Property.Tuxedo Boulevard and Eastport Road (S.E. Quadrant) 2. Lot See Attached Descr±ption Block 19-117-23-31-0003,0087,0088 PID No.19-117-23-42-000~' 922-9693 (H) 3. Day Phone No.529-7711 (Wi Address 3220 W, Calhoun Parkway; Minneapolis, MN 55408 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name P/S Development Co., A Minnesota Corporation; Day Phone No. 561-5500 (Wi c/o Uran O. Vo~ell Address Brookdale Ford, Inc; 2500 County Road 10; Minneapolis, MN 55430 5. Type of Request: (~) Variance (X) Conditional Use Permit ( X ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (To ( ) Wetland Permit (X) P.U.D. *If other, specify: Comprehensive Plan. Amendment ( ) Amendment ( )' Sign Permit ( X ),Other Present Zoning District R-1 Existing Use(s) of Property Vacant, not used. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? Not by this appl. If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify 'that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. .I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application' by any authorized official of the. City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or/o~posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ,~/]~ Signature of Applicant.. ~(.~.:~_~,:,~t-~.~ Date. l-2-85 Planning Commission RecJmmendation: Date ~ncil Action: Resolution No. 4~82 STORM POND SITE LAKE MINNETONKA .AN ~Pe/icanPoi~d_~ condo// #nhm~s o/t lake~mhvmo/&~ TUXEDO BLVD. 84 BELQVI BELOW 'PH^~4 .42 UNITS ,' I LAKE MINNETONKA SITE PLAN TUXEDO BLVD. ~3 t5 LEGEND C EXStR~3 TREE8 TO REA4A~ G LM:IQE DECEXJOUS TREE J~ 8MALL D~CDUO~S TREE ~ P.~::~Mq~OUS 1REE ~ O~MENTAL TREE ~'i * MANICE~ED "I~RF AREA 0 40 8~ 160 NO~TH LANDSCAPE PLAN CPdican Poilv condominham on lake~mhwloikz TUXEDO BLVD. POND OUT'I? ITRU~TURI · . :.....~..~=. IILT FE#¢I LAKE MINNETONKA GRADING & UTILITY PLAN PdicanPoi condominhttm on TUXEDO BLVD. LAKE MINNETONKA :~REUMINARY PLAT E.R. · (filled i,, by EQBI . Envixonmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE BOX: [] g£GULAR£AW [--1 SCO ' NG£AW NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular EAWs. written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an ElS. For scoping EAWs, written com- ments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. Such comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 612/296-8253: non-metro: 1-800-652-9747, ask for envi- ronmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1,,, Project Name Pelican Point 2. Proposer. P,/S Deve, lopment Co. Contact Person c/o 3ohn Adams 325 Russell Lane Address Lonq Lake..,.. MN 55356 Phone 473-5970 (H) 473-52~ (W) 0 Project Location: __ 1/4_ a. CountyName Hennepin ~ b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW: 1. a county map showing the general area of the project. RGU City of Mound Contact Person 3on Elam andTitle City Manager Address 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 5536z~ Phone 472-1155 '/~ Section 19 . Township 117 Range 23 City/'~;~xlxi~ Name Mound 2. a copy(les) of USGS 7'/2 minute, 1:24,000 scale map. 3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of flood plain, wetlands, wells, etc. 4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area, if available. Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary). The project consists of three 8 story luxury cond, ominium buildings (42 units/ bldg.) with a total of 126 units, 60 boat slips on Lake Minnetonka, 315 parking spaces (2/unit enclosed, 0.5/unit open), ~ennSs courts, indoor swim- ming pools, putting green~ Pathways and other amenities. The project will be developed in 3 phases over about 4 years. Phase one, being the center build- ing, will start construction in mid-1985 with occupancy in 1986. Project completion is anticipated to be in early 1989. ,, .--='. .... ;:':] ~,.~!. e 10. 11. Reason for EAW preparation: List all mandatory calegory rule % which apply: $30,000,000 Estimated cons:ruction cost Total project area (acres) itS. 0 -+ acres Number of residential units 'Discretionary 6 HCAR 3.040 or length (miles) NA or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage .... NA Number of proposed parking spaces 315 List all known local, state and federal permits/approvals/funding required: Level of Government Type of Application Status 12. 03. DNR Federal: LMCD State: Minnehaha ~.Jater- shed MPCA Mn Dept, Health Local: City of Mound Met Council -Bridge -Docks -Grading/Drainage -Sanitary Sewer -Vatermain -Site Plan, Plat, Bldgs, Util., comprehensive plan change,rezoning -comprehensive plan amendment -Pending -Pending -Pending -Pending -Pending -Pending -Pending Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use plan or any other adopted plans? El No F~I Yes If yes, explain: The land use plan identifies the site as low density residential and the zoning is presently R-1 single family. The City of Mound supports a land use plan amendment to multifamily and a zoning change to R~. The project will be processed as a Planned Development Area. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. The site was used as a summer residence in the past. Currently, only a shed remains and the site is unused. To the west across Tuxedo'Boulevard exists neighborhood commercial, single and two-family residential. Adjacent to the north is multifamily residential. To the south is single family. .Lake Minnetonka is to the east. 14. 1S. 16. 17. Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories? (Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.) Before After Before After Forest/Wooded ~3,00~ 9.35~ Wetland (types 3-8) __ tO- 3~--Pon~ing/Sedementation basin Cropland Impervious Surface ~~.~.Bldgs, parking, drive~ays,~ Brush/grassland ~. m Other (specify) ~ " -J.~ennis courts. Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known.~Lake Peninsula (othe r) See attached map. Soils consist of Erin Loam, 2-24,% slopes with sandy lake beaches on lake Minnetonka. These soils ~ill support a development of the type proposed given due respect for the steep slopes. Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? If yes. show on site map and explain: Steep slopes of up to 24% and a windmill/well ~ No r~ Yes exist on the site. Development is proposed to occur on the flatter 2-12% slopes within the center of the site so as to protect the steep slopes leading down to the lake. The windmill/~ell will be removed and capped, per state Health Department standards. Also, see discussion under item 21. What is ~he approximate depth (in feet) to: ~ . I,n _ _ ~ ~_j___~. 18. 19. 20. Does any part of the project area invo!ve: , a. shoreland zoning district? b. delineated lO0-year flood plain? c. stale or federally designated river land use district? if yes. identify water body and applicable state classification(s), and describe measures No Yes No Yes p. rote,c.t.water, and. relat.ed land resources: axe rllnnecon~a zs adjacent to the site. Development ~ill occur on the flatter, upper area of the site a minimum of lO0 ft. from the iake. Skeep siopes icad- . ing to the iake wiIi be protected and not deveioped. Aisc, see I9, 2i, 22. Describe any physical alteration (e.g., dikes, excavation, fill. stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake, stream, and/or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im- pairment of the water.related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. Site grading will direct storm water run off to a proposed ponding/sedementation basin ~ithin'the site that ~ill control developed runoff rates to Lake Minnetonka such that they will not exceed undeveloped runoff rates consistent with the standards of the F1innehaha Creek Watershed District. a.Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and source): ~] No [-~ Yes 21. 22. 23. b.Will the project affect groundwater levels in any wells (on or off the site)? If yes, ex- plain: J~ No [] Yes Describe the erosion a~d sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. During construction, methods such as silt fences, deversionary di~es, sumps, etc. will 'be used as necessary to control potential erosion. After construction, existing vegetation, proposed plantings and turf establishment, building and drive,~ay constructi and storm se~er directing storm runoff to the ponding/sedementation area will control erosion. 1. surface and stormwater runoff?. '.,: No Yes 2. sanitary wastewater? No Yes 3. industrial wastewater? No Yes 4. cooling water (contact and noncontaci)? No Yes If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage), and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. · g storm water ponding/sedementation basin ~ill be provided to control site discharge rates and ~ater quality to that of existing runoff. Sanitary wastewater for this residential development ~ill be approimately 19,845 gal./day and be Picked up by municipal sanitary se~er (2.1 people/Unit~ 75 gal. waste~ater/person; 12~ units). b. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide per- colation/permeability and other hydrogeoiogical test data, if available. Lake Minnetonka will receive storm water runoff in a manner consistent with the standards of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distribt Will the project generate (either during or after construction): [] ~ a. air pollution? ~ No ~ Yes b. dust? No Yes c. noise? No Yes d. odors? No Yes If yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land uses; expected lev- els and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants fi.om stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust): odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. Air pollution and odors: from the exhaust systems ~s well as noise mnd d~st will ~ generated by the equipment during construction of the project. All equipment will be muffled and water used as necessary to control dusl during construction. These concerns ~ill be eliminated upon completion of construction and establishment of turf, housing and street surfacing. Air pollutants normal to increased resident- ial auto traffic will occur. 3 24. 26. Describe thd type and amount of solid and/or hazardous waste including sludges and ashes that will be generated and'the method andlocation of disposal: NO hazardous waste will be gene:a~ed. Solid ~as~e ~ill consist of normal residenEial ~aste a~ a rate of about 2.5 lbs/person/ day (approximately 662 lbs/day for project). %,;aste ~ill be picked up by a private refuse collection company. W~ll the proiect affect: a. fish or wildlife habitat, or movement ofanlmals? [~ No F~ Yes b. any native species that are officially listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special concern (animals and/or plants)? [~] No I--] Yes If yes. explain (identify species and describe impact): Increased boat traffic 'in the docking area may impact fish habitat. Docks will be concentrated in a small area to minimize any potential impact. Do any historical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project site? If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): [] No [] Yes 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: a. designated park or recreation areas? b. prime or unique farmlands? c. ecologically sensitive areas? d. scenic views and vistas? e. other unique resources (specify)? if yes, explain: X No ~ Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes 28. 29. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional distributions of traffic. County Road 125 -Current ADT . -5,200 Tuxedo Boulevard -Current ADT -2,750 T%~edo Boulevard -Increase in ADT -643+- (ITE: Trip Generation-Condos) Traffic will generally distribute north on Tuxedo Boulevard and County Road 125, then typically west on County. Road 15 to Wayzata and Minneapolis or east to the Mound busin~ Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? If not, distri what additional utilities and/or services will be required? " [-3 No F-~ Yes Summary of Issues For regular EAWs, list the issues as identified by 'yes' answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these issues. For scoping EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS. Items 12; 16; 18.a.b.; 22.a.1 & 2; 23; 25.a. have been reviewed under their respective headings. ' CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT l hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to ali points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature Title Date d 22..4 24, Drlke Dr. Lake Independence orr~~.s H Lake alf Moon Lake 17 T. Baker Par Lake~ Katt Reserve 21 ol 22 27 North Arm Drive II 'ennings Bay ,nwood Harrisohs Cooks Bay ests Ba ~Halsted Bay 31 West Arm Park Bay Bay Water Maxwell 17 Bay Crystal Minh~tonka Beach Lafayette -- Bay Lake Minnetonka Upper Lake Tank, 33 ,rewood 15 -'cho Gideon Bay Lake · ~/ay Smiths Bay Browns Bay 1! 14 Lake Minnetonka Lower Lake Robinsonsl Bay 13 23 ~27 Greehwo~ Excelsior(, HENNEPIN COUNTY LOCATION MAP- 4.b.1. Christmas 'lve~ CITY OF MOUND M N N E / / ? ? / SITE CITY LOCATION MAP 'T'q"r/ dVW NOIID3S i ./ Or08 ' / / ,/ '-~..Deerin~ ' /.' . Fa~ernes Point Point ,ack Lake ",~ / "6 i "! \,, /" .""PhelPs , '~o .'Island / B~>J .... ~ .......... ~ ~h )fi , ', 'a bble. Cedar ., / , ,/~- 2'__~-.-_'--. /" "x . ' G,G ~ ' - .. so--.;---T-- ~ ~ ' ~.~ ...,~ ..... .~ , ..... ~y .,.,',~, ~ '~ /-,,., .... , , -. I ,.-' .. :-~ ~- ('~","~,,.'22'::'" .',/ ,';..:' ~,~'w.~.~,. ~o ...... ,-",'-.,-' ' MOUND QUADRANGUE- ' ': ..'"~',. ,' ""::-'::".' ~ ,". ", ,~_,/'--'.: '"',. MINNESOTA . .:.:":"-' ".-"36.?-. ',.~: '." .'~ '.., LAKE MINN~ONKA 15' aUADRANOL8 '"~'"'2-' 'X~/ Island ,'~:'' ~ ' .'/.. SCALE 1:24 000 ~,' ~ f/ ~ I~ 0 1~ 2~ 3~ 4~ ~ ~ ?~ FEET ~ I .~ 0 I KILOMETER ' .. ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ - , - I ,. "3o lg~ CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET ; ~ ~[HENNmlX'~ ' '-' DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL ~.C~RVE., island'--' ',.... Park ., x. -,u Island .,o-r-.:: ..... .o o.:-'-¢; -'-;~--- 25 Island SHOREWO 4.b.2. MAP SITE LAKE MINNETONKA ~dican Poi~t~ comlomitihtms on Il. I~ AERIAL PNOT~. 4.b.3.~'7~ I~1 R.2 LAKE M. I N N E T O N K A K T 0 N LAKE' SITEi illllglllglllil~.~ zONING MAP R.1 Single Family 10,OOOsq. ft. R.2Single Family 6,0OOsq. ft. R-3Two Family' R-41Vlulti Family B-I Central Business B'2General Business B.3Neighborhood Business 1.1 Industrial · / : / north Mound, Minnesota I I I° i,ooof2ooo 1 mA I Ilrr !-i!ii!iiiilo ~~.' Revised 1-2-83 Revised 8-25-83 ZONING MAP PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 85- ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 85- PROCLAIMING APRIL 14 THROUGH APRIL 20 "BUILDING SAFETY WEEK" WHEREAS, the membership of the North Star Chapter of the International Conference of Building Officials is comprised of Building Officials of the various Cities and Counties of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Building Officials to administer the State Construction Codes, adopted by the Cities and Counties concerned with providing a minimum measure of protection for the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the People afforded by these Codes; and WHEREAS, the general public served by these officials is often not clearly informed of the activities necessary in administering the construction codes; and WHEREAS, the failure of the general public to recognize the purpose of construction codes adopted and administered by these Cities and Counties often serves to impede the efforts of the Building Inspection Departments; and WHEREAS, public information about the activities of the Building Inspection Depart- ments will serve not only to facilitate the work of these inspectors, but also assist the Building Official in assuring protection of the Health, Safety, and General Welfare of the General Public; and WHEREAS, Rudy Perpich, Governor of the State of Minnesota, has proclaimed the week of April 14 through April 20, 1985 to be Building Safety Week, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the week of April 14 through April 20, 1985 be proclaimed "Building Safety Week" in recognition of the Building Officials' dedication and contribution to the communities they serve. March 4, ~985 To: From: Re: Jon Elam Street lights on Auditor's Road I made a check with all businesses on Auditor's Road along with all businesses on Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Boulevard who have rear exits to Auditor's Road. as I believe the street lights on Auditor's Road would also affect them. Mound Post Office 550~ Shoreline Boulevard ?Ir. Bafeman stated that there is a street light to the rear of the Post Office toward the west side. Along with the street lighting on Shoreline Boulevard he feels the street lights are adequate, however, stated that he can see the concern of businesses farther up on Auditor's Road. Century Auto ~ore!mne Boulevard 5533 ' Mr. Cossette w~u!d like to see ~oree~=~ ' ~- lights on Auditor's Road end feels it would cut do~.m on vandalism. Hair Connection 55~I Shoreline Boulevard Lucy S~eare~, says 'that it is very dark along ~.~.~,~u=~'~'~=^~'s Road. and ~"~ her emoloyees will not use the rear door ='~ dark. West Lake Steno , ~ Shoreline Boulevard Mr. Johnson feels that street lights are a necessity rom security reasons~ but has no preference as to where on Auditor's Road. House of Moy 5557 Shoreline Boulevard Mrs. Moy stated that she would like to see some type of lighting if it would not cost her anything. Farmers Insurance 5569 Shoreline Boulevard Nike David stated that he has an alley light of his own~ however most of his customers ~a~-.k ac:ro~ S"'~,r~line Bou!~,~.~ ~ ~ ~ value to him. so the street !i~hts would be of no ~-~e~:~ Eliminato.rs, Inc. 557~ ShoreliTM BOulevard Jack Dahlin stated that many people park in the public lot on Auditor's Road and feels that it would be much more se- cure for pedestrians and vehicles with additional lighting. H~.rM..est Pan.~ry Co-Op 5575 Shoreline Boulevard Fay.Warta stated that her hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and that all of her employees park across Shoreline Boulevard and it would make no difference whether or not street lights were installed or not. Brewer Chiropractiq 558~ Shoreline BOulevard Dr. Brewer stated that it is very dark about half way down Auditor's Road between Commerce Boulevard and Belmont and could use one street light, however his place is very well lit to the rear. Robert ~a~e.r~ D.D.S. 5585 Shoreline Boulevard Dr. Lauer stated that if additional lighting would make people happy the city should do it. Longore ' S 2300 Commerce Boulevard Several employees stated that they are required to park in the public lot on Auditor's Road. and feel additional street lights on Auditor's Road are a necessity. Two Plus Two 23f0 Commerce Boulevard Nfs. Kruse stated that she and her employees '~%11 not park in the lot on Auditor's Road .because of no lighting and feel that lighting up the area is a necessity. Westonka Dental center 23~6' ~om~erce BoUlevard Intends to stay open late two nights a week and most of their customers use the lot on Auditor's Road and, therefore, feel that there is a definite need for lighting. Mound Body Shop 23'~ Commerce Boulevard Mr. Howard stated that the area is well lit and doesn't see any need for additional lighting. February 19, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: JOHN EWALD JON ELAM STREET LIGHTS ON AUDITOR'S RAOD Attached is a letter that I would like you to follow-up on and g report, i.e. Do we need street lights? Where should they be installed? What about the pqrking lot? Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thanks. vea JE:fc West Lal e Steno Service, Inc. 5545 SHORELINE BOULEVARD · MOUND, MINN. 5536J (612) 472-5353 February 14, 1985 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Mr. John Elam, City Manager Re: Lighting on Auditors Road Gentlemen: As we discussed February 13, 1985, we were inquring about the city installing street lights on Auditors Road between Longpres and the Post Office. There is no lighting along this street with the excep-. tion of a light in the parking 10t on the west side of the Post Office. The City has a 24 hour City parking lot on the south side of Auditors Road which has no lighting and it runs most of the length of this : street. Our office building, on the north side of Auditors Road, has a parking lot and an entrance facing the street and it is used at night. Also, last Saturday night, there was a break-in at our building and they entered the property from the side facing Auditors Road. Although Auditors Road is not now a main street, it is being used more and more by automobiles and pedestrians and we believe with street lights there, it would be much safer at night. If you have any questions concerning this, please let me know. CLJ: prn TELEPHONE ANSWERING AND COMPLETE SECRETARIAL SERVICES March 4, ~985 To: From: Re: Jon Elam Officer Ewald~ Street lights on Three Points Boulevard Enclosed is a map that was given to me and i have marked loca- tions of existing street lights and possible locations for further lighting. Most of the street corners all the way down Three Points Boulevard have a street light on them. However, Ba~u~ood Lane down Three Points Boulevard past Jones Lane is very dark and if one light was put on Ba~.~ood Lane and Three Points Boulevard and a second one between Ba~wood Lane and Jones Lane, which appears to be the only dark stretch and because of the curve, would need two lights to make it as well lit as the rest of Three ?oints Boulevard. If I can be of any further assistance please contact me. Attachment Jh-E/kee F"i Of MOUND February 22, 1985 53.¢1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: JOHN EWALD FROM: JON ELAM RE: STREET LIGHT A resident has suggested that Three Points Blvd. needs further street lighting. I have attached a map of Three Points. Could you go over the road identifying dark spots versus where lights are now located and give me a report on what changes, if any, we should be looking at. Thanks. JE:fc enc. ' CCk ' LEGISLATURE DELAYS TOTAL STATE TAKEOVER OF GAMBLING Early last week the legislature acted to delay full implementation of the new gambling laws, thus postponing full state regulation of gambling. (The term gambling includes bingo, raffles, pull-tabs, paddlewhee!s, and tip boards.) June 1, 1985 is the new cutoff, date for local licenses. The new law provides that: * Ail local licenses expire on February 28, 1985; * State licensing will begin on March 1, 1985 but will not be the sole authority to gamble until June 1, 1985; Organizations which hold a local license on February 28 may continue to conduct the forms of gambling authorized by the local license, without obtaining any state license until June 1, 1985, provided that the organization complies with the terms and conditions of the license in effect on January 28, 1985; and * Cities are authorized to adopt, by emergency ordinance, a system for the licensing of organifations to conduct gambling from February 28, 1985 to May 31, 1985. These ordinances must be consistent with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349, and may go into effect without hearing, notice, or publication, but the city shall promptly, after adoption, hold hearings to consider any necessary alterations in the ordinance. These emergency ordinances can not only provide a means of licensing new applicants but may include provisions to extend licenses in effect on February 28, 1985, until May 31, 1985, and charge a fee for the extension. To attempt to explain all the options available ~o licensing authorities is difficult, but here goes: * Do nothing. This option his a certain degree of attractiveness due to its simplicity. If a city has already repealed their local ordinance, existing licensees would be authorized to continue to operate and new operations could hold gambling occasions only after obtaining a state license, if one is necessary, or if not the gambling is not covered by state law~ * License or regulate under a new city ordinance adopted in contemplation of a March 1 1985, effective date. Since the state has already issued licenses which will go into effect March 1 and the state will continue to issue licenses, cities could choose to license or regulate those gambling occasions not covered by state law such as single bingo occasions, and to simply allow or disapprove the granting of state licenses. Operators of gambling who have local licenses in effect on February 28 could continue to operate unless inconsistent with local licensing or regulatory ordinances. W-2 * Continue'to license under a pre-existing municipal ordinance. There is the potential for dual licensing under this option, and it is less than clear whether a city could require a local license if the state has issued a license, since one state law prohibits local licensing if the gambling operator has obtained a state license and anogher continues to allow local licensing between March 1 and June 1. * Enact an emergency ordinance allowing continued local licensing. This option assumes a city wants to license locally but bas repealed their local license.''Cities would probably choose to re-adop~'tbeir repealed gambling licensing ordinances. An ~dditional fee is allowed for extending existing local licenses or for issuing new local licenses. k~ile this mishrmash of options is.certainly confusing, it reflects an intention of the legislature to reduce the.burden on local government due'to the delay in state regulation. City officials who would like to discuss their city's options are encouraged to call Joel Jamnik at the League office. .JFFRIDGEE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO., INC. 3024 FOURTH STREET SOUTHEAST · MINNEAPOLI.gl. MINNF.r,~TA ~5414 ISTOMER CITY OF MOUND -' QUOTATION Telephone: 339- 793 7 (Area Code 612) ~DRESS Street Department ' FY, Mound STATE. Minnesota 55364 DATE February 1, 1985 )NDITIONS: Unless otherwise specified all quotations are made F.O.B. factory. Stenographical and clerical errors are subject to correction. All orders are bject to delay occasioned by accidents, strikes, fires and causes beyond our control, This quotation void after days from date unless ~erwise indicated in writing. 1 ROSCO Model RMT - 400~Gallon Capacity Bituminous Maintenan Unit, Wis. Mod. Sl4D Gasoline engine, VIKING 100 GPM Asphalt Pump, Single Lever Spray Control, 2" Fiberglass Insulation, 22" dia. Pressure Relieving Manhole, Suction Sump - 2" Cleanout, LPG Burners With regulator, Tubing and Bottle Rack, 6" dia. Flue;, Inspector's type Thermometer, 4' Offset Spraybar, Handspray Gut with 15' hose, Manhole and Suction Line Screens, 2" Drawoff .... Adjustable Front Prop, Guard for Spraybar, 14Ga. Wheel Fenders. Operator's Platform, Silicon Manganese Springs, Single Axle~ 7:00 x 20 - 8 ply, dual tires, 15" x 3" Electric Brakes~ Instructions and Part List, Paint: Black Enamel Finish 3,300# $15,885.00 ;HIPPING: AoDroximatelv 30 Days :.O.B.: Mound, Minnesota RUF*FRIDGE-JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO,LINC, /// _._ 'O )SOI/ Maintenance Unit in 1928. And if you put that one--or one we made in 1930 or 1940-beside one we made last week, i U LT L 40it wouldn't look that much different. But that doesn't mean I[] it hasn't evolved a great deal. It just means we've changed it in ways that make it work better, not look better. -- We've concentrated our efforts on practical changes. By engineering our equipment from the ground up, we've gained a reputation as a no-nonsense corporation manufacturing asphalt preparation and sudacing equip- ment of consistently high quality and long service life. That's the reason y0u'll find production engineering advances in ~ Ro~o M~inten~nce Unit that you won't find anywhere else'.. Advances that improve performance and reliability, cut maintenance and training time, enhance safety. Advances that help you complete a job sooner. .. These are differences that matter-differences that help you get a job done efficiently and economically. Differences that go beyond how our equpment looks. So talk to your dealer today. Prove to yourself that a Rosco Maintenance Unit, while it may look like 1940, is engineered for today. For you. ROSCO. On top o! Asphalt Surfacing. Convenient operator controls Load, transfer, circulate, gravity draw Heavy duty, 150 GPM positive displacement pump, fully enclosed Full circulating spraybar with lateral shift and height adjustment Uniform coverage through double lap spray and constant pressure MODEL RHU/TRUCK-MOUNTED MAINTENANCE UNIT Rosco's economical truck-mounted maintenance unit offers many of the performance features and all of the quality of our large asphalt distributors. Available in 800 through 2,500 gallon tank sizes, the RHU is the ideal unit for high- demand maintenance projects. The RHU features a heavy-duty 150 GPM positive displacement pump that is sufficient for spraybars up to 12 feet. Pump is powered by its own 30 HP engine. Constant sprayline pressure and a fully circulating spraybar insure uniform coverage and clean starts and stops. Convenient operator controls make loading, transferring and circulating material clean and easy. And there is a 2-inch gravity draw- off for filling hand pots or for gravity drain. The RHU's tank is fabricated from 12-gauge steel with 7-gauge heads. It is fully insulated and features a weatherproof outside covering. Two sets of flues placed Iow in the tank insure quick heating and temperature maintenance even with only small quantities in the tank.. MODEL RMT/TRAILER- MOUNTED MAINTENANCE UNIT. The RMT is a compact, efficient maintenance unit that can be towed by a variety of vehicles, and used on a wide range of jobs. Where smaller Quantities are required, the RMT provides fast, Iow- cost heating and application of asphalt. The RMT features a quick- detachable 4-foot spraybar, equipped with fan-type nozzles which can be easily set up for off-set spraying. An optional fully circulating spraybar (up to 12 feet) is available. This unit also has a handspray with a 15-foot hose and cold handle, and it features a gravity draw-off for drainage or filling hand pots. Operation and maintenance are easy. Simple lever controls make set-up and'application quick and positive. The 14 HP engine and 100 GPM pump are easily accessible at the rear of the unit. The tank is made of heavy-duty welded steel, with two sets of heating flues mounted Iow in the tank to maintain proper temperatures even when only small quantities of material remain, The R MT is available in a single-axle model, starting at 400 gallons, or for -larger capacities uP to 1000 gallons, a tandem-axle version. ASPHALT KE'I-rLES (shown with optional power spray attachment) Rosco asphalt kettles handle all kinds of patching and other small repair jobs easily and effectively. Available in four sizes--Il0, 165, 225 and 325 gallons--Rosco kettles are made of heavy gauge steel throughout, with a double shell construction that acts as insulation to retain heat in the melted material. Rosco's bottom-fired 2-pass heating system quickly brings material up to temperature, and helps insure efficient start-up. Overhanging splash plates around the entire inside edge of the top opening eliminate splashing of material. Rosco kettles are designed with a Iow center of gravity and a wide track for faster, safer trailing. An optional power spray or manual hand spray attachment adds to the ver- satility and utilityof a Rosco Asphalt Kettle. SLIP-IN/PORTABLE MAINTENANCE UNIT When maintenance requirements are such that a distributor isn't needed full time, Rosco's Slip-In is the answer. The Slip-In offers the same performance, operating features, and construction quality as our conventional truck- mounted RHU, but it's portable. When not in use, the Slip-In is stored on its own self-contained frame, ~ supported by folding legs. Placing it into service is a simple matter of posi- tioning an appropriate vehicle--such as a dump truck--under the unit, folding up the legs, and securing the distributor to the truck. The Slip-In contains all the necessary hardware, so that a variety of vehicles, without any modification, can be used to carry it. In light-duty service, Rosco's Slil:)-In offers all of the operating advantages-- the versatility and maneuverability--of a truck-mounted distributor without the expense and inefficiency of tying up a vehicle permanently. MODEL RHU SLIP-IN MODEL RMT KETTLES CAPACITY: 800-2500 gallons 400-1000 gallons 400-1000 gallons 110-325 gallons (with overage xpansion) Elliptical, cross-section, 12-gauge Same Same Bottom-fired surge plates with staggered opening for easy access MATERIAL: Steel, 12-gauge she(l, 7-gauge'reinforced Same, except with Same as Slip-In 10-gauge melting tank, and flanged heads, all seams electrically lO-gauge heads 12-cjauge outer shell with welded 14-gauge hinged cover INSULATION: 1 ~"fiberglass cover with weatherproof Same Same Optional 20-gauge jacket MAN HOLE: 18-inch diameter, inside splash guards, Same Same '- Charg!ng opening, quick opening, pressure-relieving, one-pIece, 14-gauge, 2" diameter overflow hinged type, rain tight SUCTION SUMP: Complete tank drainage through pump Same Same - suction unit with instant cut off when tank is empty CLEANOUT: 2" bottom rear Same Same - DRAW-OFF: 2" bottom draw-off and drain at rear Same Same 1~" with strainer in tank FLUES: 2 sets, 6" diameter welded steel Same Same Optional, in lieu of bottom-fired TH ERMOMETER: Metal cased 50-500° inspector mercury Same Same Same pencil-type in well located at side of tank to register average temperature of material BURNERS: LPG liquid with pressure regulator Same Same Same, with rack for one and racks for two 100 lb. bottles 100 lb. bottle CONTROLS: Valves to fill, spray, transfer, draw-off Same Same Draw-off ~ and circulate .~,..~ME: Same Same Same Steel channel side rails with welded and reinforced cross roe.tubers RUNNING GEAR: Truck mounted Slip-In Single or tandem axle Single axle TIRES: Single: 4 -7.50 x 20-8 ply Tandem: 4-7.50 x 15-8 ply Tandem: (1000 gal): 4-12 x 16.5-10 ply 110 & 165:6.70 x 15--4 ply 225 & 325:6.70 x 15--6 ply PU M P: 150 G PM positive displacement with Same 100 G PM with Optional 18 G PM flexible coupling flexible coupling ENGINE: Wisconsin VH-4D, gasoline, Same Wisconsin S14-D, Optional Briggs & Stratton 30-bp, with electric start gasoline, 14-bp, with 3-bp gasoline, with electric start manual start HAN DSPRAY: 1 "x 25' metal hose with single Same 1 "x l&' metat hose Optional 1 "x 15' metal nozzle gun with §ingle hose with single nozzle gun nozzle gun SPRAYBAR: 8'full circulating with 6" nozzle spacing ..~ . Same 4'noR-circulating - offset with 6" nozzle spacing FINISH: Black enamel Same Same Same OPTIONAL 12'folding circulating spraybar, 6"or 4" Same 8;or 12' folding, circulating LPG burners, power or EQUIPMENT: nozzle spacing, 2'sprayer extension, spraybar, portable burner, manual handspray attach- engine exhaust heat engine exhaust heat ment, 3" dial thermometer, attachment, generating burners attachment, electric brakes, warming hood, barrel hoist generating burners ..... J ...... S~,, ,-Ou~r ,.',-~',T C0., 3C24 - z. th Strset S.E. (~ 12) 339-7~7 ROSCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 3118 SNELLING AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 ~612/721-8511 RMMU-81 P.O. Box 43037 3275 Dodd Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55164 Phone (612) 452-3211 P.O. Box 9 Highway 169 West Hibbing, Minnesota 55746 Phone (218) 263-7507 Customer's Order No. Desired Via ~",/~/,~ F.O.B. /~"/~'~/"-~"~-"// Shipping Date ,.~'..~,/...'.'.D QUANTITY Catalogue No. DESCRIPTION PRICE* PLUS APPLICABLE SALES TAX Total purchase price* ~/c~ Deposit with order *In event of c'hange in factory llst price before delivery, the price shall be that in effect on date of delivery. Accepted: dote '19 By Purchaser (company name) (AuthoriZed Signalure & Title) Order obtained for BORCHERT-INGERSOLL, INC. by. This order is subject to written acceptance by an officer of BORCHERT-INGERSOLL, INC. and its Credit Department. Accepted: date Accepted: date 19__~ BORCHERT-INGERSOLL, INC. by. 19 BORCHERT-INGERSOLL, INC. by Signature and ~itle Credit Depar'tment White--Company Pink--Customer Blue--Company Yellow--Salesman This order is subject to the conditions on the back hereof. ETNYRE MAINTENANCE DISTRIBUTORS are built for all asphalt maintenance and construction work where the size of job does not warrant a "Black- Topper" Distributor. Engineered and built with Iow center of gravity for safe highway speeds. Convenient, easy to operate controls for filling, circulating in tank, spraying through bar, transferring, hand spraying and gravity draw-off. Built on balanced tandem axle trailer or on skids for truck mounting. Like the Etnyre "Black- Topper" Distributor, it is designed for dependable, economical, efficient and safe operation. 1. TANK: Elliptical 12 gauge cross section with 10 gauge flanged heads and full section flanged surge plate. 2. MANHOLE: 14" x 24" pressure relieving. Quick opening with asbestos gasket. OVERFLOW: 2" tube located at manhole. 4. WISCONSIN ENGINE: With enclosed clutch reduc- tion. 5. ENGINE FUEL TANK: 6 gallon capacity. Conforms to DOT regulations. 6. SPRAY BAR: 2" pipe type with 4' center section. 7. LIGHTS: Conforms to Federal Standard 108 specifi- cations. 8. OPERATORS PLATFORM: Safety tread plate. 9. PUMP: 100~ G.P.M. with 2" suction and discharge. Enclosed in metal housing for heating when required. Includes flushing oil tank with valve and line to pump. 10. CIRCULATING SYSTEM: 11. THERMOMETER: Pencil type, 50-600 degrees Fahrenheit. 12. TRAILER: Tandem Axle Mounting with (2) crank- type jacks, front and rear. (Single-axle mounting available) ') BURNERS: Two generating kerosene coil type. ~'0,000 B.T.U. each. 14. FLUES: Two 6" U-type. 15. HANDSPRAY ATTACHMENT: 15' x 1" Rubber hose, gun and cold handle. TRAILER: Unit can be towed easily and can be parked ina level condition using its crank type jacks. Burners and stacks mounted at front of tank. Empty unit can be moved easily to storage or connected to towing vehicle. Trailer units available in 400 and 600 gallon capacity. SPRAY BAR: All operating controls, are accessible from the left side mounted operators platform. The operator is visible at all times to the towing vehicle driver for greater safety. Unit includes 2" pipe spray bar 'with four-foot center section. Equipped with slotted nozzles. (Optional full circulating bar av&ilable). TRUCK MOUNT£D: Unil is the same as the trailer ..mounted unit but with the burners and stacks mounted at the roar. With capacities of 400, 600, 800 and 1,000 gallons, unit can be installed at our factory on customer chassis or skid mounted for installation by customer or dealer. {Unit shown equipped with optional full circulating spray bar, tool box, bitumeter and YH-4D engine). HANDSPRAY ATTACHMENT: Lightweight handspray gun for finishing intersections, patching, and surfacing in limited areas. The handspray attachment allows greater efficiency on all maintenance jobs. Unit includes 15' x 1" rubber hose (optional steel hose avai!able) plus handspray gun with cold handle. Etnyre Maintenance Distributor Specifications sTANDARD EQUIPMENT 1. TANK: Oval section-flanged and dished heads, reinforced and flanged surge plate, 14" x 24" manhole hinged, pressure relieving cover, 2" overflow, includes 8" sump with 2" clean out plug, mounted on trailer frame. Thermometer well on left side located to give average temperature of contents. Trailer mounted units 400 and 600 gallon capacity. Truck mounted units 400, 600, 800 and 1,000 gallon capacity. Tank size includes allowance for expansion of material when heated. 2. HEATING sYSTEM: Two sets of 6" U-type flues with two (2) four gallon per hour generating burners mounted at front of tank (trailer unit only) with one burner easily removed for general utility use. Fuel pump on power unit with an all metal relief valve maintains constant pressure control. Two compartment fuel tank with 20 gallon capacity for burner fuel and 6 gallon capacity for gas engine; on right side away from burners for safety. 3. ENGINE: Wisconsin single cylinder air cooled gasoline engine Manufacturers maximum rating--14.1 H.P. With 6:1 clutch reduc- tion. With starter, alternator and battery. 4. PUMP; Positive displacement pump rated 100 G.P.M. at 470 R.P.M. Will supply spray bars up to 10' long. Includes flushing oil tank with valve and line. 5. CIRCULATING SYSTEM: Three 2-1/2" valves in suction and discharge for filling, circulating, spraying, handspr~.ying, trans- ferring and gravity draw-off from tank. Valving arranged to eliminate need for relief valve. Filling connections on left side with removable strainer. Pump enclosed in metal housing. All controls identified. 6. SPRAY BAR: 2" pipe type bar with 4' center section standard. Slotted non-clogging type nozzles on 4" centers for triple lap spray. Bar set at optimum height for most uniform spray coverage. . Maintenance Distributor Specifications 7. HANDSPRAY: Includes 15' x 1" rubber hose, lightweight gun with colcl handle, valve anti one spray nozzle, 8. STRAINERS: One in filling line and one basket type in manhole. 9, THERMOMETER: Armored engraved pencil type, calibrated from degrees to 600 degrees Fahrenheit. · OPERATORS' PLATFORM: On left rear, safety tread with hand rail grip. All controls within easy reach of operator. 19, TRAILER: 6" structural channel frame, adjustable pintle eye hitch, (2) 6000# axles, (4) 3000# springs, cast-spo, ke wheels with (4) 8 x 14.5 load range F tires, on drop-center rims, crank-type jack- tongue and on rear. 20. FENDERS: Heavy flanged steel fenders. 21. LIGHTS: Federal Standard 108 wired in loom. Includes clear- ance lights, turn signals, st. op and tail lights, 3-bar marker light, reflectors and plug connection for towing truck. 22. PAINT: Black enamel. k, 23. MANUAL: Operation, Maintenance, Parts and Safety. 4B. HEATED PUMP HOUSING: From engine exhaust. 4C, PUMP TACHOMETER: Chain driven off pump coupling. Rea~ls directly in gallons per minute. (Liter or Imperial gallons per minute tachometer available when ordered with new unit), SPRAY BAR 6A. EXTENSIONS: (1' and 2') for 2" pipe non-circulating bar. 613. SPRAY BAR: Full circulating 10' shut-off at nozzle with folding end sections. 6C. SPRAY BAR: Full circulating (non-folding ends). 6' center section shut-off at nozzle. ' 6D, SPRAY BAR EXTENSIONS: Full circulating 1'and 2' extensions with valves and nozzles (12' maximum recommended for best operating results). 6E. RAISING AND SHIFTIKIG CONTROL: For full-circulating spray bar only. 6F. PRESSURE GAUGE: Mo[Jnted on spray bar. OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT TANK lA. INSULATION: 1-1/2" Fiberglass with 20 gauge steel jacketing. lB. MANHOLE: 16" diameter pressure relieving with gasket. 1C.' TANK GAUGE: Float type with 360 degrees dial (50 gallon increments). 1D. SURGE PLATE: (In addition to standard). 1E. SUMP: 8" with 4" clean out' plug. 1F. GRAVITY DRAW-OFF COCK: 1". For bucket filling. HANDSPRAY 7A. HANDSPRAY: (In addition to standard) 15' x 1" flexible rubber handspray hose, gun and valve with extra connection on unit. 7B. HANDSPRAY HOSE: 25' x 1 °' steel with male couplings each end. 7C. HANDSPRAY HOSE: 25' x 1" rubber with male couplings. THERMOMETER 9A. THERMOMETER: 2" dial type in addition to standard pencil type. 50 degrees to 500 degrees Fahrenheit. HEATING SYSTEM 2A. CLUTCH: On kerosene fuel pump for disengaging pump when not in use. 2B. LIQUID PROPANE BURNERS SELF-VAPORIZING (2) 600,000 B.T.U.: Includes pressure regulator, lines, and gauges and bottle for two 100 lbs. bottles. (Bottles not included). PORTABLE BURNER: Vapor propane. With valve, hose and connector (no tank). 2D. PORTABLE BURNER: Liquid propane, with connection to main fuel line. 2E. OUTFIRE PROTECTION: For L.P. gas burners. 2F. AUTOMATIC CONTROLS: Thermostatic controls and "outfire' protection for L.P. gas burners (manual ignition). ENGINE 3A. ENGINE: Wisconsin Model VH-4D four cylinder air cooled gasoline engine. Manufacturers maximum rating--30 H.P. With 3.84:1 clutch reduction, w/Starter, Alternator and Battery. Diesel Engines Available Upon Request PUMP 4A. ASPHALT PUMP: 150 G.P.M. capacity at 560 R.P.M: 3" suction and discharge. (Item 3A engine recommended). MISC 11A. BITUMETER AND FIFTH WHEEL: Indicates road speed up to 1500 F.P.M. Odometer with quick resetting control registers feet traveled plus accumulative odometer; Driven through flexible cable and totally enclosed gear d rive by 16" rubber tired bitumeter wheel. Shipped crated for installation on towing vehicle. 11B. BITUMETER AND FIFTH WHEEL: Same as 11A except installed on truck chassis. 12A. LOADING HOSE: 15' x 2" flexible steel with male fittings each end. 13A. LOADING HOSE: 25' x 2" flexible steel with male fittings each end. 15A. TANK CAR CUT-OFF AND VENT VALVE: 3-way x 2". 16A. TOOL BOX: Steel on left side with hasp for padlock. 17A. BARREL HOIST: (Includes chain hoist). 18A. MEASURING STICK: Aluminum, lightweight, 50 gallon incre- ments. 19A. RETRACTABLE CASTER WHEEL: With'pneumatic tire. Lo- cated on tongue, 19C. TRAILER BRAKES: For tandem axle trailer only. Refer to price sheet for description. 19D. SAFETY CHAINS WITH HOOKS (on towing tongue): 22A. PAINT: Special color. 24A. LOADING: On rail car. 25A. PROCESSING: Export and Special; Refer to price sheet for description, E. D. ETNYRE & CO., whose policy is one of continuous improvement, reserves the right to change specifications withou, t notice. E. D. ETNYRE & CO., 200 Jefferson Street, Oregon, Illinois 61061, Phone 815/732.2116, Telex 247-353. Cable "EDECO" cOmputer run - check register Computer run - chick register 3/7/85 3/8/85 page 5 page 2 21,892.92 15,246.45 Total Bills 37,139.37 U (,-% C~. C3 l::3 0 U (._) hJ _1 .?- D bJ C~ C~ U u u (J ,, uJ 0 U U U. U u n- ,,J.J Z hJ h m C) .:) ~ N CDC-, bJ Z I~l l]lllllllllllllllllll I~1 IJlllllllllJlltlJllll ~ I~1 Iilllllllllllllllllll ~Z 7~7 J ~ W Z _.1 .,J ~ LL LL L~ C~ Y ,(,9 I I t I IIIjllll Id o~ 0 Z bJ o 0 LL n,- ~_, ,.2 O. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: City Council and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: March 4, 1985 SUB]F_LT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Satellite Dish Antennas The Planning Commission has prepared an amendment to the zoning' ordinance regulating satellite dish antennas. The amendment of the ordinance involves the following: 1. Establish Definition 4A (Section 23.302) as follows: (4A) Antenna, Satellite Dish - A parabolic dish antenna greater than three (3) feet in diameter whose purpose is to receive communication or other signals from orbiting satellites and other extraterrestrial sources. Such devices typically include a low noise amplifier (LNA) which ~s situated at the focal point of the receiving component and whose purpose, is to magnify and transfer signals. 2. In Section 6, DISTRICT PROg-ISIONS, add the following: 23.604.4 Permitted Accessory Uses (R-l) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. 23.625.3 Conditional Uses (B-l) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. 23.630.3 Conditional Uses (B-2) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: CollectiOn of Recyclable Solid Waste Materials The City of Mound hereby solicits bids for the purpose of Collection of Recyclable Solid Waste Materials. A complete set of specifications is available from the City Clerk, City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, 55364 or 612/472-1155. Sealed bids will be opened and read aloud at 10:OO a.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1985, by the City Clerk, City of Mound in the City Hall. Francene C. Clark City Clerk Publish in The Laker March 12, 1985 Construction Bulletin March 15, 1985 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 85-413 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWIN HOMES (THREE) IN THE 4700 BLOCK ON MANCHESTER NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that On A~ril 9 ,1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, 'the City Counc|) will hold a hearing on a Conditional Use Permit to permit three (3) Zero Lot Line Twinhomes in the 4700 Block of Manchester Road, legally described as follows: -' Lots 4, 5, 28 & 29; Lots 6, 7, 26 & 27; and.Lots 8, 9, 24 &.25; All in Block 9, Wy. chwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PID Num- bers 19-117-23 32 0087/0088 and 0089. All persons appearing at said hearing, will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, C~ty Clerk SHOREWOOD WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 PHONE: 472-1600 DR. ERWIN F, STEVENSON ACTING SUPERINTENDENT DONALD BRANDENBURG ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT March 12, 1985 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager ~er~//~~s Mound City Council Don Ulrick, Director of Communi trict #277 SIGN ORDINANCE CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED I have been in contact with Jan Bertrand, the Building Inspector, to deter- mine the best approach to seasonal signs in a multi-use facility such as the Westonka Con~nunity Center. I am in concurrence with the provisibns listed in your "preliminary" copies of the ordinance. I am, however, suggesting the addition of Provision (G) to read: "In the instance of a multi-use facility, only one seasonal sign may be placed (displayed) on the premises at any one time." I am supportive of allowing temporary seasonal signs,and am supportive of the limited number of days. Additionally, I am concerned that in a facility such as this there could be a. large number of these~signs at any one time, thereby creating a nuisance. There is certainly more than one building such as this in Mound. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. DU/1 s On ihe Shores of Beautiful Lake Minnetonka CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS: Collection of Recyclable Solid Waste Materials The City of Mound hereby solicits bids for the purpose of Collection of Recyclable Solid Waste Materials. A complete set of specifications is available from the City Clerk, City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, 55364 or 612/472-1155. Sealed bids will be opened and read aloud at 10:OO a.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1985, by the City Clerk, City of Mound in the City Hall. Francene C. Clark City Clerk Publish in The Laker March 12, 1985 Construction Bulletin March 15, 1985 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Mi nnesota CASE NO. 85-413 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ZERO LOT LINE TWIN HOHES .(THREE) IN THE 4700 BLOCK ON MANCHESTER NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on A~ril 9~ 1985 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MinneSota, the City Council will hold a hearing on a Conditional Use Permit to permit three (3) Zero Lot Line Twinhomes in the 4700 Block of Manchester Road, legally described as follows: -' Lots 4, 5, 28 & 29; Lots 6, 7, 26 & 27; andLots 8, 9, 24 &..25; All in Block 9, Wy~chwood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PID Num- bers 19-117-23 32 0087/0088 and 0089. All persons appearing at said hearing'will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk City Council and Staff Page Two March 4, 1985 .3 23.635.3 Conditional Uses (B-3) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. 23.640.3 Conditional Uses (I-l) Satellite dish antennas - Subject to applicable restrictions in Section 23.732. In Section 7, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, add the following: 23.732 SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS 23.732.1 Satellite Dish Antennas in Residential Districts Se Dish antennas shall be prohibited within any front and side yard area or rooftop. Dish antennas are permitted in rear yards if they are effectively screened from public view by fencing or vegetation. be Installation of a satellite dish shall require a building permit. c.. Size Qf the dish antenna shall be no greater than ten (10) feet and limited to one satellite dish per zoning lot. de Ail setback requirements shall comply with the established setbacks in each respective zone. Se Maximum height of ground mounted dish antennas shall be twelve (12) feet from top of antenna to ground. All ground mounted antennas shall be constructed so as to withstand a wind load of 80 miles per hour. Depending on site conditions, the dish antenna must be mounted in accordance with the slab on grade and provisions of the State Building Code or mounted in a concrete pier footing that is at least 8 inches below the frost line. fe A satellite dish antenna shall be constructed of galvanized steel or aluminum, have a perforated (meshlike) or opague surface and of a color that is compatible to the surroundings. High glare, metallic finishes or bright colors are not permitted. City Council and Staff Page Three March 4, 1985 23.732.2 Satellite Dish Antennas in Commercial and Industrial Districts Ail the performance standards listed in 23.732.1 shall apply to satellite dish antennas in commercial and industrial districts unless modified or supplemented as follows: Dish antennas may be permitted within side and rear yards if they are effectively screened from public view by fencing or vegetatio~n. Dish antennas shall be prohibited from rooftops unless it is determined by the City Council that placement within side or rear yards is impractical. If a roof mounted dish antenna is permitted, the dish must be fully screened from public view with building materials similar in appearance to the principal building and in proportion to the height and size of the building. Anchoring must be approved by the building official. Size of dish antenna shall be no greater than 'twelve (12) feet and limited to one.satellite dish per zoning lot. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1 ~55 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager ~ Jan Bertrand, Building Official February 25, 1985 1721 Dove Lane, Steve Coddon's Structure Report I have attached a letter from Max J. Daubenberger from Van Doren Hazard Stallings which summarizes some of our findings of the structure on Mr. Coddon's property at 1721 Dove Lane. It is his and my feeling, after our inspection on February 19, 1985, that the structure should be removed from the property as a hazardous and unsafe building. The City Council will need to take further action to prohibit any remodeling and/or alterations to the structure and order the removal of the building under the State Statute provisions. If necessary, the building should be posted as "Unsafe for Human Occupancy" unless Mr. Coddon agrees to remove the structure within the next 60 days. I would like to expound on Mr. Daubenberger's comments. The heating system of the building is not capable of maintaining a room temperature of 70o F at a point 3 feet above the floor in all habitable rooms as required under Section 1211 of the Uniform Building Code. A space heater with no duct work is in the structure. The plumbing system has improper waste, vent and water distribution piping under the Minnesota Health Department Plumbing Code Sec- tions 120 through 135. The electrical system under National Electric Code provisions, for wiring, has improper installation and insufficient outlets, receptacles and amperage; 60 amp service, for instance, requires a minimum 100 amp service to residential dwellings. The floor in the bathroom has settled and the water closet is broken with open sewer in the dwelling. The gas service distribution lines are improperly sized, inadequate appliance shut off valves and anchors, and hazardous appliance vent at the water heater. All mechanical systems were inoperable and it is impossible to tell if the appliances and lines were capable of functioning. The structure has shown signs of weather damage from the outdoor elements at the walls, ceilings, floors, etc. The ceiling heights within the structure are under the minimum 7 foot 6 inch and 7 foot in several areas of the structure. The interior bearing partition walls within the structure are 2 inches and are inadequate to support imposed loading. The framing is not of standard or conventional methods. There is no evidence of ceiling joists to support a ceiling; the existing tile ceiling has 1 by 2 inch furring strips. It is my recommendation that Mr. Coddon be ordered to remove the building within 60 days; cap the water service to the main and cut the sewer service at the main as per Public Works requirements. All debris on the site is to be removed and the grade leveled. He would also be required to notify the other utilities to remove the services to the structure. JB/ms 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 February 21, 1985 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Ins_rector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road ~ound, MN 55364 Re: 1721 Dove Lane Dear Ms. Bertrand: The enclosed is a summary of th~ general structural ccndition of the subject property based upon a visual inspection conducted on Februar7 19, 1985: A. Exterior Conditions of Dwelling In general, the exterior condition of this dwelling is very poor and exhibits severe distress. Examples of this distress are: Rt exterior edge of the roof, the roof sheeting boards are exposed and have. severely rotted. _~11 window sills exhibit severe rotting, and the exterior wall ~elow the window sills on the front (east) side of the dwelling is exhibiting rotting due to planter construction directly adjoining the wall framino. Oortions of the exterior wall at the rear (west) side of the residence consist of asbestos board with no covering siding. A separate lean-to addition projects beyond the rear wall of the dwellinq with exterior covering_ materials including painted sheet rock. %11 exterior wall wood framing extends to the ground line, thus, allowina accumulation of moisture at the base of the wood frame construction. ~o roof vents exist in the roof soffit areas,' thus, no ventilaEion of the rode is provided. Ms. Jan geut~and ~age I~wo ~ebruary 2~, 1985 B. Interior Cc~ditions of Dwelling In general, the interior conditions of this dwelling are in a severe state of deterioration. The following conditions were observed: Throughout the entire dwelling, the ?lywood subflooring has severely rotted or delaminated. In the south room of the dwelling, the roof structure has begun rotting and water pemetration into the interior space is evident. e The east front room of the dwelling has ice buildup inside the dwelling which indicates a ruptured waterline has frozen or moisture has penetrated the front wall of the residence, thus, allowing the ice buildup. · The floor framing throughout the residence consists of 2 x 4 members with these members in many areas lying on their side at approximately 24 inches on center. Support of the floor framing consists of vertical 2 x 4's extending to earthen grade with no foundations apparent. The exterior wood framing does not have top or bottom plates, and masonry at the base of the exterior walls is not continuous nor does it appear to extend to frost depth. Therefore, the entire dwelling would he susceptible to frost action. The roof framing of the entire dwelling appears to consist of 2 x 4 rafters at 24 inches on center. These roof rafters are framed in such a manner that they appear to he structurally unstable. There does not appear to be header framing above all windows in the north and south exterior load hearing walls. Headers are necessary to provide adequate structural sup?orr above all windows or doors in exterior or interior load hearing walls. In general, this entire dwelling is in a severe state of distress and does not conform to building code requirements. It is our opinion that this dwelling cannot be reoaired in any manner which will meet building code requirements. If you have any questions regarding our noted observations or recommendations, please contact our office. Sincerely yours, VAN DOREN-BA Z ARD-STAL L I NGS Max J. Daubenberger, P.E. Pa r trier ~JD/rh ?~c%ureS %aken a% %7Z~ 9o~'e Cane ou ~ebrUar~ %9, ~985. IIII NORMAN J. OR DOLORES E. MAAS 2 6 2.2 'HEI I6c. ChOOses AnderSon as Chairman By a W~a.~ ST~t~rr Jotrm~A~ nea~l~ ~ves~r W~ley J. ~de~on a ~recmr but ~11 rem~ a ~-~e ~n- ~t on new p~uct developmenL He ~d a pHva~ inves~r, h~ ~ ~mctor sinc~ ~e ~mp~y w~ fo~d~. He cofl~'t ~ rea~h~ for cogent. ~ over ~e ~mcOon ~e m~er of t~lec~ shofld ~e. ~e s~k~m~ sfld ~. ~lb w~t~ to con~ue b~g c~m p~uc~ for HEI's major c~- ~d ~c., but ~e ~ ~ ~ wove towa~ a more s~d~ p~uct ~e. ~ib ~'t ret~ phone ~. ' s~nsib~iOes of ch~, but he declln~ Tonka property being converted Balboa Minnesota Co., a new affiliate of a California real estate develope~:; announced its plans for the Spring Park and Mound properties it bought this week from Tonka Corp. Balboa will develop Tonka Technical Center as an 800,000-square-foot home for emerging companies, said David Hultquist, vice president. Ton; ka Corporation's Spring Park hea~ quarters facility and its former marl: ufacturing plant in Mound will be~ come Tonka Technical Center East and West, respectively. :.~ Hultquistsaid the headquarters an~ plant buildings will be converted into customized office, warehouse aha · manufacturing spaces to accommo- date at least 12 to 15 new enteff-- Tonka Corp. moved' its manufactur- lng operations to Texas and Mexi.~& in 1983, but has maintained its head'- quarters in Spring Park under a lease-back arrangement with Balboa. Tonka said it plans to move to a new site in Eden Prairie. Balboa bought nearly 20 acres from Tonka, including 15 acres of residen; tial sites in Mound and. Orono and 2~ acres of Minnetonka lakeshori frontage In Spring Parl~ in addition to the office and factory buildingC Tonka said the sale was for $5 mil- · ~ Kennedy O'Brien g: Drawz 000 First Bank Place West. ~' ~' "~euruarx 21, 1 9 8 5 linneapolis linnesota 55402 eleph0ne 612-333-0543 ;laylon L. LeFevere lerbert P. Lefler · Dennis O'Brien ohn E. Drawz )avid J. Kennedy ohn B. Dean ~lenn E..Purdue Ii. chard J. Schiefler ;haries L. LeFevere ~erbert P. Lefler III leffrey J, Strand ,4ary J, Bjorklund Iohn G. Kressel )ayle Nolan .~indy L. Lavorato ~lichael A. Nash .uke R, Kornarek 3rian F. Rice ,~rraine S, Clugg James J. Thomson, Jr. :lames M. Strornrnen Vlary C.. Nielsen Mr. Frank Mixa Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 RE: Liquor Licensing on Lake Minnetonka Dear Frank: You have asked me to review the laws governing the licensing of the sale of liquor on Lake Minnetonka. I assume that you are primarily interested 'in on-sale licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor. It is my understanding that most of Lake Minnetonka is not incorporated into any of the surrounding cities. If this is accurate, a license for the unincorporated areas could be issued by ~ennepin County to a floating estab- lishment which qualified as a restaurant or club. In 1948, the Attorney General opined that the county could issue a non-intoxicating liquor license to a tour boat on Lake Minnetonka. The rationale of that opinion is consistent with the idea that the county could issue an intoxicating liquor license under the statutes applicable at this time. If the county were to issue a license, it would first be required by law 'to secure a written statement of the sheriff concerning the applicant. The statement would have to recite that the applicant had not, withia the preceding five years, violated any law relating to the sale 6f liquor and that in his judgment the applicant will comply with the laws and regulations relating to the conduct of the business. The county board is further required by law to consider the statement of the sheriff, the character and reputation of the applicant, the nature of the business to be conducted, the type of premises, and the propriety of the location of the business. Additionally, the applicant would have to comply with any Mr. Frank Mixa Page 2 February 21, 1985 requirements' of ordinance, imposed by the county. regulation or procedure Liquor licensing generally is under the purview of the State Commissioner of Public Safety. She authority of the Commissioner includes the power to issue on-sale liquor licenses to "common carriers". The Commissioner has taken the position that this authority includes the power to issue licenses to Lake Minnetonka tour boats. In my opinion, this interpretation of the statutes is somewhat questionable. The rationale for granting authority to the Commissioner to issue common carrier licenses is presumably that certain types of licensees operate across local jurisdictional boundaries and therefore cannot, or should not, be made subject to local control. For example, an airplane, train, bus or passen- ger boat going up and down major rivers must be licensed, if at all, by the state, and could not reasonably be made subject to local regulatory control in each city or county through which it passed. This rationale, however, does not seem to fit the situation on Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka is located almost entirely in Hennepin County~ There does not seem to be any good reason why the authority'to license could not and should not be left with the county. Unlike a train or bus passing through many cities and counties, Lake Minnetonka tour boats could easily be regulated by the one county in which they operate. The Commissioner has explicit authority to license tour boats only on Lake Superior; to license boats on Lake Minnetonka, he must interpret the statutes governing his authority in such a way that tour boats are considered to be common carriers. This statute p~ovides that licenses may be given by the Commissioner to ". . . a person certified by either the State of Minnesota or the United States of America, or an agency thereof, as a common carrier . . ." However, neither the state nor the federal government certify Lake Minnetonka tour boats as common carriers. The statute further provides that such common carriers must be ". . . engaged in the business of transporting persons for hire in interstate or intrastate commerce . . ." and that the licensee may serve l~quor only to a ". . . bona fide passenger thereof who is actually being transported in interstate or intrastate commerce." Although Lake Minnetonka tour boats may charge for rides, I believe that the end of each trip is nearly always the point of origin and that the entire trip is almost always within Hennepin County. Although this may be regarded as a transportation of persons in Mr. Frank Mixa Page 3 February 21, 1985 commerce, it does seem to be stretching the point some- what. The statute further provides that ". . . no such license shall be issued unless such common carrier serves meals or lunches in the place where such intoxicating liquor is to be sold." I have not been able to determine what the Commissioner interprets this to mean. The Commissioner clearly feels that this means something less than a restaurant. The. Commissioner does not require licensees to sell food or to be inspected for cleanliness or sanitation, nor does he require that any other agency do so. He does not require that the b6at have food preparation facilities, food storage capability, waiters or waitresses, menus, or any of the other trappings of a place that serves meals or lunches. Apparently it is enough that food could be served on the boat. The Board may or may not be concerned about which entity, if any, has the authority to license the sale-of liquor on Lake Minnetonka. However, the practices and proce- dures of these bodies may be of interest to the Board. The legal requirements imposed by statutes on counties for the issuance of such licenses are described above. There are no corresponding statutory requirements for the state and no regulations have been promulgated which govern the issuance of such licenses. I have been informed that no background investigation is done on applicants for state licenses; no local municipalities, including the LMCD, are notified; there is no public notice and no hearing on the application, no inves- tigation or analysis of the suitability of the boat or its planned route for a liquor establishment. However, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the state's regu- latory process is that not even the local sheriff is notified that there is a licensed liquor establishment in his jurisdiction. If the Board wish~s to take action to change this situa- tion, it could: 1) challenge the authority of the Commissioner to issue Such licenses in court, 2) seek a change by legislation to curtail or clarify the authority of the Commissioner, or 3) seek to convince the Commissioner to implement formal or informal procedures which would afford some greater degree of protection. ?3? Mr. Frank Mixa Page 4 February 21, 1985 I would be glad to visit with you or the Board about the advisability of any of these options. If you have any further questions, please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:lr FEB ~ £ 1985 L_M.C.D. 7Yo 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. P~ul, MN 55101 ~.~ .... ' t General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 .'" x ..: - .., ~ ..... REVIEW " MANAGER A Metropoli~ Council Bulletin for communi~ Leaders 53~1 HAYH00O BLV0' For more informatio~ on.Items in ~is pub/icat/on, cae ~ HOUND EH 5536~ Feb. 15, 1985 environmen~l impa~ ~tement (ELS) for a propos~ 150,~ ~uare-foot RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Jan. 28-Feb. 15) of I~ers~te H~. 6~ and H~. 5. ~e Council informed ', Oakdale, however, that a ~mprehensive plan amendment and Minorities--~e ~uncil voted to create a 25~em~r po~ntially an ElS would ~ required prior to consideration of minori~ issues advi~ commi~ee to advi~ ~e Council on ~bsequent pha~s of this development. ~e Council also said ~e impa~ of i~ plans and policies on racial minori~ ~m- any deicision to provide sewer se~im to the site in no way munities in ~e region. Major ~sks will in~ude idenfi~ing ~mmi~ ~e Council to providing se~i~ to the larger ~rrie~ to minori~ pa~icipation in regional d~ision~aking indu~iai pa~ development. and identi~ing re~ur~s and information minori~ ~m- Re~arch-~e Council decid~ to update and ~mputer- munities need to ~ke advantage of regional satires. ~e ize r~ional land u~ da~, making i~ work in fore,ting appli~tion pro~ for members will b~in in Mar~ wi~ land u~ more flexible and efficient. ~e ~o-year proje~ appointmen~ ex~ in April. is ~imat~ to ~ $79,0~. Par~-~e Me~opolitan Council au~orized a ~92,0~ ~laries-~e ~uncii approv~ a 1~5 pay plan that development grant for Boom Island, io~t~ in Con,al mi~ ~e pay ranges of su~iso~ employees four ~r~nt Mi~issippi Rive~ront R~ional Park in downtown Minneapolis. and ~lled for a ~ud? of ~eir sala~ ranges. It also approv~ Plans ~11 for development of roads and parking facilities, a pay-for~e~ormanm plan for all employees. pi~ic and play areas, ~n~u~ion of shoreline fi~ing facilities, a boat laun~ and a riverside promenade with a~ors NEw APPOIN~ENTS and ben,es. ~e Council amend~ i~ development grant ~n~a~ wi~ Council Member Charles Wiger was named as ~e Council's Anoka Coun~ for Bunker Hills Regional Park, ~ding $1 ~ liai~n to ~e Metropoli~n Mo~uito Control Di~i~. million to build a ~imming pond. ~e Council asked the ~un~ to brief the Metropoli~n Parks and Open Spare Corn- PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS minion on the ~mplet~ design of ~e ~imming pond prior to ~n~ru~ion. ~e a~ion brings ~he new grant to~l to Heal'~-~e Metropoli~n Council and its Heal~ Planning approximately $2 million. Board set a joint public hearing for Wedne~ay, Feb. 27, at ~e Council al~ approved a bounda~ ex~nsion at Sou~ 5 p.m. in ~e Council Chambe~ to obtain ~mment on ~eir Wa~ington Coun~ Regional Park that adds 215 acres to ~e appli~tion for renewal of ~eir f~erally award~ designation park's current ~ acres, as a regional Health Sy~ems Agent. Comment is also ~licit~ Air Quali~-To solve a Iong~nding problem of ~rbon on ~e board's 1985 annual implementation plan. ~e plan monoxide air ~llution ~ ~e interse~ion of Universi~ and ~lls for a~ion in four priori~ areas: implementing a pri~- Shelling Avs. in St. Paul, ~e Council amend~ i~ air quali~ ~mpetitiv~ health care ~em, reshaping ~e;Iong-term ~re ~ntrol plan for transpo~ation that would chan~ signal ~em, mainlining or improving heal~ ~tus, and e~blish- timing at the inte~ion by ~e end of 1~7. ~e Council lng training ~niques for employing ~ople with severe also ~iled for a parking ban one blo~ in ea~ dire~ion from handi~ps. the inte~e~i0n by ~e end of 1989. The ci~ of St. Paul is For a free copy of ~e plan, or the ~ard's 1985 work plan responsible for making ~e ~anges. and,budget, which proposes to spend $905,0~, ~11 ~e ~om- Solid Wa~-~e Council adopt~ an amend~ "s~ping" muni~tions Depa~ment at 291~. If you wish to s~ak dormant, outlining are~ to ~ '~nsidered in ~ environ- at ~e hearing, or for more information, ~11 Dabble Conic, mental impa~ ~atement on the ~amsey~ashin~on Coun~ health board, at 291 ~352. wa~e-to~nergy proje~ in Newpo~. ~e ~anges, ~emming Long-Term ~re--~e Council will hold a public hearing ~om wri~en ~mmen~ remiv~ from a public meeting la~ 2 p~., ~ur~ay, Mar~ 7, to ob~in ~mment.on i~ re~m- ~nth, addre~ air quali~ impa~ from the ~mbu~ion of mendation$ to resha~ ~e region's long-term ~re ~stem. refu~erived fuel and limi~tio~s on the dispo~l of a~. To ob~in a free copy of the Council dram re~, Aging-~e Council adopt~ a plan outlining how ~i~ Re~ap/ng Long. Term ~ in ~e Twin Cities Metropoli~n for older ~le in S~ Coun~ should be organized, Area: R~ommendation$ for Change, no. 14~5~23, ~11 provided and fund~. The Council is federally fund~ and Communi~tions Depa~ment at 291~. If you wish to designated as an "area a~n~ on aging" with responsibili~ speak at ~e hearing, ~11 Lu~ ~ompson, Planning Assis~nm, to plan and ~ordinate ~i~s for older people in ~e seven- at 291~521. If you have que~ions abo~ the re~, mil ~un~ Metropoli~n Area. Plans have ~en adopted for all Aha Stern, Housing, at 291~1. but Washin~on and ~er Counties. Work has ~un on a plan for ~er Count. COUNCIL REVISES SCHEDULE ON .. Transpo~tion--~e Council ~id an upgrading of ~e SOLID WASTE POLICY P~N Bloomin~on inter~ion of H~. 77 (Cedar Ay.) and Killebrew Dr. to a highway inter~ange, which includ~ ~n~ru~ion of ramps, is ~nsistent wi~ Council on ~ans~ation plans and policies. March 14. ~e ~ange will allow more time for ~e'Council to ~we~-~e Council ~id there Was no n~ to prepare an review commen~ submi~ed for ~e ~n. 28 ~blic hearing .held on the plan. Hearing testimony totaled about 500 pages of oral and written comments. The Council ~taff has prepared a hearing report summarizing the comments and recommend- ing changes to the proposed plan. Action on the report and plan is rescheduled as follows: Feb. 26 Waste Management Advisory Committee coarCh 6 Environmental Resources Committee arch 14 Metropolitan' Council pies of the hearing reporl:~ pub. no. 12~5-033, will be mailed to people who have requested it and to local govern- mental units. If you have any questions about the schedule or the report, call Paul Smith, solid waste program, at 291~408. For a free copy of the report or proposed plan, call the Communications Department at 291-6464. 'HEALTH VOTE' BEGINS MARCH I Twin Cities residents will be bombarded in March and part of April With an intense information campaign on how to contain skyrocketing health care costs. It's called "Health Vote," a neutral, non-partisan effort conducted primarily through the media. It will include over 200 community meetings and three public forums leading up to a vote April 10. A ballot with 14 questions wiii be delivered to approximately 700,000 area households through the Minneapolis Star and Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Pres$ and Dispatch. The campaign is managed .by the Health Futures Institute and locally co-sponsored by the Metropolitan Council and its Health Planning Board, the Minnesota Coalition on Health Care Costs and the Minrlesota chapter of the American Society of Public Administrators. National sponsors are the Public Agenda Foundation and the Domestic Policy Association. Community forums will be held as follows: March 13, Medical Ethics, 7-9 p.m., First Unitarian Society, 900 Mt. Curve Ay., Minneapolis; March 20, Long-Term Care, 7-9 p.m., . Landmark Center, St. Paul; and April 8, Competi.fion in Health 3:30-5:30 p,m., led by Sen. Dave Durenberger, States Power Co., 414 Nicollet Mall, Mi0neapolis. JOHN BORCHERT NAMED REGIONAL CITIZEN OF THE YEAR The Metropolitan Council named John Borchert, regents' professor of geography at the University of. Minnesota, as "Regional Citizen of the Year" last month at its State of the Region event. 8orchert was honored as a citizen who has made an outstanding contribution to the region as a whole, He is a pioneering researcher, has influenced hundreds of students who continue to have an impact in the region and beyond and is considered an articulate spokesperson for a metropolitan viewpoint. COUNCIL REQUESTS PROPOSALS FOR COMPARABLE WORTH STUDY, PUTTING SLUDGE ASH IN ST. PAUL. The Metropolitan Council is requesting proposals for two separate pro. jects. One is for a contract to conduct a comparable worth/pay equity study of all Council job classes. Proposals must be received by Feb. 27, Address questions to or get RFP from Liz Newberry, 291-6575. The other project is for a con- tract to prepare 'an environmental assessment worksheet on placing about 300,000 cubic yards of sewage sludge ash on the old Pig's Eye landfill site in St. Paul. Proposals must be received by Feb. 25. Address questions or get RFP from Jack · Frost, 291-651g. ,ICATIONS ACCEPTED FOR ST, PAUL INTMENT TO MWCC The Minnesota Secretary of State's Office and the Metro- politan Council are accepting applications from persons interested in representing District A, which is St. Paul minus Highland Park, on the Metropolitan Waste Control Commis- sion (MWCC). The position is open due to the resignation of Patrick Roedler. The new appointee will fill out the term, which ends Jan. 1, 1987. The nine-member M,WCC plans and operates the r~ion's sewage collection and treatment system, For an application form and more information, call ~and~ Lindstrom at 291-6391. Applications are due at the Secretary of State's Office by Feb. 26. A Council appointments commit-tee will hear statements from the candidates Monday, March 4, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Council will make the appointment on March 14. NEW PUBLICATION Consumer's Guide fo Health P/an$, Twin Cities Metro. poi/tan Area. Jan. 1985. The.guide tells how to be a wise buyer of health insurance-what kind of coverage to look for, how to choose a plan and what'types of coverage are available. No. 18~4-133; 32 pp.; $1. MINNESOTA ENERGY CONFERENCE The Eleventh Annual Minnesota Energy Conference will'be held at the Radisson South Hotel, 7800 Normandale Blvd. {Hwys. 494 and 100) in Minneapolis, March 6 and 7. The con- ference is designed to help commercial, industrial and institu- tional energy users achieve greater efficiency and economy. On March S the conference offers a choice of two pre- conference, day-long tours of power plants and energy-saving buildings in Minnesota. Each tour costs $25. Prepaid registration for the conference and exhibits is $40. Registration at the door is $45. Luncheon tickets are $15 in advance and $17 at the door. For more information, call Wayne Kaplan, conference planner, at 330-6670. COMING MEETINGS (Feb. 25-March 8) (Meetings are tentative. To verify, ca/1291~464.) Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday, Feb. 25, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, Feb. 25, 4 p.m., Conference Room A. Regional Transit Board, Monday, Feb. 25,'4 p.m., Conference Room E. Expanded Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee, Tuesday, February 26, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Health Planning Board, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Environmental Resources Commit/ee, Wednesday, Feb. 27, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee. Thursday, Feb. 28, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan CounCil, Thursday, Feb. 28, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. ~ Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday. March 4, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Regional Transit Board, Monday, March 4, 4:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Aggregate Resources Advisory Committee, Tuesday, March 6, 3:30 p.m., Conference Room E, Technical Advisory Committee (of the Transportation Advisory Board), Wednesday, March 6, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Environment~ I Resources Committee, Wednesday, March 6, 4 p.m., Conference Room E. Chair's Advisory Committee, Wednesday, March 6, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan River Corridors Study Committee, Thdrsday, March 7, 12:30 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee, Thursday, March 7, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Management Committee, Thursday, March 7, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Aviation Policy Plan Task Force, Friday, March 8, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A, JOSEPH tr. HAMILTON, ~.A. JAMES D. LARSON, P.A. THOMAS I~. MNDERWOOD, ROGER J. ~-ELLOWS LAW OF'FICIr $ WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST SANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:~ March 11, 1985 Mr. Steve Coddon Re: Structure located at 1721 Dove Lane Dear Mr. Coddon: In accordance with the resolution adopted by the Mound City Council on March 11, 1985, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, you are hereby ordered to remove or raze the hazardous structure at 1721 Dove Lane. Unless such action is taken or an answer served upon the City of Mound and filed with the clerk of District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, within twenty (20) days of the date of service upon you, a motion for Summary Enforcement of the Order will be made to the District Court in and for Hennepin County. You are further advised that if the City of Mound 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 any such costs and expenses will be collected as other taxes. Robert Polston, Mayor C{ty of Mound Jon Elam Mound City Manager Member its adoption: introduced the following resolution anc~ moved RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF UNSANI- TARY, UNSAFE, AND HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS EXISTING AT 1721 DOVE LANE IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER AN ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THIS HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS BUILDING. WHEREAS, the Building Inspector for the City of Mound has made a written report to the City Manager dated February 25, 1985, relative to the condition of the structure at 1721 Dove Lane, Mound, Minnesota, which structure is deeme(~ Dy said Building Inspector to be in an unsanitary, unsafe, hazardous and dangerous conditition; and WHEREAS in said report the Building Inspector has recommended that proceedings be commenced for the razing or removal of said structure and hazardous contritions pursuant to applicable statutes of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, said report has been examined and considered oy the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: That the unsanitary, unsafe, hazardous and dangerous conditions existing at 1721 Dove Lane, Mound, Minnesota, 0e abated in the manner described by the .report of. the Building Inspector. e That the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound are authorized and directed to enter an Order directed to the owner of the premises at 1721 Dove Lane, Mound, Minnesota and to all lien holders of redord which. Order shall direct the owner and lien holders to raze or remove the building thereon. The City Attorney is authorized and directed to cause said Order to ve served upon the owners of record of said building, or their agents, upon any occupants therein and to proceed with the enforcement of said Order all as provided in Minn. Stat. 463.15-463.26 (1982). Date Mayor ATTEST: Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded Oy mem~)er , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following votec~ in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.