Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
85-10-22
CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1985 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve Minutes of: a. September 24, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. 2806-2813 b. October 1, 1985, Special Meeting Pg. 2814-2818 c. October 2, 1985, Special Meeting Pg. 2819-2821 d. October 3, 1985, Special Meeting Pg. 2822 e. October 5, 1985, Special Meeting Pg. 2823 f. October 7, 1985, Regular Meeting Pg. 2824-2832 2. PUBLIC HEARING; Delinquent Utility Bills for October Pg. 2833-2834 CONTINUATION OF pUBLIC HEARING: From February 12, 1985, Meeting CASE ~85-403: Town Square REQUEST: a. Conditional Use Permit to Allow a ~ 7~? Drive-In Bank C~~ b. Variances - Setback to the R-3 ~o /~ Parking Stall Size & Number a~Drive-In Bank Location Pg. 2835-g854 CASE ~85-444: David & Carmen Taylor, 5991 Ridgewood Road, Part of Lots 13, 14 & 15, Block 6, ~ J~ The Highlands Request: Recognize Existing Nonconforming Structure Pg. 2855-2864 CASE Requst: John & Holly Schluter, 4339 Wilshire Blvd., Part of Lots 1, 2, B, 75 & 76, ~ /~ First Rearr. of Phelp's Island Park 1st Div. & Lot 3, Phelp's Island Park 1st Div. Allow Existing Accessory Bldg to Remain and Grant Side Yard Variance for it. Pg. 2865-2878 CASE #8~-446L Edwin F. Gibbs, 5525 Church Road, Lots 1 & 2, Block 7, Lakeside Park A.L. ~ 7~ ~ Crockers 1st Division Request: 4 Foot Front Yard Setback Variance Pg. 2879-2885 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Lost Lake Land Registration - Update letter from Letter from Buzz Sycks regarding above. Pg. 2886-2897 Pg. 2898 Page 2805 10. 11. 12. Public Works Bldg. Study Update - Brad Lemberg~~--~O-~'3~! (Bonestroo, Rosen,, inderlik & Assoc.) Im-~-F~' ~ ~~ This report to be handed out and gone over at the meeting. ) Resolution Awarding the Sale of $1,800,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Financing Bonds of 1985; Fixing Their Form & Specifications; Directing Their Execution & Delivery; & Providing for Thief Payment Request for Street Light on Shorewood Lane Pg. 2913-2917 13. Payment of Bills 14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Resolutions Requestion the County Auditor Not to Levy for Certain Funds ij52Pg. 2918-2924 ~3~ Pg' 2925-2942 Letter from City Attorney Regarding Met Council Action on REC's ~1C~rl3~ Pg. 2943-2944 B. Notice of Breakfast Meetings Oct. 24 & 25 on Regional Development (REC) Pg. 2945-2946 Ce Letter of Resignation for Buzz Kraft Pg. 2947 Information from Met. Council on Recycling Funding Pg. 2948 E. Notice of Meeting on Solid Waste Issues Pg. 2949 Letter from City Attorney RE: Renovating v. City of Mound Allied Painting & Pg. 2950-2953 G. Note on Lake Virginia/Lake Ann Interceptor Pg. 2954 H. League Update on TIF Study Pg. 2955-2956 I. LMCD - BWI Ordinance Pg. 2957-2961 J. Articles & Updates on F.L.S.A. Pg. 2962-2970 K. Articles on Revenue Sharing Pg. 2971-2974 L. Article on MWCC Salaries Pg. 2975 M. Hennepin County Compost Operation Pg. 2976 N. School District Minutes Pg. 2977-2980 Planning Commission Discussion Item on Conditional Use Permits Pg. 2981 Page 2805 REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL .September 24, 1985 The City'Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on September 24, 1985u at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chamvers at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. Those present were: Councilmembers Peter~on, Je~en, P~ulsen and Smith. Alsop'resent were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, City Attorney'Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron and Linda Strong. Absent and excused was Mayor Bob Polston. Acting Mayor, Peterson opened the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ON DELINQUENT UTILITY.BILLS FOR SEPTEMBER The acting Mayor, Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished 'to speak regarding these. No one responded. Hearing closed. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the followi'ng resloution: RESOLUTION #85£104 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY. BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3495.39 AND AUTHORIZE.THE STAFF TO SHUT OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS. The vote was unanimously in favor. .Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS ON SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The acting Mayor, Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to 'speak regarding any of the proposed assessments on the Agenda, Items 2A -.2G. Acting City Manager, Fran, said Bob Johnson has some property in this district with nothing on the land and felt the assessment of $124.52 should be dropped. He is however storing spools for Dow Sat on this land. He protested this assessment last year.also. The acting City Manager, Fran suggested the Council leave it to the CBD Parking Committee to decide. Peterson closed hearing. Jessen moved Paulsen'seconded the followi'ng resolution: RESOLUTION #85-105 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,]70.15, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8%. LEVY ~9908 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson opened the public hearings for items 2B - 2G. Clint Gables questioned levy #9905, regarding him being assessed for it when previous owner should have been. Attorney Pearson said the assessment stays with the property. Councilmember Paulsen said Gables should go to the previous owner for satisfaction. Acting Mayor, Pezerson closed public hearing. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-106 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,775.99 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY#9903 o~O~ September 24, 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: · RESOLUTION '#85-107 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TRESS ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $390.'00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY #9904 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded.the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-108 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID GARBAGE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT.OF $450.00 TO.BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY"#9906 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-109 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID WEED &'GRASS CUTTING ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $123..36 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD'OVER 1 YEAR AT 8%.INTEREST. LEVY #9907 The.vote was. unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Pau)sen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-110 RESOLUTION ADOPTING'UNPAID PUBLIC HEALTH OR -- SAFETY HAZARD REMOVAL CHARGES ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $430.00, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER I YEAR AT 8% INTEREST. LEVY #9905 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-111 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3724.94, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST, LEVY #9998 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT UPON WAIVER: The Acting Ci.ty Manager states these are assessments that the people agreed to have put on their property and waive hearings. There was no discussion. Councilmember Peterson asked for a blanket motion on all four items.. September 24, 1~85 Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolutions: RESOLUTION #85-112 · RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. LEVY #9900 - $1751.99 RESOLUTION #85-113 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES:. DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT: & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. LEVY #9914 - $61OO.OO RESOLUTION #85-114 RESOLUTION LEYYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT: & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. LEVY #9901 - $361.OO RESOLUTION #85-115 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALI.TIES: DIRECTING PREPAP~TION OF ABSTRACt: DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. LEVY #9902 - $97.40 The vote was unanimously in favor on all foot items. Motion carried. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 5542 LYNWOOD BLVD. Steve Pauly asked the Council. fo extend h~s Co~itional Use Permit on 5542 Lynwood Blvd. Blue Lagoon Marina ~s moving to the old Widmer Bldg in Spring Park, and Widmer's new building in St. Bonifacius.is not.done yet. Pau]y's request ~s to remain in current property until November 15, to allow Widmer to complete hi's building. He ~equested an open date with 5 day vacate notice from the Council. Curt Pearson noted the Council has been gracious and that Pauly was supposed to be out by the end of Aug- ust. Acting Mayor Peterson agreed to extend the Conditional Use Permit until November 1, 1985, with no extensions. Pauly stated he would.provide a'signed letter'to the City stating he would not ask for relocation funds. RESOLUTION #85-I~6 COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN MOVED AND.COUNCILMEMBER ~ESSEN SECONDED TO EXTEND THE CONDITIONAL uSE PERMIT UNTIL NOVEMBER 1, 1985, WITH NO EXTEN- SIONS AND BLUE LAGOON MARINA WILL NOT APPLY FOR ANY RELOCATION FUNDS. Mr. Pauly agreed. The vote was 3 in favor ~ith Councilmember Smith voting no. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITI.ZE'NS PRESENT Acting Mayor Peterson asked for comments and suggestions from citizens present. There were no comments and suggestions. September 24, 1985 RESCHEDULE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1985, TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1985,'BECAUSE OF SCHOOL REFERENDUM BEING. HELD ON OCTOBER 8th. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER SMITH AND SECONDED BY JESSEN TO RESCHEDULE THE OCTOBER 8th MEETING TO MONDAY', OCTOBER'7th. The vote was unanimously in favor. .Motion ca'rried SET DATE. FOR BID OPENING: TUXE.DO BLVD. SAFETY IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTED'DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1985, AT 10:OO AM. COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN MOVED YO OPEN BID FOR SAFETY .INPROVEMENT ON TUXEDO BLVD. ON.OCTOBER 4, 1985, AT 10:00 AM,' SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SMITH. The vote was unanimously in'favor. Motion carried. REQUEST FROM ~INNETRISTA FOR: A) SEWER AND WATER EXTENSION (COUNTY RD 15 AT DUTCH LAKE) B) SE\~ER AND.WATER SERVICE AND JOINT STREET iMPROVEMENT (COUNTY. RD 15 AND'WESTEDGE BLVD.) The Acting City Manager stated the City Engineer, John Camefi6n.has been working wi.th Minnetrista.on this issue. Mr. Cameron suggested discuss- .lng issue 'B' first. John Cameron has looked at the.preliminary drawings and read the proposal from the City of Minnetrista, and he concurred with al.ternative 2A, which states: Approve request by the City of Minnetrista for'extension of Mound sanitary sewer'and water, services'to the prc, posed .residential subdivision. The ''. R.E.C.s would be charged against Minnetris'ta's'sewer capacity allotment.. The City of Minnetr.ista would be responsible for' the maintenance of both the sanitary sewer and water.extensions. Billing for services would be by the City of Mound. 'A' states; such approval would include a joint street improvement project'for Westedge Road from County Rd 15 to Woodedge. Road.' Mr. Cameron added four conditions to this'proposal: I. The existing 10" watermain in the Westedge Blvd. be extended' south to Woodedge Road at the expense of the developers of the Minnetrista project. 2. The final construction plans for' the total project be approved ~ by the City of Mound Staff. 3. The water meters be the responsibility of the City of Mound. 4. Before approval is granted on a street improvement project for Westedge Blvd., additional.information such as cost, design, etc., be submitted for review. J~hn~x~also ment~on.e~t-~he--as~se~s~ng of the property owncr-s--~ffectedb¥..-tl~i~ John introduced B[ll Turnb]ad, City of Minnetrista, Planner. Bil. 1 had no disagreement with the conditions and stipulations from the City Engineer. The Council discussed this issue. September 24, 1~85 There was Council and Engineer discussion regarding the 10t sizes of this project. SteYen Kakus, 6381 Maple Street, asked about how a new project with 26 units would.affect his water pressure. The City Engineer said the water- main is set for more use now, and he would study the water pressure concerm. The City Engineer explained the other request from Minnetrista, for sewer and water service to proposed Pla.t - County Rd 15 to Dutch Lake. He mentioned this is similiar to the first request, and Minnetrista has given conceptual approval of the plat, dependent.upon getting,the Water and Sewer hook up t Mound. The Engineer had drawings'but they were concep- ual,,.not topographical. He.did neet with one of the developers at t~ site. 'The Engineer felt.that..no formal actio~ should be taken tonight. He would like a more 'indepth'study and to see more specific plans. .He mentioned~.several hook up possibilities, however'they all depend upon the topography maps showing the various'elevations. Milton Hentges, a resident affected by this proposal asked if he would be assessed for this sewer-water project. The City Engineer explained Mound's assessment policy. PAULSEN MO~ED AND PETERSON SECONDED A MOTION'TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO STUDY'THE REQUEST OF THE'CITY OF MINNETRI'STA'FOR THE PLAT.OF.MItS ASSOCIATES, SUBJECT TO THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA OR THE DEVELOPER DEPOSITING SUFFICIENT FUt~DS.WITH'T~E CITY OF MOUND TO' COVER ALL ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL EXPENSES I~CURRED BY THE CITY OF MOUND. The Council voted unanimously, in favor. Mo'tion-carrie6. Mr. Turnblad said 'this was a reasonable request and the developers had funds available. Buzz Sykes mentioned the Westonka Historical Society is planning to purchase a 103 year old building, to make into a museum. The society will move the building to Lot '9 on County Road 15. Bill Turnb]ad .thanked the Counci. l for its cooperative spirit. LETTER FROM CURT PEARSON REGARDING LOST LAKE LAND SALE Counci]member Smith asked if there was any progress. Curt Pearson said there was nothing to report.. He is working as fast as the court system will allow and he is aware of the Council's anxiousness to have it solved.. John Cameron mentioned the need for the elevation of .the property to be defined, so the City would keep the wetlands portion, to protect it. LETTER FROM EARL WILSON WANTING TO DONATE LOTS TO THE CITY Thr Council disc6ssed the lots that Mr. Wilson wented to donate, flots 4. 5 and the southwesterly ½ of lot 3, block 10, Woodland Point). It was decided that the City did no~ need more land.of this kind. There is a drainage problem there, and the lots are unbuildable without a major drainage plan and storm sewer. The Acting City Manager will write him a letter declining his offer. JESSEN MOV[D AND PETERSON SECONDED THE ME'TION NOT TO ACCEPT THESE LOTS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. September 24, 1985 SET DATE FOR BID OPENING. FOR CBD.SNOW REMOVAL AND FALL CLEAN-UP JESSEN MOVED AND PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION TO OPEN THE BIDS FOR CBD SNOW REMOVAL AND FALL CLEAN-UP ON'OCTOBER 7,. 1985, AT 10:O0 AM. The vote was unanimously..in favor..'The.motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideratiom.~ Councilmember.Smith questioned .the John Doe cost. The 'Acti'ng.City Manager explained that it was the attorney's fees for our part of the deductible to. the insurance company for a litigation case. COUNCILMEMBER'SMITHMOVED AND.PAULSEN SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF.BILLS AS PRESENTED ON. THE PRE-LIST, IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,824.45, WHEN FUNDS.ARE.AVAILABLE. A ROLL CALL VOTE.WAS UNANIMOUSLY'IN FAVOR. M@TION CARR'IED.. The Acting City.Manager mentioned that Eldo Schmidt called to'let us know that Ed'Richter. is retiring'as the director'of the HRA,' as of October. l, 1985. They have hired a new director,-for the 2020 building effective October Ist.. His name is Edmund Meehan. LOST LAKE PROPERTY Mr. Sykes asked the progress:rega'rding Lost LaLe. reviewed what'they had prev[ous]y discussed. SELECTION OF NEW CITY MANAGER The Council again Councilmember Jessen.suggested.'that since'they have all reviewed the applications, and six in state people were c~osen .that we not inter- view 3 from'out of the state:until a. decision has been made on the 6 in state people. Reasoning due-to the high'cost of bringing in these out of state people. COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN MOVED AND SMITH'SECONDED THE MOTION TO OPEN THE APPLICATION PROCESS, MEET WITH.THE FIRST SiX CHOICES, WITH NO EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS. The motion passed, with Paulsen voting no. INFORMATION AND MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter from Bonestroo;Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. Regardihg Public Works Building Site-Plan Update. B. Articles from Nation's Cities Regarding F.L.S.A. C. Article on Small Business Incubators Letter from Hennepin County Regarding Incubators D. Met Council Publication Re: Fiscal Disparities E. Letter Regarding Railroad in Mound September 24, 1985 INFORMATION'AND MISCELLANEOUS Cont'd F. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Agenda &.Minutes G. Invitation from WAFTA.to.the.City Council their Open House on Septamber'28, 1985 to attend I. J. K. L. M. School District Minutes Metro Waste-Management'Boar.d'Publicat.ion FORESITE Publication from'Hennepin.County-Dept. Of.Enviornment & Metro Council - WASTELINE. Park'Commission Minutes - September 5, Planning Comm 1985 ssion Minutes - September 9, 1985 Energy BILLS ....... SEPTEMBER 24', 1985 Batch 854091 on computer run dated 9/18/85 Batch 854092 on computer run dated 9/19/85 Bills listed below 91,466.76 42,270.12 6,087.57. Total Bills 139,824.45 Ray Allen Mfg Harness, Sleeve for dog Armenian Cultural .Org deposit refund Contel Stephen Grand McCombs Knutson PDQ Food Stores Greg Skinner Mtonka Sportsman Sept telephone School expenses August engineering exp August gasoline Advanc'e-AWWA Conf -- Memb-Grand 82.10 50.00 1,148.28 ]2.&8 3,069.00 ],365.51 335.00 25.00 October 1, 1985 SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session for Hearings on the 1986 proposed budget for the City of Mound, on October 1, 1985, at 7:00 PM, in the'Council Chambers at 5541 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmemb~rs Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen~ Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark~ Acting City Clerk Linda Strong., Finance Director John Norman~ Police Chief Len Harrell, Public Works Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, F'ark Director Jim Fackl er, Fire Chief Don Bryce, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand and Public Works Secretary Joyce Nelson. Mayor F'ol ston opened the meeting and asked the Acting City Manager to brief everyone on the re'~enue and expenditure~ for the 1986 proposed budget. The A¢iti ng City Manager stated the County had lowered the assessed ,;alue by over t~o million dollars. Meaning the City would have to levy more money even if th~ General Fund expenditures remained the same as 1985, due to the decreased value of a mill. .. The Mayor read a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities~ stating that state revenues show a likely budget shortfall. This potential shortfall could affect !986 local government aids. Legislative leaders have indicated that if it does become necessary to cut back expenditures~ the first cuts will be made in state agency budgets. The next area would be local government aids~ and the last area would be the schools. The Acting City Manager walked through the r ~venues and expenditures of the 1985 proposed budget. She then stated items not considered in this budget: FLSA; overtime; revenue sharing will be cut out in I986; and the need to put some funds into the Capital Outlay reserve and the Building fund., due to very low balances in these two funds; the results of the comparable worth study; nothing budgeted for rental of storage facility for equipment. Mayor Polston asked for questions on the proposed revenue projections. Councilmember Smith inquired as to the mill rate. The Acting City Manager said it is proposed to be 19.524 as opposed to 17.234 in 1985. COUNCIL BUDGET The. Senior Citizen Counseling expense was questioned by Councilmember Russ F'eterson. The Acting City Manager said th this possibly could be funded through CDBG, and that it is bei,.~ checked into. MOTION made by Mayor Bob Polston and seconded by Councilmember Jessen to eliminate $2500. Item ~4411 - Conferences and Schools. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Pol ston suggested scratchi ng the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. item dropped from budget. $1826.00 to the No one opposed, Mayor Polston stated he would like a letter sent to the Governor, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader saying that if they want to support the LMCD~ the state should fund it. This is S5747.00. Councilmembm_r Smith agreed.~ and suggested that when we send them the check for this years dues we write "paid under protest" on the check. He also favored w'riting the letters. Mayor Polston said that since the state mandates the LMCD, they should pay for it. CITY MANAGER/CITY CLERK Discussion regarding the salary of the new City Manager~, and ~t was agreed to leave it at $40',400. item .~4411, Conferences and Schools~- cut $500.00., agreed upon leaving $1000.00, eliminating the new City Manager'~s travel the. first year. Item ~4412~ Meeting $500.00. Expense, cut $200.00, agreed upon, leaving ELECTIONS AND REGISTRATIONS Item ~4130~ Salaries, Elections Judges was raised $6600. from $62C)0. to Item ~4411, Conferences and Schools, $800.00, was eliminated. ASSESSING It was a~.,-eed to approve th~s budget ~,ith no deletions. October 1, F I NANCE It was agreed upon by the Council to eliminate the City Office being open on Tuesday nights beginning January 1, 1986. Item ~4100, Salaries, lowered by $900.00, leaving $94486. Item g4417, Overtime, $1500 00, was eliminated Item ~14411, Conferences and Schools~ cut $200.0C~. by $500.00~ leaving LEGAL Councilmember Smith suggested acquiring comparative legal bids as the market will be competitive during 1986. Councilmember Paulsen said if the City pursues Contel~ we need funds and it should be budgeted for as this is in litigation now; It was agreed upon to add $20~000. to the Contingency Fund as a separate line item for the intervention of Contel. ?OL I CE Police Chief Len Harrell presented his proposed bud'get. Chief Harrell stated that the Mound Police were the lowest department in the area in per capita costs. There was much Council discussion on certain line items; ~4500, Captial Outlay, $28.,500. Chief Harrell explained this was part of a five year rotation maintenance plan for vehicles including two new police cars this year for MOTION made by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Jessen to delay the ~purchase of one new police vehicle until the ~987 bqdget. Item ~4500, Capital Ou~Iay, lowered by $11,500, leaving $17,000. Other. items discussed were ~4411, Conferences and Schools. The Police Chief explained that when he came to work in Mound, the City Manager had agreed that he could go to the Southern Police Institute School if afterward he agreed to stay in Mound for a minimum of three years following the school. Overtime was discussed in length and remained as proposed. Item ~4360, Workers Comp. Ins., was increased this year the high increase in insurance. due :to October 1, 1985 PLANNING AND INSPECTION Jan Bertrand~ the Building Inspector~ presented her proposed 19B~ budget. She stated the revenues through July of 1985 was $37,6¢18. Her department she felt, is working toward being self supporting Total projected revenues for 1985, is $68,000. She mentioned item ~4310, Professional Services, as high due to many continuing projects and she is right on budget for this to date. She strongly feels the need for a computer. The automation of her department would help filing, compare constr'uction costs between other cities. The building code is hooking into LOGIS, and the state code division will hook in soon. The estimated cost of the computer and software is $7000. She has dropped this from the budget. However, the IBM Typewriter Marge uses is old and needs maintenance often. Item ~4411~ Conferences and Schools~ was discussed. The Planning Commission felt it important for Jan to keep informed, especially with the rapid building changes. There are no national conferences this year, so this item was lowered $5©¢1. ~ leaving $867. Jan plans to increase the fee schedule gradually over the next three years. The City has been on a fee schedule since 1982. Mayor Polston suggested developers escrowing the complete projegt cost up front~ to insure them not leaving without paying. CIVIL DEFENSE Police Chief~ Len Harreil~ presented this 1986 proposed budget. Len requested ear marking $8400. a year for three years to' purchase a much needed siren. The Civil Defense Budget for 1986 was agreed upon as written. STREETS Superintendent Geno Hoff presented the 1986 proposed budget. Many line items were cut earlier to make funds available for a new dump truck. The cost of this truck to be S60,OOO. This is the last year to receive one half ($~0,000) of the cost from revenue sharing. The Council agreed that the new truck was needed. SHOP AND STORE There were no changes in this proposed 1986 budget. CITY PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS There were no changes in this proposed budget. October 1, 1985 F'arks Director, Jim Fackler., presented the 1986 proposed budget for Parks. There was some discussion regarding' the unreliable summer recreation help at the parks this summer. He would liketo have one adult perpark employed tooversee the activities and the student help. Item ~,~11, Tree Removal~ was discussed. The budgeted amount for 19B5 has already been spent and there are still many dead trees standing on City owned land. There were no changes to this proposed b~dget. RECYCLING Jo¥ce Nelsoh discussed this proposed budget for I986. Response from the community has been very good. It was questioned whethmr to ~eep the project going due to the cost. Joyce stated it would be mandatory in 1988, with no government grants then~ now it is funded 50% from th~ county. It was agreed to continue the project, with the results being audited. There were no changes in this proposed budget. CONTINGENCY FUND The high increases in insurance was discussed. Twenty thousand dol 1 ars was added to this intervention'in Contel. There were no other changes in this buOget. budget for the FIRE Don Bryce, the Fire Chief, presented this 1986 proposed budget. There were no changes to this budget. MOTION WAS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE SMITH AND SECONDED BY £OUNCILMEMBER JESSEN TO ADJOURN. THE MEETING. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 P.M To resume on Wednesday, October 2, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers, at City Hall. October 2, 1985 SPECIAL BUDGET MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound~. Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session for Hearings on the 19B6 proposed budget for the City of Mound, on October 2., 1985, at 7'00 'F'M, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston: Councilmembers Phyllis Oessen~ Gary F'aulsen, Russ Peterson, and Steve Smith.. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, Finance Director John Normar~.. Police Chief Len Harrel ] , Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Parks Director Jim Fackler~ Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm and Fire. Chief, Don Bryce. The Mayor reconvened the meeting from October 1, 1985. He then asked if there were any questions or comments on t'he General Fund Budgets. He then asked that the Council approve the General Fund as amended and set the Levy. . Councilmember Smith revie'wed the mil! rate. He agreed, to the mill rate at 18.5%, and no more. Mayor Polston said we wo then have to c:ut the reserves from $102,000 to $40,000. Peterson mentioned the insurance contingency was an 897. increase. The Council agreed to the reality of this increase. F'eterson said that is the humbler one reason the budget went up. Mayor F'olston supports the reserves as they are due to the letter from the League of Cities, stating the enormous shortf al 1 meaning the first thing cut is the state aid. Jessen agreed to leave the reserve as is. Fire Chief~ Don Bryce, voiced concern on 'his fire budget with the effect of FLSA. Peterson inquired about the funding of' the Senior Citizen Counseling. The Acting City Manager said that after a Public Hearing, to reallocate some funds it could be funded from CDBG funds. CDBG funds are also available for a local battered women's group. The Acting City Manager said that if I~e don,~t use this money now~ it will be gone at the end of 1985. Mayor Polston suggested amending the Council Budget to add for Travel and School for the Councilmembers. The Acting City Manager stated that the General Fund total was now S1 ~865~609. Councilmember Smith stated he was not in agreement with putting the $2500., back into the Council Budget. Mayor Polston's stated that his reason removing this amount to make funds available for the Senior Citizen Counseling~ which now will be funded with CDBG funds. October 2, 1985 MOTION MADE BY MAYOR POLSTON TO AMEND THE GENERAL FUND AND ADD BACK IN THE $2500.~ FOR SCHOOL AND TRAVEL FOR THE COUNCILMEMBERS. COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. The motion passed with four yes votes, Councilmember Smith voting no. Mayor Polston asked for aoy more discussion. ~There was none. Co.uncilmember F'eterson moved the following resolution: and Councilmember Oessen seconded RESOLUTION ~85-117 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1986 GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF S1,B68~I09. AND SETTING THE LEVY AT $1~251,290. The resolution passed on a roll call vote with four Council- ' members~ Smith voting no. Mayor Polston asked Councilmember Smith why he didn't support the whole budget. Smith said h~_ could not support, the mill rate increase. Mayor Polston stated he could not support depleting. the $400,000. reserve. F'olston felt cutting the reserve could' put the City in bad financial straights, if the shortfalls take place. Councilmember F'aulsen commended the staff for preparing a real budget., a workable one. Jessen agreed~ Peterson appreciated the hard work everyone has done. Smith made it unanimous. The Acting City Manager stated that quarterly reports to the CounCil during 1986, will help keep the Council informed. Mayor Polston said that no one is happy with' a budget up 13.3%, but_ no services were cut. SPECIAL FUNDS LIQUOR Liquor Store Manager, Joel Krumm, presented the 1986 proposed budget. He stated the building lease runs out' next year, and that it ~ou!d have to be renegociated. He plans more advertising in 1986. Joel also stated that when the business should pick up. Also a new sign in 1986. Balboa Building fills up~ the Discussion on what affects the new Federal Excise Tax would have on sales. Joel stated that is unknown at this time. The budget for Liquor was approved ass proposed. WATER and SEWER October 2, 1985 Superintendent of Water and Sewer, Greg Skinner, presented the 1986 budget for this department. The budget' was approved as proposed. Discussion on the need to increase sewer and water rates. CEMETERY Parks Directors Jim Fackler, presented 1986. The Budget was approved as proposed. the proposed budget for IMPROVEMENT & EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND Approved as proposed. PENSION Approw~d as proposed. REVENUE FUND Mayor F'olston suggested the cost of $12 000. dropping the spring and fall pick-up, Mayor Poi st on for 1986. asked for a motion to approve the overall budget Councilmember Paulsen moved the following resolution: and Councilmember Peterson seconded RESOLUTION ~85-1!8 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1986. The resolution passed on a roll call vote, with four Council- members, voting yes, and Councilmember Smith voting no. Councilmember Paulsen moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the motion to adjorn. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. Meeting adjorned at 8:25 F'M. October 3, 1985 MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 3, 1985 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on October 3, 1985, at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this meeting was to interview candidates for the position of City Manager. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: Acting City Manager'Fran Clark, Finance Director John Norman, Police Chief Len Harrell, Street Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Park Director Jim Fackler, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm,.and Public Works Secretary Joyce Nelson, Fire Chief Don Bryce. The following candidates were interviewed: John Rudd Robert Haarman Kenneth Huber John Olson I~o action was taken. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. City Clerk October 5, 1985 MINUTES SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 5, 1985 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on October 5, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this meeting was to interview candidates for the position of City Manager. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Finance Director John Norman, Police Chief Len Harrell, Street Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, Park Director Jim Fackler, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Building Inspector Jan Bertrand, Fire Chief Don Bryce. The following candidates were interviewed: Zachary Zoul Edward Shukle No action was taken. The meeting adjourned at 11:00 A.M. Fran Clark, City Clerk 4,¢,3. 3 THIS IS A REVISION OF THE HINUTES OF OCTOBER 7, 1985. PLEASE SUBSTITUTE THESE PAGES WITH THE CORRESPONDING ONES IN YOUR PACKET. THANKS MINUTES REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING oCTOBER 7, 1986 October 7, 1985 The City Counci-] of Mound, Hennepin-County, Minnesota, met in regular session on October 7, 1986, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present' were: Mayor.'Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Stege Smith and Russ Peterson. Also present were: Acting City Manager Fran Clark, Acting City Clerk Linda Strong, City Engineer John Cameron, City Attorney Jim Larson, Roger Rager, Gladys Larson, Creigh Thompson, Cheryl Grand, Lou Derner. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The minutes of the September 24, 1985, regular meeting were ~resented for consideration. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON'AND SECONDED BY JESSEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 24, 1985 REGULAR MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIED. CONT NUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER A WETLANDS PERMIT AND PREL MINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SINCLAIR COURT. The City Engineer opened the discussion.with the concern about lot 5. The elevation should go no higher than 930.4. There was some blockage at the outlet of the wetlands. John felt. the capacity of the lift station for new deveJpoment was sufficient. CounCilmember Jessen asked about item 7 of the proposed resolution;'"to placing of fill below the elevation of 931." Jessens question pretained to the elevation should be 931.5 Engineer Cameron agreed it should be "931.5". Correction noted. John Cameron mentioned Outlot A, that it is 95% under water, and the lot is 17% of the proposed plat, wondered how to assess the value of this lot for the benefit to the City as park land. This pretains to item 3 of the proposed resol.ution. It was agreed upon by the CGuncil to set the assessment at $225.OO, to the 5 other lots, for Out]ot A. Councilmember Paulsen moved Councilmember Peterson seconded the adoption of the following resolution: RESOLUTION The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE WETLANDS PERMIT AND FINAL PLAT KNOWN AS "SINCLAIR COURT" FOR LOTS 7 THROUGH 13, BLOCK 16, THE HIGHLANDS, PID NUMBERS 23-117-24 34 0052 through 0058. PLANNING COMMISSION 1985-434. AI4ENDING ITEM #7 TO READ '~TO PLACING OF FILL BELOW THE ELEVATION OF 931.5'l Resolution passed. October 7, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING Application fort Conditional Use Permit for Consignment/ Gift Shop, 5098 Three Points Blvd. Gail and Roger Racer. Mayor'Polston opened the Public Hearing and asked for anyone present to speak.in favor or against. Mrs. Larso~.asked to have "Conditional Use. Permit" explained. Attorney Jim Larson.did.so. for her. Mrs. Larson then asked if .lots 14 and 15 were commerical. 'Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector, said they were not~. the lots were'zoned R2, for parking'only. Mayor..Po!~:ton closed the' Public Hearing. He then turned it over to the Council..' Council'member Jessen mentioned lots 14 and 15, she had heard complaints from residents about..high weed growth, and would this be taken care of. Also, did Mr. Rager intend to use these lots for parking. Mr. Racer responded that the lots are used for'personal parking now, and that the weeds Have.be taken care of. Mr. Rager felt the parking was adequate for the type of'food business he has compared to the number of parking spaces larger resturants have in the area. Jan Bertrand mentioned the uses of the business would be outlined in the CUP, and also the parking in lots 14 and ]5 only. Mayor Polston asked the Counci.1 to grant the CUP for a consignment/ gift shop at 5098 Three Points. Blvd. Motion for the following resolution made by Peterson, second, Smith. RESOLUTION #85-120 RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONSIGNMENT/GIFT SHOP AT 5098 THREE PTS. BLVD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed. ~ . REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON REZONING OF PART OF OR ALL OF.SHADYWOOD POINT FROM R-I TO R-2. The Acting City Manager stated that in August 85, the Council asked the Planning Commission to check into the possible rezonin9 of this area due to many variances applied for because lot size'of 10,0OO sq. ft. The Building Inspector, Jan and. Mark Koegler, City Planner, checked into this. Mark did a study, and this was discussed. The Planning Commission, Jan and Mark agreed the Shadywood Point should remain at R-t zoning. The Planning Commission will consider each request as it comes in. Councilmember Peterson thanked the Planning Commission for investigating this issue. CASE ~o5-43'7: Creigh & Cheryl Thompson, Subdivision & Lot Size ; Variance for'lots 15, 16 ~':17, B.lock 7, Shadywood Point dan Bertrand bxp1ained the request of the Thompson's. She highlighted the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the staff approval, under specific conditions. One of the recommendations was to either repair the buildings to building code requirements or to remove it. lfir. Thompson felt the' building was useable, if brought up to code. Mayor Polston suggested, after some discussion, to drop from the recommendation the removal of the garage and amend it to say "bring up to code". October 7, 1~85 MOTION MADE BY HAYOR POLSTON TO AMEND THE PLANNING COMHISSION'S RECOHHENDATION TO REHOVE THE DUELLING, AND AMEND IT TO SAY, "BRING UP TO BUILDING CODE" COUNCtLMEHBER PAULSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. Discussion by.the Council opened. Councilmember Smith asked .that a list of improvements be made by the building inspector. Smith also asked as to the cost tO improve. Jan replied that a-list would be drawn, up and the improvement cost around $1100. Councilmember Jessen mentioned that she had been to Creigh's home and. it was.very nice inside. Mayor Polston called for'the vote. The motion carried, with four'yes votes, Councilmember Paterson abstained. Mayor Polston then asked for a-motion to approve the subdivision and lot size variance as amended. I RESOLUTION =85-121 i RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE LOT SUBDIVISION AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES.FOR LOTS 15, 16 & 17, BLOCK 7, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-117-23 23 0040 and OOQ1 (1959 ShOFewood Lane) AS AMENDED. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY MAYOR POLSTON ADOPTING RESOLUTION #85-120 AS A~ENDED. The vote passed with four yeses, Councilmember Peterson abstaining. CONSIDER WAIVING OF PLATTING AND.PUBLIC HEARING OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS. AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS C & D NEEDED FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. Motion for the following resolution made be Paterson, second Paulsen. ~ _ RESOLUTION ~85 122 RESOLUTION TO WAIVE THE PLATTING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND APP- ROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF PARCELS C & D NEEDED FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. IMPROVEHENT PROJECT. The vote was unanimously in favor. .Resolution passed. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were no comments or suggestions from citizens present. PUBLIC WORKS SITE STUDY UPDATE - BRAD LEMBERG Mr. Lemberg mentioned that "Architect" should be added to the company name. Mr. Lemberg referred to the Addenum to Report, he had passed out to the Council. October 7, t985 Two more sites have been added to the feasibility list. Site #6 - has poor access and totally surrounded by residential. Brad felt this would be a-poor choice. Site #7 - "City Hall Campus" His suggestion on this site was to build 2 b~ildings, one near fire station and the other near the. City Hall building. The building. near the fire station could be 2 stories. The building near City. Hall could be fenced in and hidden. Both areas would have appropiate landscaping as..to fit into surrounding geographics. Mayor Polston asked if'nothing· would have to be done then.to the existing building in Island Park. Brad mentioned to keep.the time element in:consideration. If both buildings were close, in location, time would be saved in travel and transporting. Brad also looked, at the possibility of taking down the old building on Island Park, and redoing. This would be costly. You may want to keep old building for additional'sto~age, or ~sell the property, or make a Parking lot.for the adjacent build!ngs. There are many options. Brad looked at the old Tonka Toy building also. the leasing cost., and the disadvantages: He is concerned with 1. Obtain a 10 year lease, if you upgrade at all it's for Balboa to keep. 2. Leas.es there are being filled, and in time the traffic could cause mass conjestion, especially with ]~rge City trucks. 3- If you did lease'from Balboa, there woul~ stili be the problem of two areas for Public Works. 4. In comparing the lease cost against a new buildino. The lease at Balboa for 10-15 years would give you a facility for that time, but nothing to show for your money. The cost of a new building spread over 30-50 years wQuld give you a facility and a permanent facility for the City. Brad likes the "Campus" idea. The Campus is geographically in the center of Mound.. Brad also mentioned the cost of building has gone up since 1983. His company is currently bidding on a similar building for Chaska, and when bids are complete, he will be able to give the City an accurate cost estimate. He would like to use some authorized hours to do a complete layout of the proposed buildings. Mayor Polston asked to the cost. Brad stated a building of 20,000 square feet, around $45.00 per sq. ft., $850,O00. to $900,000. Depending upon the need of sprinklers, etc. However, Brad felt in- terest was good now, bonding available, atmosphere looked good. Brad made the following recommendations: 1. The Council review the 2 sites, carefully, and determine which is the best site for the City. 2. The Council investigate the various means of financing the construction. 3- The Council authorize Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Assoc. to use previously authorized hours for improvement of layout's and accurate cost estimates. 4. Commence this operation as soon as possible. October 7, 1~85 Mayor Polston stated the cost estimates must be done first. He felt the only way of financing was a referendum in the spring He agreed with Brad that renting for 10 years was a waste. Brad asked if Maywood Road could be extended. This is possible. It was agreed that Brad will return at the October 22, 1985, meeting with updated reports and estimates. CONSIDERATION OF BIDS: a. CBD Snow Removal b. Fall Clean - up c. Yuxedo Blvd. Improvement Project. A. The only bid recieved for snow removal was from Widmer, Inc. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER JESSEN AND SECONDED BY PAULSEN TO APPROVE THE WIDMER BID FOR CBD SNOW REMOVAL. The vote was unanimous in favor. Motion carried. B. The only bid for Fall Clean up was from Westonka Sanitation of $4,180.00. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND SECONDED BY SMITH TO APPROVE. THE WESTONKA SANITATION AS CONTRACTORS FOR THE FALL CLEAN UP. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Improvement project. There was only one bid by Valley Paving, Inc. of $25,299.00. Mayor Polston suggested we reject the bid (too high) and reopen the bid again in the spring. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY SMITH TO REJECT THE BID BY VALLEY PAVING, INC. AND REOPEN THE BID AGAIN IN THE SPRING. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS: and VACATION OF SCHOOL STREET (CHURCH ROAD) PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROGRAM YEAR X CDBG FUNDS & WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROGRAM. MOTION MADE BY COUNCiLMEMBER PETERSON AND SECONDED BY SMITH TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE VACATION OF SCHOOL STREET TO BE ON NOVEMBER 12, 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION MADE DY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND SECONDED BY JESSEN TO GRANT $3962. TO WESTONKA COUNSELING SERVICEAS AND $1000. TO WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Octobe~ 7, 1985 PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY PETERSON TO APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF BILLS AS PRESENTED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $76,890.08, WHEN THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Acting City Manager presented two new license applications. 1. Cigarette license for Westonka Foods 2. Tree removal license for Emery's Tree Service Inc., in Delan°. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PETERSON AND SECONDED BY PAULSEN TO APPROVE BOTH OF THESE NEW LICENSES. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Acting City Manager informed the Council that the T.I.F. bonds are being issued on October 22, 1985. This causes a problem because the HRA is due to close on the Busch's property on the same d~y, and the proceeds from bonds will not be available on the same day. Therefore, the City needs to lend the HRA $70,500. to close the Busch's property. We will get the money back shortly. MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY PETERSON TO LOAN THE HRA $70,500. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CEMETERY LOTS The Council needs to approve the transfer of 6 cemetery lots from Mrs. Lawrence Koehler to Huber Funeral Home, according to Cemetery Ordinance (Section 5.035). MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY SMITH TO APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF TITLE OF SIX CEMETERY LOTS FROM MRS. LAWRENCE KOEHLER TO HUBER FUNERAL HOME. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COUNTY ROAD 15 UPDATE The Acting Manager stated that Bud Robb called from the Hennepin County Board, and the resolution the City sent to him, to speed up the improvement to County Road 15, was defeated, until 1989. JON ELAM - MET COUNCIL Jon told The Acting City Manager of a change in the system for allocations of Sewer Units in Mound, from now until 1990. It reduces Mounds approved flow by 154 REC's (residential Equivalent October 7, 1985 Connection). The report Jon gave to Fran stated it's based on a 1990 population of 8800. However, the 1986 budget population figures developed for the state AID office also by the Met Council, peg Mounds population at 9700. These figures do not coinside. Counclmember Peterson moved and Councilmember Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTI ON #85- 123 !~ RESOLUTION TO THE METRO COUNCIL OBJECTING TO THEM REDUCING MOUND'S REC (RESIDENTIAL EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS) BY ]54 AND POINTING .OUT THEIR ERROR IN THE POPULATION PROJECTIONS FORMOUND. The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed. MOT ON MADE BY MAYOR POLSTON TO DIRECT THE LEGAL STAFF IMMEDIATELY TO NVESTIGATE THE ERROR IN POPULATION PFOJECTIONS FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, AND TO GET THEM CORRECTED. IF THE COUNCIL REFUSES, GET AN INJUNCTION. The vote was unanimously in favor, Motion carried. Mayor Polston stated that if the Met Council refuses to change their report, then the City should ask that'the Met Council be restrained. Attorney Jim Larson stated the need to file an injunction tomorrow, to get their attention. LAKE VIRGINIA/LAKE ANN INTERCEPTOR The Met Council. ~is about to approve new sewer construction that will correct the inadequacy in the sewer system. The Met Council staff feels it should be a forcema.in, Lake Virginia. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie want to use this new system to service new areas in their communities, they wan~ Lake Ann. The Lake Ann site is more costly that Lake Virginia. Chanhassen and Eden Prairie have agreed to contribute funds, but not make up the entire difference. The difference will come from all of the cities on this sewer line, even Mound. This could cost Mound 2 million dollars. Mayor Polston suggested sending a letter to the Met Council stating approval of a more permanent construction of a gravity site system, but the City of Mound highly objects to their method of funding this project. The City Council agreed. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter from Blue Lagoon Marina B. Thank You Note from Mark Koeg]er C. NSP Hotice of Rate Increase Request October 7, 1~85 D. Letter from Several Citizens Regarding Perkins Restaurant E. Ehlers & Associates Newsletter F. Springsted, Inc. Newsletter MOTION MADE. BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONDED BY JESSEN TO'ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUSLY N FAVOR. ..~ MOTION CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at '9:02 PM. BILLS OCTOBER 7, 1985 Batch 854093---Computer run dated Batch 85409q---Computer run dated Batch 8540~5---Listed belc~w 10/2/85 10/4/85 Total Bills Butchs Bar Supply City Club Distrib Coca Cola Day Distrib Happys Potato Chips Jude Candy' Kool Kube Ice East Side Beverage ... Mark VII Pepsi Cola Pog~eba Distrib Rex Distrib Royal Crown Cola Twin City Home Juice Thorpe Distributing Donald Bryce Concept Microfilm Communication Auditr Century Auto Body Dray Publications Graybow Daniels J & R REfrigeration K & K Sales Mound Fire Dept Minnegasco Ronald Marschke N.S.P. Shar~ Chemical Spring Park Car Wash State Bank of Mound Dale Vaughn Sept supplies 227.58 beer 4,205.60 mix 158.15 beer 3,730.78 snax 124.91 snax 109.20 i ce 162.90 beer 3,802.30 beer 560.85 mix 257.95 beer 4,484.95 beer 125.OO mix 49.15 mix 54.74 beer 5,372.65 Sept wage 367.00 film drawings PW 41.90 repair 16.28 foam flotation barrels 1,430.OO folders & posters 102.50 lavatory repair 18.82 repair 120.10 doors-rekey 988.41 Sept wages,drills 4,357.50-- gas 4.76 Sept wage lO0.OO -electricity 4,423.16 sewer solvent 271.68 Sept washes 69.00 July,Aug,Sept stubs 11.40 temp help 126.50 26,500.77 14,513.59 35,875.72 76,890.08 33 439~2431'61 33 439 5017 O1 33 442 4574 52 33 442 4578 61 33 472 4548 61 '33 472 4560 11 33 475 4657 82 33 475 4679 21 33 484 3113 51 33 484 4905 32 33 487 4764 71 33 500 4455 33 515 3073 21' 33 515 3122 71 33 518 4660 92 33 518 ,4725 O1 33 521 3101 92 33 530 4823 81 33 539 4838 71 33 551 3086 92 33 551 3090 11 33 554 3033 51 33 554 3065 71 Delinquent Water and Sewer $201.86 92.87 134.80 49.79 76.48 114.26 140.25 176.01 177.14 ·97.83 85.12 135.18 239.26 105.36 71.74 75.11 123.96 117.87 154.23 77.57 84.47 63.21 10-16-85 Delinquent Water and Sewer 10-16-85 33 439 2431 61 33 439 5017 01 33 442 4574 52 33 442 4578 61 33 472 4548 61 33 472 4560 11 33 475 4657 82 33 475 4679 21 33 484 3113 51 33 484 4905 32 33 487 4764 71 33 500 4455 21 33 515 3073 21 33 515 3122 71 33 518 4660 92 33 518 4725 01 33 521 3101 92 33 530 4823 81 33 539 4838 71 33 551 3086 92 33 551 3090 11 33 554 3033 51 33 554 3065 71 James Lassek James Christenson Dick Haley Dan Segner R.Johnson F. Germain Dave Spilseth Ronald Goodman Robert Wagstrom Joe Fiedler Rinold Nelson Donna Luguar Mike Jacobs David Lanz Daniel Lindgren Robert Henderson Mark Jones Joseph Fink Rand Sarles Sprague & Mabusth T.M.Wilson ~ Steve Sundquist Robert Smestad Paid$75.00 * Paid $25.00 * 92.87' * 134.80 49.79 paid ~6~ 114.26 140.25 176.01 177.14 97.83 85.12 135.18 105.36 71.74 75.11 123.96' 117.87 77.52' paid ~ paid ~ 63.21 2431Wilshire Blvd. 5017 Wilshire Blvd. 4574 Denbigh Road 4578 Denbigh Road 4548 Dorchester'~Road 4560 Dorchester Road 4657 Manchester Road 4679 Manchester Road 3113 Tuxedo Blvd. 4905 Tuxedo Blvd. 4764 Cumberland Road 4455 Radnor Lane 3073 Inverness Road 3122 Inverness Road 4660 Hampton Road 4725 Hampton Road 3101 Paisley Road 4823 Donald Dr. 4838 Glasgow Road 3086 Alexander Lane 3090 Alexander Lane 3033 Dundee Ln. 3065 Dundee Ln. 33 569 4876 41 33 569 4912 71 33 587 3001 21 33 587 3061 61 33 587 3062 '33 587 4951 71 33 593 4925 91 33 593 493'3 32 33 593 5206 31 33 593 5218 81 33 596 4814 81 33 596 5138 11 33 599 4600 51 33 620 3018 51 33 620 4818 71 33 620 4921 91 33 623 5313 22 33 635 5227 81 33 638 3243 11 33 641 5220 11 33 647 5211 71 33 647 5217 41 33 650 4610 51 Gary Snyder Doug Anderson Richard Carlson P. Barrel Dean Larsen Gary Schleif M. Quigley Susan'Arne Todd Ringsrud Bruce Burton M. Luttrell Eric Berglund Alan De Bellis lerner Johnson I~ene Dixon Joe Andrews Fred Denn Lucille Steere David Umbecker Valerie Forystek Duane Nelson Richard Ruccinski Gordon Wolf paid $40.00 $ 93.67 paid paid .paid $60.00 paid paid 101.42 paid$75.0% 86.33 158.00 60.OQ 104.85 paid paid paid 101.17 ?~,II paid $20~00 63.58 96.32 109.4! 118.43 4876 Leslie Rd. 4912 Leslie Road 3001 Brighton BlVd. 3061 Brighton Blvd. 3062 Brighton Blgd. 4951 Brighton BlVd. 4925 Drummond '.Road 4933 Drummond Road 5206 Drummond Ro'~d 5218 Drummond Road 4814 Hanover Road 5138 Hanover Rpad 4608 Aberdeen Road 3018 Island View Dr. 4818 Island View Dr. 4921 Island View Drive 5313 Piper Rd. 5224 Waterbury Road 3243 Warner Lane 5220 Sulgrove Road 5211 Phelps Road 5211 PhelPs'Rd. 4610 Kildare Ln. $4923.22 $3767.62 - 75 .oo 33 569 4876 41 33 569 4912 71 33 587 3001 21 33 587 3061 61 33 587 3062 41' 33 587 4951 71 33 593 4925 91 33 593 4933 32 33 593 5206 31 33 593 5218 81 33 596 4814 81 33 596 5138 11 33 599 4600 51 33 620 3018 51 33 620 4818 71 33 620 4921 91 33 623 5313 22 33 635 5227 81 33 638 3243 11 33 641 5220 11 33 647 5211 71 33 647 5217 41 33 650 4610 51 $ 93.67 86.11 104.94 136.71 64.46 92.71 101.42 108.18 86.33 158.00 60.00 104.85 66.7~ 62.70 90.33 101.17 92.1i 111.27 63.58 96.32 109.41 118.43 87.75 $4923.22 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesola 55441 612/553-1950 October 10, 1985 Ms. Fr~n Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear F ran: In response to your inquiry, I have reviewed the status of the conditional use permit and variances for Town Square. It appears from the minutes of the August 27, 1985, meeting that the City Council took action on the rezoning but not on the conditional use permit nor the variances. On February 12, 1985, Items 2A and 2B in the City Council agenda covered rezoning, the conditional use permit and the variances. Action on all items was continued to a later date and when Jon placed the items on the August 27, 1985, agenda, Item 2B was omitted. Hence, even though my staff report addressed all three factors, only the rezoning was published and acted upon. Since the variances and conditional use permit were not published and discussed at the August 27, 1985, meeting, it would be appropriate to continue discussion and action on the original Item 2B at the next City Council meeting. If you have questions on any of this, please call. Sincerely, VAN DORE. N-HAZARD-STALLINGS Mark Koegler Principal Planner MK/kh · ", ~<,~ c~,'-,~ ~. ~. · - . ~ ~ , ~ ~ / [~ ,' i .... : :/~~-~:- ~' ~' AP~LICATION~..~.~ ~. ]~~ ~TO PLANNIN~ZONING COMMISSION L_, ~. ~- ~} p'" m ] · . '. ~~~f--Property ~ast s~de of Commerce between Church & Fee Pa i d t~Z_~-~ , Date Fi led , /~ -,~ 7'',?~ Lynwood Legal Description of Property: Lot See Attached Block Addition PID No. Owner's Name John Bierbaum-The Bellefnnte r.n_ Day Phone No.._~,?~_.~2,qF, Address 710 Marquette Ave. Suite 450. Mpls., MN SS~O? Applicant (if other than owner): Ray W. Geiger Name. Smiley Glotter Associates Day Phone No. 332-1401 Address lO21 LaSalle, Mpls., MN 55403 5.. Type of Request: (x) Variance (x) Conditional Use Permit ~,~ ~ (~k() Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ') Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: Rezoninq of Northeast corner property from R1 to B1 6' Zoning District BI Existing Use(s) of Property Doctor's Clinic, Laundry, Pharmacy, Superette, Residential- Has an application ever been made for zoning,'variance, or conditional use .permit or other zoning procedure for this property? No 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 of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. ~ignature of Applicant ~///~/~,~. Date Dec. 3, 1984 Planning Commission Recommendation: To move the recommendations of the staff. Date 1-14-85 Council Action: |-22-85 Public heari.ng set for February 12, 1985. Resolution No. Date 2-12-85 Pr0c~dure for Conditional Use Permit (2) D. E. F. Case ~ 9m~''- ~<m Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate North compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill 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 sch~dule~ ksee ~low) B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): Drive-up teller along Commerce Avenue 2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound B-1 Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ 780,000.O0 (Total Bank) 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.. P.coposed Use 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. The proposed use will be a replacement of the facility now entering and exiting from Commerce Avenue South of Highway 15. Ample stacking space has been provided to prevent problems with traffic on Commerce. Schedule Construction to start Spring of 1985 with completion in late fall of 1985. kequest for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure Case O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (7~) No-~_-X-)-' if "no", specify each non-conforming use: Drive-up tellers at bank require conditional use Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (x) No ( ) If "no", specify each.non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (x) Too shallow (x) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) Ho (x) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (x) No ( ) 'l~ no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) Back-yard set-back of ~0'0" ~/tc~. /~ 9 ~/~// ~ ~'Xx~' I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to.property in the same zone, or to ~he enforcement of this ordinance? No Procedure for Zoning Amendments Case #~.,~- - D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections III.An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either A or B below) J lt is requested that Section.~ of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as fOllows: Reason for Amendment: Amendment to Map: It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from Address of Property~m~ ~ Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes ~) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Note: Present Use of Property: Reason for Amendment: T~. No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commissi'on within one year period following e denial of such request. 2~ February 12, 1985 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on February 12, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, 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, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Insurance Agent Earl Bailey, Insurance Consultant Bill Husbands, Recycling Committee Members Wendy Anderson, Jackie Meyer, Joyce Nelson and Kathy Kluth and the following interested citizens: Ada Shepherd, George Shepherd, Sr. and George Shepherd, Jr., Steve Coddon, Coral P. Kruce, Florence Yule, Gloria Briggs, Virginia Crawford, Frank Ahrens, Jerry Petrowski, Dr. Chuck Carlson, Eldo Schmidt, Karen Holmberg, Tod Holly, E.~ G. Schlee, Saul Smiley. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the ~eople in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1985, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (SETBACK vARI- ANCES, LOCATIONAL VARIANCES}, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR TOWN SQUARE PROJECT City Pianner Mark Koegl~r expIained that al} three action items are related. He then presented the exhibi~ and explained the project. ~ REZONING He explained that the project requires the rezoning of the northeast corner of the property from R-3 to B-1. The single family residence located on the R-3 parcel would have to be removed making the property available for commercial development. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. There were none. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the rezoning. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. 21 February ~12, 1985 The City Attorney recommended that no action be taken on this item at this time and the Council go on to the next public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The City Plan~er explained that under the current ordinances a drive-in bank facility is considered a conditional use in ~he B-1 zone. 'There are also performance standards in the ordinance and the proposed bank location is not consistent with those in the following areas: 1. Under the ordinance, drive-in facilities are prohibited within 400 feet of churches. The existing church is within approximately BOO feet of the proposed drive-in bank. Thus requiring a 100 foot variance. 2. The performance standards state that loudspeakers shall not be located within 400 feet of any residentially zoned property or with 200 feet of any adjacent lot. As proposed, loudspeaker locations would fall within 255 feet of the adjacent church lot, approximately 86 feet from the lot across the street and within 320 feet of the R-3 zoning property along the eastern side of the Town Square site. He further stated that~is it very unlikely'that the location of the bank or use of the loudspeakers will negatively impact any neighboring parcels. However, the site plan will require a 114 foot variance .to the.provision regulating the distance to an adjacent lot and an 80 foot variance from the required distance to a residential use. The Mayor asked if the Council had any questions. none. There were. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone have any comments for or against the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ~ ~Comprehensive Plan The City Planner explained that the Mound~ designates the Town Square. parcel as commercial and residential in concurrence with the existing zoning. Thus, approval of the Town Square site plan will require an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. This amendment requires formal review by the Metropolitan Council. The City Attorney recommended that the Council deal with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment first before taking action on.the other items because Council approval of that and review by the Metro Council must happen before Town Square can move ahead. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: 23 February 12, 1985 RESOLUTION ~85-16 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE SUBMITTING AN AMENDMENT OF MOUND'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE METROLPOLITAN COUNCIL FOR REVIEW Councilmember Paulsen asked if .there was going to be a problem with ingress and egress at the bank. The City Flanner ~tatcd that he felt thi~ will be worked out. Councilmember Smith stated that he was not'on the Council when this project was conceived and the TIF~ District was setup so he has some questions about the project and TIF that he knows cannot be answered tonight. The questions were: - How may new jobs will be created by the project? - Was a market impact study done? - What is the breakeven point? - Is there a market for this project? - Was a study done on how non-subsidized businesses will be impacted? - What revenues will be generated? Councilmember Smith further stated that he will have to vote against this project because it is a tax increment'district and the public is taking the risk. He stated that at the recent League Conference Legislator Moa stated that TIF is risky for retail centers because of the possible property tax reduction and because it should be used for industrial development not retail centers. He continued that the State Auditor has. stated that TIF is over-utilized and if the bank and. clinic will not put their money into the project why should the citizens. It might have a~ negative impact on other businesses in Mound. Mr. Saul Smiley was present and explained that this project has been 3 years in the making. The clinic, the bank, the drug store are existing businesses and John Bierbaum is assuring that other retail shops will be in the center. He stated that this project will be a good catalyst and will enhance other businesses property Yalues. Mayor Polston stated that this project has been'in the planning for several ~ye. ars and at the ~ime it started not clot was happening downtown. The Council had a choice to either ignore the downtown area and do nothing which would have caused downtown to continue to deteriorate or do something which will enhance the values downtown and make downtown desireable. Couneilmember Jessen stated that she is aware that ot.her cities have abused TIF but that Mound has only one industrial area', Tonka, and needs the TIF for the retail center. She stated that she is sure the existing businesses will make the center go. .24 February 12, 1985 Coun6ilmember Paulsen stated that this has been a long and tedious process and everyone, including Councilmember Smith, had a chance months ago to give input on the project if they wished. Councilmember Smith stated that he was just urging caution because he feels there may be major changes in legislation that council affect TIF. Councilmember Peterson asked the City Attorney if he knew of any impending legislation that could affect TIF. The Attorney answered that he was not aware of any at this point. Councilmember Peterson stated that he has watched this TIF plan develop and it has been a difficult process, but he has confidence that Mound will progress and this will be a good project for the City. The vote in RESOLUTION I;85-16 was four in favor with Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmem'ber Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to continue Item 2.A. Rezoning and Item 2.C. Conditional Use Permit for Town Square to a future meeting. This will allow time to submit the amended Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. The vote was unanimously in. favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TOWNHOMES, AT 524~, 5257, 5271 & 5285 EDEN ROAD, LOTS 21, 22,. & 24, BLOCK 2, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F The City Manager explained that the applicant, Eugene G. Schlee, would like to construct two four-unit townhouse structures in the B-1 zoning district which requires a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval subject to six (6) conditions. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or agains~ the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. No one responded. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #85-17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, TWO GROUPS OF FOUR ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l) ZONE IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD, PID ~13-117-24 34 0034/0035/0036/0037 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PI_ANNING REPOR5' 73'- y o ~ TO: Plannin~ Cc~mission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DkTE: January 9, 1985 SUBJECT: Town Square - Variances, Conditional Use Permit for Drive-in Banking Facility and Rezoning CASE NO: 85-403 APPLICANT: Ray W. Geiger, C/O Emiley Glotter Associates East Side of Cc~m~-erce Boulevard between Church and Lynwcod EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-i) and Two-family Residential (R-3) COMP~lArlg PLAN: Ccnm~rcial and Residential BACKGROUND: On June 25, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed the Town Square proposal as part of the tax increment financir~ plan approval process. At the present time, the applicant has finalized the development plans and is requestir[3 final review and approval fram the City of Mound. The current Town Square site plan has attempted to respond to the issues that were previously raised by the Planning Commission, i.e., rear alley truck access, circulation, etc. The final plan contains two separate buildir~s surr'OU~ded by parking, drivewaYS,'walkways and landscaping. Six entrances provide access to various portions of the property. The center's main entrances are from Lynwood Boulevard on the south and Church Road on the north. REZONING: Implementation of the Town Square plan will require the rezonin~ of the northeast corner of the property from R-3 to B-1. The single-family residence that is located on the R-3 parcel will be removed making the property available for co,u',~rcial development. Plannirg OaL,tission and Staff Page Two January 9, 1985 According to the zoninG ordinance, amendments to zoning districts should "only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the plan or changes in conditions in the city." Town Square has been reviewed extensively by the HRA and the City Council, and their support for the proposa! seems to reflect a charge in both policy and business conditions in the City of Mound. Based upon their actions, Town Square meets the ordinance criteria for rezoning. ~: The redevelopment of the Town Square site generates a number of issues which need to be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Setbacks: The B-1 provisions do not require front yard setbacks which wculd be applicable to the frontages along Lynwood Boulevard, Commerce Boulevard and Church Road. The northern most 180 feet of the eastern side of the site abuts an existing R-3 zone. Where B-1 abuts R-3, the ordinance requires a setback of 50 feet. The final site plan for Town Square depidts a setback in this area rangin~ from 35 to 41 feet. This will require a variance of 9 to 15 feet. Parking: All 'parking for Town Square will be acccmmodated in surface lots. The site plan provides a total of 182 parking spaces, 20 of which are drive-in teller stalls. Mound zoning ordinance requires the following: Land Use Floor Area Ordinance Standard Required Spaces Retail 23,900 1 per 150 sq. ft. 159 Bank 10,250 1 per 400 sq. ft. 26 Clinic 16,700 5 per professional employee 55* 1 per other employee TOTAL 240 * Assumes 8 professional and 15 other employees. The Town Square proposal is 58 spaces short of the ordinance standard. There are a number of ways to remedy this deficiency, the most probable of which involves securing additional parking for employees of the various businesses. The church immediately north of the project provides one such source and the Mound Super Valu may provide an additional source. Super Valu is relocating to the No Frills Center. At the present time, a replacement use for the old Super Valu building is unknown. Depending upon what type of business eventually occupies the structure, extra parkinG may be available. Plannin~ Ccmmission and Staff Page Three January 9, 1985 A review of parking should also address circulation and location. The connections between parkin~ lots provide convenient access for custc~rs. The hard surface areas are broken up by landscaped islands which will help both visually ar~ functionally. The site plan provides a compact parking area in the center of ~he parcel. ~ne placement of this lo% ia presumably due to the physical space available. Frcm a functional standpoint, however, staff questions the validity of a 100 percent ccmpact stall lot in this location. The compact parking area Provides some of the most convenient parkir~ for the retail shops. As such, it will be difficult to enforce ccmpact parkin~3 only in this area regardless of posted signage. Larger vehicles in this lot may cause occasional problems, however, a 25-foot aisle should provide adequate maneuvering roc~o Approval of the proposed parking scheme will require two types of variances. First, a variance will be necessary to recognize the 58-stall deficiency. Secondly, a variance frcm the ordinance stall standard of 10 x 20 feet will be required for the 8 x 16 foot compact stalls and the 9 x 18 foot regular spaces. All handicapped stalls will need to be extended to 20 feet in length. Drive-in Bank: Drive-in facilities of any type are conditional uses in the B-1 zone. Therefore, the proposed drive-in bank will require the issuance of a conditional use permit. The ordinance establishes performance, standards for drive-in facilities. The proposed bank location is not c6nsistent with the performance standards in the followir~ areas: ~ Under the ordinance, drive-in facilities are prohibited within 400 feet of churches. The existin~ church is within approximately 300 feet of the proposed drive-in bank. be The performance standards state that loudspeakers shall not be located within 400 feet of any residentially zoned property or within 200 feet of any adjacent lot. As proposed, loudspeaker locations would fall within 255 feet of the adjacent church lot, approximately 86 feet frcm the lot across the street and within 320 feet of the R-3 zoned property along the eastern side of the Town Square site. In reviewing the proposed drive-in banking activities and'the surroundir~ land uses, it seems very unlikely that the location of the bank or the use of loudspeakers will negatively impact any neighboring parcels. Technically, however, the site plan will require a ll4-foot variance to the provision regulating the distance to an adjacent lot and an 80-foot variance from the required distance to a residential use. Planning Oa~u,ission and Staff Page Four January 9, 1985 e 0 Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans: Grading, drainage and utility plans were not submitted with the site plan materials for Town Square. Review of such plans by the City Engineer is essential prior to final approval of the project. Landscaping: The landscaping plan for Town Square is adequate as a concept but does not contain sufficient detail to meet the City's final approval requirements. Essentially, the plan provides landscaped areas arourd the perimeter of the site, at the entrance of the buildings and in islands within the .parking lot. The placement and variety of species shown on the plan should enhance the development. Alon~ the eastern side of the site, the plan calls for the installation of a retaining wall and an arborvitae screen. The arborvitae should provide a visual buffer between the rear portion of the shops and the adjacent residential uses, however, only the southerly one-half of the plantings are located on the Town Square property. The plantings along the northern one-half of the eastern side can be on adjacent property, however, the City should require some assurance that the material will be maintained. Prior to final approval, the applicant will need to submit a detailed .landscaping plan to staff for further review. Signage: The Town Square site plan shows a pylon sign at the southwest corner of the property. Additionally, the building elevation sheets depict individual wall signage for each of the businesses. This signage concept is consistent with the City's sign ordinance. No signs can be placed in the ground or on buildings without formal sign permit approval. Signage permit applications will need to be filed with the City as such information beccmes available. Platting: Town Square contains a confusing array of legal descriptions. In order to clarify existir~ ownership and provide the vehicle for future ownership of the various buildings, preparation of a plat will be necessary. An application for subdivision and a preliminary and final plat will need to be prepared and submitted to the City prior to final approval. circulation: The pedestrian and vehicular circulation pattern of the · final site plan is consistent with the preliminary site plans that were previously reviewed by the City. The sidewalk system provides adequate interior circulation and connections to adjacent parcels. Comprehensive Plan: The Mound comprehensive plan designates the TOwn Square parcel as commercial and residential in concurrence with the existing zoning. Approval of the Town Square site plan will require amendment of the City's ccmprehensive plan. This process is relatively simple, however, it does involve the Metropolitan Council. An amendment to the cemprehensive plan requires formal review by the Metropolitan Council. After receipt of the proposed amendment, the Metropolitan 'Planning Cc~mission and Staff Page Five January 9, 1985 Council has 10 days to respond regarding the level of the required review. Presumably, with a small amendment such as the Town Square one, they will issue an immediate finding that the amendment is of no significant consequence to Metropolitan' s systems. RECOMMENDATIONS: The staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, variances, rezonin~3 and conditional use permit for the drive-in bank facility for Town Square subject to the following conditions: The rezoning of the R-3 parcel to B-1 shall not formally occur until such tim~ as the City has ccmpleted acquisition negotiations and acquired the subject parcel. e Final grading, drainage and utility plans must be sukmitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. ® Final landscaping plans must be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of a gradir~3 permit. e The applicant shall be responsible for platting the parcel in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations and M.S.A 462.358. Platting shall occur prior to conveyance of any land to the developer fr~ the City of Mound. 5. The applicant shall submit plans to the watershed district for review, ccnm~nt and required ~ermit approval. The Commission finds that the drive-in bank location Planning setback, and parking variances meet the criteria for granting variances due to the unique redevelopment aspects of the project. The applicant shall be required to enter into negotiations with the church or other land owners to provide employee parking outside of the boundaries of the Town Square parcel. o Prior to installation of any signage, the applicant shall file and receive sign permit approval frcm the City of Mound. ..The applicant shall provide the City with copies of agreements with abuttin~ landowners pertainin~ to the placement and maintenance of plant materials outside of the ownership boundaries of Town Square. The Mound comprehensive plan is amended to reflect a commercial designation for the Town Square site, subject to comprehensive plan amendment approval by the Metropolitan Council. 10. Driveway and utility access along Ca~merce Boulevard shall be subject to the review and permit approval of Hennepin County. VARIANCES ® e e Setbacks Abutting R-3 zone Parking Requirements Total Spaces Stall Size Drive-in Bank Distance to Church Loudspeaker Location To Adjacent Lot To Residential Property Required 50' 240 10 ' x20' 400' 200' 400' 35'-41' 182 9'x15' 300' 86' 320' Variance (9'-15'V) (58 space V) (V) (100' V) (114' V) (80' V) Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 3 3. Case No. 85-403 Town Square - Rezoning portion from R-3 to B-l, Conditional Use Permit Approva.I. for a Drive-in. Bank, Setback Variances~ Drive-in Bank ..Locational Variances and a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Various 1.egals - location generally east of C°mmer~ce Boulevard between .Church Road'.and Lynwood Boulevard Saul Smiley of Smiley/Glotter Associates was present. Planner Mark Koegler stated the Commission last saw the Town Square proposal last June and that was a review of the preliminary site plan. The action before the Commission tonight is the formal site plan action. He emphasized all decisions the Commission makes are independent of any financing the project ultimately gets. Your approval coupled with the financing will determine the fate of the project. You are really lookiqg at the physical aspects as well as the proposal- itself. He then reviewed his report on Town Square - the rezoning, various variances which include the setback to.the R-3, parking stall size and number, conditional use permit for a drive-in facili.ty including a 100 foot variance to the church and a variance for loudspeakers closer than 400 feet of residentially zoned Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 1985 - Page 4 property, landscaping requirements, signage, circulation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and comprehensive plan amendment. The staff recom- mends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, variances, rezoning and conditional use permit for the drive-in bank facility for Town Square subject to the following conditions: 1. The rezoning of the R-3 parcel to B-1 shall not formally occur until such time as the City has completed acquisition negotiations and acquired the subject parcel. 2. Final grading, drainage and utility plans must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 3. Final landscaping plans must be submitted to the City Planner for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for platting the parcel in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations and M.S.A. 462.358. Platting shall occur prior to conveyance of any land to the developer from the City of Mound. 5. The applicant shall submit plans to the Watershed District for review, comment and required permit approval. 6. The Planning Commission finds that the setback, drive-in bank location and parking variances meet the criteria for granting variances due to the unique redevelopment aspects of the project. The applicant shall be required to enter into negotiations with the church and other land owners to provide employee parking outside of the boundaries of the Town Square parcel. 7. Prior to installation of any signage, the applicant shall file and re- ceive sign permit approval from the city of Mound. 8. The applicant shall provide the City with Copies of agreements with abutting landowners pertaining to the placement and maintenance of plant materials outside of the ownership boundaries of Town Square. 9. The Mound comprehensive plan is amended to reflect ~ commercial designation for the Town Square site, subject to comprehensive plan amendment approval by the Metropolitan Council. 10. Driveway and utility access along Commerce Boulevard shall be subject to the review and permit approval of Hennepin County Transportation Department. Saul Smiley responded to the point Planner made about access from Commerce Boule- vard..Presently the Clinic and Tom Thumb are accessible from Commerce; but if we could not have that access, we would come in off of Church Road into the bank drive-in portion, so we do not see that as a major problem. As we have such a large holding area available on the bank site, we didn't see that as any obstruc- tion of traffic along Commerce Boulevard. Drainage has been worked out with Engineers, have touched base on all the variances, landscaping has been more fully developed - we have tried to take each of these needs and satisfied them as much as we can at this time. Major concern is the final determination of the site itself for acquisition which seems to be in a state of flux. Project has been carried very well along; a great amount of work has been done. Showed plan and commented it is a very attractive facility for the community. The Chair then opened the public hearing. As no one responded, the Chair closed the public hearing. Weiland moved and Reese seconded a motion to approve the recommendations of the staff, The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. At the January 22, 1985 Council meeting, the Council will be asked to set Feb. 12, 1985 as the date for the public hearing. DATE: COMM. NO.: PROJECT: SUBJECT: MEMO BY: COPIES TO: January 8, 1985 821201 (2) Mound Town Square Site Mtg. with Hennepln County Ray W. Gelger George Glassco, John Bierbaum Jan Bertrand, Saul Smiley, Ray Geiger SMILEY GLOTTER ASSOOATES Archilects Engineers P~nners 1021 LaSalle Avenue Minneapohs M~.nesota .55403 (612) 332 1401 memorandum I met with George Glassco and Stephen Tyce this date regarding the request for permit to allow two curb cuts along Commerce in Mound which serves the State Bank of Mound drive-up teller area. Due to the amount of traffic on Commerce the County has refused a permit for the access but not for the exit, this due to the potential hazard of over stacking at the entrance back unto the street. At the exit the driver has the option to either make a right hand turn to go North or flow through the parking lot to Lynwood if the traffic is heavy. This would also still work if a median were installed North from the intersection of Lynwood and Commerce. SGA is to examine the possibility of entering the bank drive-up teller area off of Church and flowing through the North parking lot. Three parking spaces will be lost. A controlled entrance to the bank area from the parking lot could be made by narrowing the flow to one car at a time and by a chain when the drive-up is not_open. SGA will contact the City, the bank, and the developer as to this revision in the site planning. if any of this does not meet with your understanding of items discussed, please notify me as soon as possible. ' bank r? .7 town site plan parking regular stalls 133 .comcact stalls 20 ,hand!cap stalls (5%) 9 bank drive-in 20 teller staI!s 182 iota! landscaping sodded area · .. screening ~ trees T~ screening shrubs ,,~.~ ~ planter · -. trees planter shrubs canopy / ornamenta trees (P : !8ALSANI ?,:.-; RD 31 I ~ I' 12 PARK OF LOT $2 E OF LOT ~ZZj LYNWOOD RD ..~ B LVD 26~ f CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CA~E NO. 85-444 BOARD OF. APPEALS Case No. 85-~ Location: 5991 Ridgewood Road Legal Desc.: Part of Lots 13, i4 & 15, Block 6, The Highlands Request: Existing Nonconforming Structure Zoning District: R-1 APPLICANT David & Carmen Taylor 599l Ridgewood Road Mound, MN, 55364 Phone: 472-1342 The applicant is requesting-the Planning Commission to recognize an existing non- conforming accessory building in order to add an addition to his home.~ The addi- tion will consist of an approximately 528 square foot attached garage, an 8 foot by 11 foot breezeway and a 650 square foot one story living area with crawl space. The R-1 Zoning District requires a lO,O00 square foot lot area, side yards of 10 feet, front yard of 30 feet and a'lakeshore setbacklof 50 feet. The property has conforming requirements, for the lot and principal building. The accessory build- ing., however, has an encroachment i.nto the public right-of-way by .63 feet. The required setback.is 20 feet; the side yard is 2.8 feet with the required being 4 feet. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissi'on recognize the existing nonconformi.ng 20.63 foot fFont yard and the nonconforming 1.2 foot side yard. upon the condition that no structural repairs shall be made to it withou't additional variance approval.. The dwelling addition is to have a conforming l0 foot side yard. This will be referred to the City Council on _October 22, 1985. Jan Bertrand JB/ms PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 1985 Case N~'~ 85-'444 VarianCe-to recognl.'ze:existin~-'~°~conf°r~l~g setbacks.at 5991Ri~gewood Road;.Part of Lots 13,'14.& 15', Block 6, The Highlands David a'nd. Carmen Taylor were present. The.applicant is. requesting.the'Plann'ing commission to'.recogn|.ze an'existing nonconforming.accessory bul'ldi:ng"to add'an addition to his home. T'he addition wi~ll.consis~ of a 528 s~uare f0ot'attached' garage, an 8~'by .11 foot,'breez~way and a 650 square foot .one story living ar~ea with.crawl"space,.:'The existing principal'building has...con.forming setbacks; however, the accessory, building encroaches .'63 feet .into the'.public'rlght-of-way.. The required front yard setback is 20 feet and the side.'.yard'requi'rement is 4 feet. The accessory building Is 2.8 feet to the side yard, . The Commission questioned.i.f he pl. anned,.to~go in~o the hi:ll (he will approxi~ mately lO--feet) and discussed'-h.is request'.briefly. Reesemoved and Weiland seconded a'rnot'ion"to move the.,st'aff recommendat.jon of, "Staff recommends'that'the Planning ~Commission recognize the existing nonconforming. 20.63'foot front"yard aod'.'nonconforming 1',2 foot side yard-of .the accessory building.upon.'t'he:conditlon t'hat no structural repairs'shall be made. to it'without'.additiona.1 variance approval, and.the dwe'lling addition 'j's to have a conforming'.lO foot'side yard setback" The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion'carried. This will be on the October. 22, 1985.Counctl Agenda. ' OF MOUND - A L CAT O. TO s ZON . 1 [~ ~ . .; .... ~ '~ (Please type the following information) ~ Street hddress of Property .~~ ~ ~~~ ~ 2. ~ke~al Description of ~roperty: kot ~ Addition Owner's Name Address ! , Applicant (if other than owner): Case Fee Paid ~-~. Date Filed B ock PID No..,,~.~-II Name Day Phone No. Address ..-.-Type of Request: ~-~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( .) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: 6. Present Zoning District ~ ~ I 7. Existing Use(s) of Property_ ~~JL~ f~~ 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~/~ I? 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 a11 of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted h~with ~-~e 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 inspecti/~j-).or of posting/r/'m~intaining land removing such notices as may be req6ired by~law// ~ ~./41///~/~ Signature of Applicant ___/~~ ~----~, Date Planning Commission RecOmmendation: To move staff recommendation recognizing the existing nonconforming setbacks of accessory building upon condition that no structural repairs shall be made to it without additional var!ance approval and the dwelling addition ~s to have a conforming 10 foot side yard setback. Date 10-14-8~ Council Action: Resolution No. 4/82 Date 10-22-85 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure '(2) · Case Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate North compass direction Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!!. Request for'a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below'; a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be .provided before a. hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property, conform to @I~ use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ) If "no", specify each n~n-~onforming use: /, 'Do the existing structures comply with'all area heigb~and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes~) No ( ) If "no", specify each nOn-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography' ( ) Soil ( ) Too small '( ) Drainage.. ( ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( Was the hardship, described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain: /j~/~/~vo~./J____ · ) Sub-surface ) .Other: Specify: F. Was the hardship created by any 'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ( ) . if yes, explain: /~ /~/v~J . G. AFe the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( ) if no, how many other prgperties are similarly affected? ~ ~j~ What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) / /' z · / I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the ~nforcement of'this ordinance? .. UavJd~. la~Jol in L~s 13, 1~, & 15, BJock 6, "The High]ands" Hennepin County, Minnesota % I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the doundaries of that part of Lot 13. Block 6 described as beginning at a point on the Northerly line thereof distant 20 feet h~rth- easterly along said ~rtherly line fmm the Northwesterly corner of said Lot which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Southerly 187.5 feet to a point which is 187.5 feet Southerly of the point of beginning and 37.5 feet Southeasterly from a point on the Westerly line of said Lot distant 165.4 feet Southerly along the Westerly line of said Lot from the Northwesterly corner thereof which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence deflecting to the right 13 degrees 3 minutes 20 seconds a distance of 60 feet which point is marker by a Judicial Landmark; thence continuing along the last mentioned course to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Westerly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Westerly tine of said Lot; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot to a point 165.4 feet Southerly along the West- erly line thereof from tho Northwesterly corner of said Lot which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot to the Northwesterly corner of said Lot which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark; thence Northeasterly along the Northerly line of said LOt to the point of beginning, and ' Lot 14 and all of Lot 15 except the westerly 20 feet front and rear thereof in Block 6, "The Highlands", accordtng to tho plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds tn and for said County, and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and oF the pm- posed location of a proposed addition. It does mt purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Scale: I inch: 30 feet Date : 8-30-85 o : iron marker Mark S. Gronberg Reg. Fa. 12755 ® .: Judicial landmark found Gordon R. Coffin Rog. tie. 6054 ~ : Spot elevation Engineers and Land Surveyors Lon(1 Lake, MinneSota Phone 473-~,1~ 1 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECCENIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK FOR PART OF LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 6, THE HIGHLANDS PID NO. 23117-24 43 0028 WHEREAS, David and Carmen Taylor, the owners of the property described as part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 6, the Highlands PID No. 23-117-24 43 0028 have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming accessory building setback in order to construct an addition to the principal dwelling; and WHEREAS, the existing accessory structure is nonconforming due to a .63 foot encroachment into the public right-of-way and a 2.8 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 zone which according to the City code, requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the variance to recognize the existing accessory structural setback. NOW, I~HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming accessory structure setback at 5991 Ridgewood Road. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 1985 shed at.4339 Wi.l.shire Boulevard; .Part'of Lots 1, 2, B, 75 & 76,. Fi'rst Rearr. · of Phelp's. Island Park lst..Division and'Lot 3, Phelp's Island Park 1st Div. Mrs, Schluter. was present. -' The City Pt~nner explai.ned~that p~evious'ly.app}icant.had divided his-property into two parcels.and one of'the~conditions of 'thatdi.viSion.was that theboat- house (now called tool'sked).be relocated four feet from the new property line. They are-no~ requesting m .Variance to a~low.tool shed to r~main (1.5+ feet at one corner to the property line); setback requirement is 4 feet.· -- Mrs. Schlutgr thought.the reason for the 4 foot setback was for fire safety and there wa~.not anythin9'nearby~ The'estimate for removin~ the tool shed was much more ~pensive than they had thought it would be. The Commission discussed the request~and their'recommendation.'when the sub- division was approved (Ma~ 6, 1985 ml.nutes); they also questioned whether a 50 foot lakefront setback ~Idn~t apply.~ Byrnes moved and Ken: Smith seconded-a.motlon that the".Plannl-ng Commission r~commend denial of a variance for the boathouse/tool shed..· The vote was unanimously in favor of the denial. Motion carried. This will be on the Council Agenda for the meeting.of OctobeF 22, 1985. Street Address of Property CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 4339 Wilshire Blvd. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition Metes & Bounds Part of PID No. Fee Paid _~-o. Date Filed Block 19-117-23 13 0006 Owner's Name John & Holly Schluter Day Phone No. 472-3434 Address 4339 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, M]~ 55364 Applicant (if other than owner): Name Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: ( If other, specify: (X) Variance ( ) CondiLional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (.) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present Zoning District R2 Existing Use(s) of Property Home Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or Conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~o 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 statemen~'s"'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...J-n~pecting, or of posting, mairAtainigg and notices as may be requir/~by /~.//.- // ~ ~ //~ // Signature of Applicant Abutting neighbor"has b~en~t,~Fied.' ' '- Planning Commission Recom~ndation: Reques~be denied. rem°ving sT/ Date 10-14-85 Council Action: Resolution No. D te 1 Request for Zoning Variance Pr6cedure Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. !Ii. Request for a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to,al~ use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Wes~ No ( ) I~ "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area hei hflnt, and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes~,~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical.characteristics of the subject proper~y prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ' ) Topography . ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( )' Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardshLp described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ~ If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created.by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes (~-0 No ( ) If yes, explain: c,X. ' ' G. Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a vari. ance peculiar the property described in this petition? Yes · (~'~ No ( ) only to If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of y. our land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? May .21, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-60 RESOLUTION .TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUDBDIVISION OF LAND FOR METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PART OF FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS' ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION,. PIn ~19-117-23 13 0006 (4339 W!LSHIRE BLVD.) PLANNING COMMISSION CASE ~1985-424 WHEREAS, an appiteation to wa'ire the subdivision requi~ements contained in .Section 22.00 of the Ci.ty CGde ha's be filed with the City of Mound, by the'applicant, John Sch!uter, and the fee owner, Ruth Noon; and WHEREAS, sai~d request for a waiv.er has b~en reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and~ WHER. EA$, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting ·said property such that ~'the ,strict application of the ordinance would deprive, the 'applic~nt'of the reasonable use of his. land; and'that the waiver ~is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting, the wa-iver will not be d. etrimental to the public welfare or injurious, to the other property owners. . % . ~' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council .of the'City of Mound, Mfnnesota: The request of the City of Mound for a waiver from the.provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres', described as follows: ~' ExistiDK Legal DescriD.tio~ That part of Lots 1, 2, B, 75 and 76, The First Re'arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-lst Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, First .Division, also. the private street adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at a poin6 in'the Southeasterly line of County Road No...12'5 distant 60 feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly corner of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-lst Div., thence South 38 d~grees 40 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 53.4 feet,- thence South 57 degrees, 20 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 181.6 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described, thence continuing South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 14.1 feet, thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes'West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 110.9 feet, thence South 26 degrees'26 minutes East a distance of 75.7 feet, thence South May 21, 1985 37 degrees 21 minutes East a distance of 126 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, thence Easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes East from the point of beginning, thence Northwesterly along said last named line to the point of beginning. is hereby 'g~anted to permit the subdivision in the following manner: A. That part of the following described property: That part of Lots 1, 2, B, 75 and 76, The First Re- arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-lst Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, ~First Division, also the private street adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at'a .point in the Southeasterly line of County Road No. 125 distant 60 feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly corner of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park- 1st Div., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance 'of 53.4 feet, thence 'South 57 degrees 20 minutes West.along the Southeasterly line of said County Ro~d a distance of 181.6 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described, thence continuing South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along .the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 14.1 feet, .thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes West along-the Southeasterly line of said County Raod a distance of 110.9 feet, thence South 26 degrees 26 minutes East a distance of 75.7 feet, thence South 37 degrees 21 minutes East a distance of 126 .feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, thence Easterly along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its interssection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes East from the point of beginning, thence Northwesterly along said last named line to the point of beginning. which lies Northeasterly.:.of..the following described line and its extensions: Commencing at the point of beginning of the "above-described property; thence South 57 degrees 20 minutes West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 14.1 feet; thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes West along .the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 45.9 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 31 degrees 54 minutes East to-the shore of Lake Mlnnetonka, and said line there ending. B. That part of the following described property: That part of Lots 1, 2, B, 75 and 76, The First'.Re- arrangement of Phelps' Island Park-lst Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, First Division, also the private street '89 May 21 , 1 985 adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southeasterly line of County Road No. 125 distant 60 feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly corner. of Lot A in said First Re-arrangement of Phelps' Island Park- 1st Div., thence South 38 degrees 40 minutes West along the Sohtheasterly line .of said County Road a distance of 53.4 feet, thence South 57 degrees. 20 minutes .West along the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 181.6 feet to the point of beginning of the .land to be described, thenoe continuing South 57 degrees 20 .minutes West along the Southeas.terly line of said County'Road· a.distance of 14.1 feet; thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes West' along .the Southeasterly line of said County Road a distance of 110.9 feet, thence South 26 de~rees 26 minutes East a distance of 75.7 feet, thence South 37 degrees.21 minutes East a distance of 126 feet, more or·less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, thence Easterly along the shore of Lake Minneton~a to its intersection with a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 minutes. East from the point of.. beginning, thence Northwest'erly along 'said last named line to the point of beginning. . ,. which lies Southwesterly of the following described line and its extensions:~ ': Commencing at the. point of beginning of the above-described property; then'ce South 57 degrees 20 minUtes'West ai°~g the Southeasterly'line of said County Road a distance of 14.1 feet; thence South 76 degrees 15 minutes West along the Southeasterly line 'of'said County Road a distance of 45.9 feet· to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 31 degrees 54 m'inutes'East' of'the shore .of Lake Minnetonka, and said line there ending. (EXHIBIT "A." ATTACHED) 2. No unl~ charges will be assessed or paid against tne newly created building site as it fronts on Heunepin County Road #t25. Park dedication fee in the amoun~ of $300.00 wxl£ be paid when the newly created building site is developed. It is determxned.tnat the constitute a desirable development and it is in properties. foregoing division wz£1 and stable community harmony wxtn adjacent Upon further servicing 4339 the currently r~mnv~ from condition tn~ the present drxveway Wilshlre Boulevard be relocated onto developed dwelling site, the pa%lo be undeveloped site at the east of the. 9O Hay 21, 1R85 currently developed dwelling site, and the boathouse be located four feet from the new property line at the east of Parcel B as show on Exhibit "A". The City. Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified Copy of this resol'ution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 1 80 days of the adoption date of this resolution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Paulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: J'essen, Paulsen, Peterson, ?olston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk · haC'part o! ~ocs It 2, ~ B, ?5.and 76~ The First Re-arrangement o~ Phelps' ZsJand Lots described am folJows: Cc~mencin9 a~ a point in the $outheasCerl~ l~ne o~ County Road distant 60 ~eet Southwesterly'[rom ~he $outhwesCerJ~ co~ner o~ LoC ~ in said ~i~sC ~e-arrangement of Phelps' ZJland Park-lac D~v.~ thence South ~8 degrees 40 ~inuCes Heal along the $outheaster~ Sine o~ ~aid Counc~ Road a distance of 5~.~ ~eet~' thence'South' ~7 de~resz'20'~inuCe~ ~esC aJon~ ch· SouCheesterl~ JJne o£ sa~d County Road a distance o! I~1.6 feet to Ch· po/nC o! be~lnnlny ch· Sand to he de~cribed, thence conCinu~n~ South 57 de,tees 20 m~nuCes Heat a]on~ the $outheasC- erJ~ J~ne of said CounC~ Road a distance o~ 14.1 feet, thence South 76 de,tees I$ minutes Heat aJong ch· $outheasrer]y line o~ ~a~d CounCV Road a distance of I10.9 £eeC~ Chance South 26 degrees 26'minuce~ £a3C a distance o! 75.7 [eeC~ thence South 37 degrees 21 m~nuCes SasC · d~$~ancs · ~26 [ee~ more or les$~ to th~ shore o! Lake ~lnnetonka~ thence £asCsrlF aJon9 ch· shore o~ Lake Minnetonka to ~CJ intersection w~Ch a line which bears South 25 degrees 27 m~nuCes East ~rom the point of beginnin~, thence Horthwes~erly sion9 said Jest named Sine to the point o! be~nning. 257 3 $cale~ ! inch . 30 feet Date :.ApriJ 2~, 19#5 Z herebV cerCl[y thaC this surveV was prepared b9 me or under m~ direc~ supervl$1on~ and ChaC! am a dul~ Registered Eand Surveyor and Civil Engineer under the la~s of Ch· Scats of N~nnesota Certificate of .fUrYe~ for ~ohn $chl~ter snd Phelps' Island Park, First D/vision Henneptn Count~, NlnnesoCa PROPOSED LEGA~ DE$CRIPTZON$ A. Thst pert of the following described property: Division and Lot 3, Phelps' Island Park, First Division, also the private street adjoining said Lots described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southeasterly line of County Road ~o. d~stant 60 feet Southwesterly fro~ the ~outhwesterl~ corner of Lot A in said First R~-arrangement line of said Count~ ~oad a d~s=ance of 5~.4 feet, thence ~uth 57 degrees 20 minutes West along land ~o be described, thence continuing South ~7 degrees 20 minutes West ~long the Sou=heasCerI~ which lies NorCheas=erl~ of the following described 2ina and ~CS extensions: C~enc~ng aC =he po~ of beginning of the above- described property; thence ~uEh ~7 de,tees 20 mknuCe3 West along the ~u~heasterlv line of said CounCy Road a distance of ~4.~ feet; thence feeC =o the point of beginning of the line to be described; Chance ~uCh 3f degrees 54 minutes East to the shore of ~ke ~nneConka, and said line there e~ding. B. ThaC parc of the following described Thac part of ~Cs 1, 2, ~,6,75 and 76, The Firsfi Re-arrangemen~ of Phelps' Island D~vixion and ~C 3, Phelps' Island Park, F~rs= ~v~s~on, a~so the private street adjoining ~Cs described as follows: Commencing ac a po~nt ~n the SouCbeas~erl~ line of CounC~ Road No. 125 l~ne of sai~ Coun=~ Road a distance of ~3.4 feet, CHance. ~u~h 57 degrees 20 minutes wes~ along ~e SouCheasCerly line of Jaid CounC~ Road a distance of ~8~.6 fee~ Co the po~nC of beginnihg of la~d Co be described, Chen~ con~inv~ng. Sou~h ~7 degrees 20 minuCes Wes~ along =he line of said Coun=~ Road · distance of ~4.~ feet; Chance South 76 degrees ]5 =inuCes West alon~ the ~uCheaste~/~ line of Xa~d CouflC~ Road 4 distance of rlO.~ feet, then~ =ouch 26 deg=ees 26 minu:e$ EaJC a dgsCance of 75.7 feet, Chance South ~7 degrees Zl minutes ~asC a distance of ~26 feet, or less, to the shore of ~ke ~nnetonka, thence EasCerl~ along Cbc shore of ~ke MinneConka Co iCJ intersection with a line which bears ~uCh 2~ degrees 27 minutes East from the point of beginn~ng, Chance Northwesterly along sa~d 2asC na~ed line Co :he Rain: of beginning, which lies ~uCh~sCerl~ of the following described lgne and its extensions: 20 minuC=s ~sC 4long the ~uCheasc~rlv 2~ne of sa~d CounCV Road a d~sCance of 14.~.f~eC; =hence Jg7? · . ! %- % h'n ~ LAKE See County Surveyor file for J.M. survey detoil. t RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE AND TO REAFFIRM A SUBDIVISION APPROVAL CONDITION FOR A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIBED LOT AT 4339 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, PID NO. 19-117-23 13 0006 WHEREAS, John and Holly Schulter, owners of a metes and bounds described lot at 4339 Wilshire Boulevard, PID No. 19-117-23 13 0006 have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming accessory structural setback for ab oat house/tool shed; and WHEREAS, the City code requires a 4 foot side yard setback for all accessory structures; and WHEREAS, the applicant under City of Mound Resolution 85-60 previously agreed move the accessory structure (boat house/tool shed) to comply with the 4 foot setback requirements of the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and unanimously recommended denial due to the applicants previous agreement to move the structure into a conforming position on the lot thereby demonstrating that no hardship exists. Approval of the request would grant special conditions to the applicants since by their own actions, the applicants agreed to move the accessory structure as a condition of a subdivision approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby deny the side yard variance of 2.8 feet and does hereby require relocation of the existing boat house/tool shed accessory structure in conformance with the setback provisions of the Mound zoning code and the conditions mutually agreed upon under Resolution No. 85-60. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 85-446 Planning Commission Agenda of October 14, 1985: Board of App.e.al.s Applicant Case No. 85-446 Edwin F. Gibbs Location: 5525 Church Road 5525 Church Road Legal Desc.:' Lots 1 & 2, Block 7, Lakeside Mound, MN. 55364 Park A. L. Crockers 1st Division Phone: 472-7782 Request: 4'Foot Front Yard Setback Variance Zoning: R-2 The applicant is requesting a 4 fOot front yard variance to allow a detached accessory building within 16 feet of the side street property line and 22½ feet from the curb line. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(5) requires two front yards for corner lots. The R-2 Zoning District requires a 20 foot'setback from the property line. The dwelling was built in 1972; the applicant would like to line up the front of his garage with the house; at 16 feet to the property line. Recommendation: Staff does not feel the access to the accessory building would be inconsistent with the surrounding properties, as the boule- vard is 6½ .feet compared with many platted streets paved up to the property lines in residential districts. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be on the Council Agenda of October 22, 1985. Building Official JB/ms PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 14, 1985 Case No. 85-446 4 Foot Front Yard'-Setback V~ri'ance for'5'525 Church.Road Lots 1 and-2, Block. 7, Lakeside Park'A... L. Crackers 1st Division M.r. Edwin'Gibbs was present. Planner Mark Koegler explained'that-basically.Mr. Gibbs wants to build a detached garage around the corner:from.his"house.and, line up .the garage with the h6use, which would bewithin 16'feet of the'side street property line. The~e is a 6½' foot boulevard so garage would be 22½ fee~ from the street` curb. Mr. Gibbs. stated he wants toSave an ornamental tree given him by his grand- children." The Commission--noted that this' would make the property.nonconform- ing for a~y future building and suggested moving tree/garage-.loc~tlon~.'Mr. Gibbs wants garage to store his antique/classic cars and wants to retain some back'yard area; he-doesn't want to move the proposed garage over-4 feet. The R-2 Zoning District requires a 20.foot'setback from the property line. The Commission discussed the request. Reese moved and. Micha~l'seconded'a motion.to approve, th'e'stafffs recommenda- tion'and grant the 4'fo'or front yard setback variance. 'The vote was Byrnes opposed; all others voted in favor. 'Motion carried. This will be on the Council Agenda for.the'~meeting of Octbber 22, 1985. !- OCT- ". ,' - · ' ' "'.5 :., Street Address of Property CITY OF MOUND Case N0. ~o~'-~y~, Fee Paid .s--~. o o TION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION se type the following information) Date Filed /o - ~ -~o'~ Legal Description of Property: Lot S /~, .. Block Addition]~4/~C- ~'~ ~r~: -/4 ,~,~Po~.'~ /3~ ~0PID No. ]~-'/]7 3. Owner's Name Address ' tS' ~' ~-~- 4. Applicant (if other than owner) Day Phone Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Typ: of" ...... r~qu~$ u: ~/~Variance ( Conditional Use Permit ) Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( .) Amendment (') Sign Permit ( )*Other 6. Present Zoning District ~ -~?/~'~-x/~r ,~' /A~ ~ ~. .... 7. Existing Use(s) of Pro~e._rty 8. Has an.application ever been made for zoning, v~iance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ I? 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 conta[ned 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 reqoired by law. Signature of Applicant . Date Planning Commission ReCommendation: To approve the staff's recommendation and grant the 4 foot frontiyard setback variance. Date 10-14-85 Council Action: Resolution No. 10-22-85 4/82 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure '(2) Case # 85-446 ,P. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate North compass direction Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill..Request for a Zoning Varla~ce A. All information b~low'~ a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform'-to'all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~z) No ( ) If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use'. C. 'Do the existing structures comply w.ith all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes If "no", specify each non-conforming use: D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject~property prev~'nt its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in,that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography' ( )- Soil ( ) Too. small '( ) Drainage ( -) Sub-sur'face ' (~) Too shallow ( ) Shape (.~) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~ if yes, explain: Fo Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, Such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (_~)' If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ' (~) No ( ) If no, how many other prgperties are similarly affected~ X. What is the"'minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessarY.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the ~nforcement of this ordinance? 5525 Church Roar~ 7~~ ...... [ .-- · CAS~ NO. 85-446 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Eberhard~ C6nstructi on Co. CHURCH ROAD '--'~-' '---~"'"//// ~, . ~,::. ~,, :~o, jp$ ~, ~Jock 7, Lske Side _ 1Sl DJ.vision, Mound, .... ~4 ~ ,~,i~neton~. ~ ~. We hereby certify thai this is 8 true 8nd correci representation of ~ survey of the boundsries of the I~nd ~bove described ~nd of the Ioc~tJon of 81l bui Iding% if 8hy, thereon, 8nd 811 visible encroachments, if 8ny, from or on's~id D~fed this 25~h d~y of february ~g~2 EGAN,~LD & NOWA~ ~.~urveyors~' .'~' ' -.~ LOT 32 '~ '~ '~' CHURCH RO OF' (.F~ 1¢4 F. Z t'~;)/ LYNWOOD CASE 36~ 3510 # 74~'373 .%~..t¢ ~ , 4: 5' --,o¢S Y , RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, LAKESIDE PARK A.L. CROCKERS FIRST DIVISION PID NO. 13-117-2432 01 01 WHEREAS, Edwin F. Gibbs, owner of Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lakeside Park A.L. Crockers First Division, PID No. 13-117-2432 01 01 has applied for a front yard variance to allow the construction of a detached garage (accessory use); and WHEREAS, the R-2 zoning district code requires a 20 foot front yard setback from the property line; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to construct the garage with a 16 foot setback to the property line due to aesthetic concerns and the desire to align the front wall of the proposed garage with the side wall of the existing house; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of a front yard variance in order to afford the owner reasonable use of the property while the maintaining the most desirable aesthetic placement of the accessory building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a front yard variance of 4 feet for the Edwin F. Gibbs property at 5525 Church Road, Lots 1 and 2, Block 7, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crockers First Division to allow construction of a single car attached garage. A. THOI~IAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. P.EARSON, P.A. THOMAS ~ UNDERWOOD, ~A. LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON,~-ARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 October 14, 1985 Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Lost Lake Land Registration Dear Fran: I am enclosing herewith copies of the Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment, Affidavit signed by me, and Memorandum of the City of Mound in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. You will see from the documents that the Court materiils were prepared about three weeks ago and everything has been held up pending the final Memorandum of the City for filing with the Registrar and the Court. I am sending a copy of this to you, and you may want to share it with the City Council. This will also confirm that you have had a request from a group of developers.. to put this matter on the agenda for the evening of October 22. I am not sure what can'be accom~!ished at this point. Mr. Larson " will be filing with Mr. Edblom all of these materials on October 15, and ~. Edblom will be then reviewing it with the Court to get a Judge to sign it. Chances are it will be referred back to the Registrar of Titles for some sort of advice to the Court. I know the concerns and frustrations of some of thc people' who may have an interest in pnrchasing these properties, but at this point we are working as quickly as possible to get a final determination from the Court as to who owns this property. We still believe that the City's position will prevail. I think I should point out that if the Court were for some reason to rule against us, then we would have an entirely different situation. The City could then continue to use the land for some public purpose, and that would be a decision the Council would have to make at that time. To try to determine that before the Court has ruled on our motion and our points of law would, it seems to me, be premature. I also understood from the prior motion that the City Council had authorized the City staff, being you and me, to put together what areas are going to be eligible for sale at WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LArSON & UNDERWOOD Page 2 Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound October 14, 1985 some future date. You have informed me today that Mr. Cameron has just completed that work, and you will be sending me copies of his conclusions. We also know there are others who have an interest in purchasing this land, and my understanding of the Council's direction was that we were to negotiate with them as well as with the local investors' group when we had a clarification of the title. Your statements to me would indicate that the local group wants to make reference to prior action~ wher'e~t~ey had made an offer for this property. My best recollection is that the City did prepare options and send them to the group which required a payment and that those options were never executed by the investors' group. Certainly at this point the City and this Cit~ Council is not bound by what transpired several years ago. I presume that this council will make its decision based on what .it believes to be in the best interests of the City of Mound, and that decision can be to use the property for a public purpose, or retain part of the property for public purposes, or retain all the property for public purposes if th~ Court places a restriction on the land. As soon as we have a Judge named and a date that the C~urt establishes for arguing our motion for summary judgment, I will give you that information. · Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosures STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN No. 19044 DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SW 1/4 13-117-24 In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation, To Register the Title to Certain Land. TO: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Our Lady of the Lake Church, also known as The Church of Our Lady of the Lake, Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota corporation, and Julian Hook, its attorney; and Herbert E. Wolner and John K. Ogren. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on all the files, pleadings, records, and all proceedings herein, the Applicant City of Mound will bring before the above-named court and the Honorable , District Court Judge, at a hearing to be held on ~ 1985, at the Hennepin County Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, at .m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, a Motion for Summary Judgment, moving the Court for Judgment that the alleged restrictions and reversionary interest of defendant, Our Lady of the Lake Church, alleged to be retained in a deed dated January 17, 1952, recorded in Book 1931 of Deeds, page 530, Entry 118, were terminted as a matter of law by operation of Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 500.20, Subd. 2, commonly referred to as the "thirty year law." In the alternative, should the Motion for Summary judgment not be granted, the City asks that the matter be referred to the Examiner of Titles for further proceedings. Dated: Curtis A. Pearson #84700 James D. Larson #6063X Attorneys for Applicant City of Mound WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 338-4200 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN No. 19044 DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SW 1/4 13-117-24 In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation, To Register the Title to Certain Land. AFFIDAVIT OF CURTIS A. PEARSON STAT.". OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Curtis A. Pearson, being duly sworn on oath, deposes and states: 1. That he is the City Attorney for the City of Mound. 2. That the City of Mound took title to land which is the subject of this proceeding by quit claim deed dated January 17, 1952, running from grantor The Church of Our Lady of the Lake, Mound, Minnesota, also known as Our Lady of the Lake Church, to grantee Village of Mound, recorded in the Hennepin County Recorder's Office in Book 1931, Page 530. 3. That said quit claim deed contained the following restriction (copy attached). Subject to the restriction that the above property shall be used for public purposes only, and said restriction shall be construed as a limitation so that in the event said restriction and limitation is violated the property shah revert to the grantor. 4. That the City of Mound has applied to Register Title to the land conveyed to the City of Mound by Our Lady of the Lake Church. 5. That Defendant Our Lady of the Lake Church and Defendants Herbert E. Wolner and John K. Ogren have filed an Answer in the Registration proceeding, asserting that said land is subject to a restriction that it be used for public purposes only. 6. That the City has served its Land Title Summons upon all parties defendant as required in the Report of Examiner, dated February 14, 1983, and as supplemented on February 21, 1984 and April 12, 1984, and that only Our Lady of the Lake Church and Herbert E. Wolner and John K. Ogren have filed an Answer. 7. That it is the City's position that the restriction created by deed on January 17, 1952, containing the limitation that the subject property be used for public purposes only, was extinguished by operation of the thirty year law, Minn. Stat. Sec. 500.20, Subd. 2, on January 17, 1982, thirty years after it was created. 8.· That Subdivision 2 of Section 500.20 was added by Laws 1937, Chapter 487, and was in effect on January 17, 1952. 9. That it is further the position of the City that the repeal of the thirty year law by Laws of 1982, Chapter 500, Sec. 5, was effective after January 7, 1982, so that the thirty year law operated to extinguish the public use restriction prior to its repeal. Further your affiant sayeth not. Curtis A. Pearson Subscribed and s~or~ to before me this Notary Public No. 19044 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of the Application of THE CITY OF MOUND, a Minnesota municipal corporation, To Register the Title to Certain Land. DISTRICT COUR~ FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT MEMORANDUM OF CITY OF MOUND IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT =a= .... '2 e= ~ound (hereinafter referred to as "Applicant"), respect£ully submits the following Memorandum of Law in.support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. I STATEMENT OF FACTS On January 17, 1952. the Church of Our Lady of Lake, Mound, Minnesota, also known as Our Lady of the Lake Church (hereinafter referred to as "Our Lady of the Lake"), conveyed to the Applicant by Quit Claim Deed, certain real property lying in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lots Thirty-five (35) and Thirty-seven (37), Auditor's Subdivision 170, in the Village of Mound, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County and State of Minnesota. The foregoing deed was filed in the office of the Register of Deeds of Hennepin County and was recorded in Book 1931 of Deeds, Page 530, as Document No. 2765260. A copy of the foregoing deed is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Contained in the above deed is the following language: Subject to the restriction that the above property shall be used for public purposes only, and said restriction shall be construed as a limitation so that in the event said restriction and limitation is violated the property shall revert to the grantor. The Applicant has brought this proceeding to register its title to the land herein, free and clear of the above restriction. Our Lady of the Lake has filed an Answer wherein it alleges that the Applicant's title to the above land is still subject to the above restriction. _~s ~amorandum is submitted in support of Applicant's position that, as a matter of law, the restriction contained in the dee~ des~ribe~ above automaticail~ ceased to be valid and operative on January 17, 1982, 30 years after the date of the deed... II. STATEMENT OF LAW Minnesota Statutes, Section 500.20, Subdivision 2, provides a~ follows: Subdivision 2. Restriction of duration of condition. All covenants, conditions, or restrictions hereafter created by any other means, by which the title or use of real property is affected, shall cease to be valid and operative 30 years after the date of the deed, or other instrument, or the date of the probate of the will, creating them; and after such period of time they may be wholly disregarded. The foregoing section became law in 1937 and was still in force on January 17, 1982, the date when the thirty-year period from the date of the above deed expired. Our Lady of the Lake has filed an Answer alleging that the Applicant's title is subject to the reversionary interest created by the above deed. It bases its position on the grounds that it "has not relinquished its right of reverter in said property and that said interest is not terminated by Minnesota Statutes Section 500.20, Subd. 2, and that said interest is still valid at this time." Whether Our Lady of the Lake has relinquished its reversionary interest is not material to this proceeding. It is clear from the language of Minn. Stat., Section 500.20, Subd. 2, and the cases interpreting it that, whether or.not a gran~'0r relinquishes a reversionary interest, it will "cease to be valid and operative 30 years afte~ the date of the deed." In the Matter of ThC Petition of Turners Crossroads Dev~!e~me~t Ce,~ (Minn. 1979) 277 N.W.2d 364, the Court stated that regarding Minn. Stat. Section 500.20, Subd. 2: We feel . . . that these issues are important and that we might offer some guidance to the bench and bar of Minnesota by discussing them. Turner, supra, at 372. The Court then went on to state that: Subdivision 2' addresses the more general problem of conditions that impose a perpetual restriction 'on use or title of land, whether or not the condition is "nominal." This subdivision affects onl~ those covenants, conditions or restrictions created after the date of the statute and imposes a 30-year limit on their validity. The reference to "the dabe of the deed or other instrument, creating them" indicates tha~. any covenant, condition~_ Qr restriction c~in &deed that is aconveyaDce of real property is covered ~ Subdivision 2. Turner, supra, at 373. (Emphasis added) The Court in Turner then cites the earlier case of ~_0_~ and RedevelopmeDt Authority of South ¢_~ Paul ~, United. Stockyards Corp., (Minn. 1976) 244 N.W.2d 275, and states that the above interpretation is supported by its finding in the UDited Stockyards case that a reversionary interest contained in a quit claim deed would become inoperative under Subdivision 2. The United ~2~I~ case dealt with two parcels of land donated to the City of South St. Paul in 1940 by separate quit claim deeds, one for municipal purposes and the other for a public park. The Court concluded that: Even if these words were intended to limit the city's interest to a defeasible or conditional fee rather than a fee simple absolute, appellant's reversionary interest would have become inoperable no later than 1970 under Minn. St. 500.20, Subd. 2. That statute was enacted in 1937 and it must be presumed that appellant had knowledge thereof when executing these deeds in 1940. United Stockyards, supra, at 276. The Court in Turner concludes its discussion of Subdivision 2 by statin~ that: ~'__ the statute is 'to a~hieve ils pu~pos~ of =~-' z~,,~:===i~B restrictions on alienability of land, Subdivision2 must be read as applying to covenants, conditions, or restrictions created by any instrument conveying land. TurBer., supra, at 373. After declaring the statute to be constitutional, the Court in Turner.~ closed its opinion by finding: · . . that even in the event the covenant would not be extinguised by operation of the common law, it will automatically terminate . . . by reason of Minn. St. 500.20, Subd. 2 ..... Turner, supra, at 373. The conclusion reached in Turner is also supported by the Minnesota Bar Association. Title Standard No. 91(a), adopted and approved by the Minnesota Bar Association on June 19, 1982, provides: Ail covenants, conditions, and restrictions created on or after April 27, 1937, by any means, including, but not limited to, a grant, deed, devise, conveyance, declaration, or will, which, at the time of examination, are more than thirty years old, may be disregarded by'an examiner if the thirty-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982. The thirty-year period is to be measured from the date of the document or instrument creating the covenants, conditions or restrictions, except that, as to a will, the thirty-year period is to be measured from the date the will is admitted to probate. The Cases and the title standard cited in this Memorandum leave no doubt as to the manner in which Subdivision 2 is to be interpreted. Moreover, such interpretation is clearly consistent with the intent of the legislature as expressed in the preamble to the act '~ which added Subdivision 2 to Minn. Stat. Section 500.20. The preambl~~-- to said act reads as follows: An act to amend Mason's Minnesota Statutes of 1927, Sections 8075 and 8065; and to define the status of conditions, rights to re-enter for condition broken, and possibilities of reverter, attached to or created by a grant or conveyance of land; and limiting the life of OnvPnan~8: conditions, and restrictions, so attachJd or .... ~ the time within which rights to re-enter or to ~ ...... =~ ia~d for breaches of conditions subsequent may be asserted. 1937 Minn. Laws, c. 487, S.F. No. 279. III CONCLUSION NO issues of material fact are in dispute. The deed from Our Lady of the Lake to the Applicant is dated January 17, 1952 and the 30-year period expired prior to August 1, 1982. The legal authoritie= cited in this Memorandum leave no doubt that Minn. Stat. Section 500.20, Subd. 2 is absolutely controlling in determining the status of the restrictions contained in deeds dated on or after April 27, 1937 where the 30-year period ends prior to August 1, 1982. The restriction in Applicant's deed falls within the scope of the foregoing subdivision, and must therefore be adjudged to have become invalid and inoperative on January 17, 1982. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that its Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Respectfully submitted CITY OF MOUND CURTIS A. PEARSON UNDERWOOD /THOMAS F. Atty. Reg. No. 111788 Attorneys for City of Mound 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis: MN 5~462 Tel: (612) 338-4200 I~zoI,~zty m~ll rc~ert to ~e October 11, 1985 The Honorable Mayor and Council Members of Mound, Minnesota Mound City Hall 5~1 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 5536~ RE: Title Clearance and Registration] of Lots 35 and 37 Auditor' s Subdivision No. 170 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members of the City of Wound: At the September lOth council meetinga resolution waspresented, and passedunanimously instructing theMo~nd Legal Departemnt to proceed withhaste on title clearance and registration since this project has nowbeenunder discussion for approximately three years. In the past we have twice' received a cc~ceptional approval by the Mound Council and were about ready to enter into a sales agreement prepared by your legal deparhnent when the PCA advised us that the area may contain contaminates which of course delayed the entire process. Our potential associates consisting of: Kraus-Anderson Development Co., Mitsubishi International Inc., and Perkins Restaurants, Inc. have been very patient but wondering 'if and when we will be startinU. It is important that scme action be started in the courts which to our belief has not ~n taken. Thank you for considering either insistin9 on a report frcm your lecjal department or assiuning this case to another attorney's office. We ask that copies of this letter be included in the council's next packet. A. THOI~IA$ WURST. P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. ,JOSEPH ~'. HA~IILTON, P.A. JA~E5 D. LARSON, ~A. ~OGER ~. ~ELLOW~ LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD I100 F~RST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 ~ctober 16, 1985 TELEPHONE C612) Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager City of Mound~ 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: $1,800,000 G.O. Tax Increment Redevelopment Bonds of 1985 Dear Fran: I am enclosing herewith proposed sale minutes for the Council's consideration at its meeting on October 22,'1985. The bids for the bonds will be taken by Miller & Schroeder at 12:00 noon on that date, and it is necessary that the City Council adopt this formal resolution. There is also attached a copy of the County Auditor's Certificate, and if you will get certified copies to Phyllis Slattery at Miller & Schroeder or to me after the Council takes its action, we can get those recorded with the Hennepin County Auditor. I am also sending a copy of the sale minutes to Eldo Schmidt, Chairman of the HRA. I am concerned that other members of the HRA may not be advised as to what is trans- piring, so I hope that either you or Eldo can figure out a way to put these things in a package and get them to the other Commissioners so they know precisely what is happening with the project. Very truly yours, Curtis A. Pearson, City Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Ms. Phyllis Slattery Mr. Eldo Schmidt EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF TEE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE MOUND ~ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in the City of Mound on Tuesday, October 22, 1985, commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. The following members were present: and the following were absent: The Mayor announced that the meeting was convened for the consideration of the bids which had been received for the purchase of $1,800,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985, as advertised for sale. The City Clerk presented affidavits showing publication of notice of sale in the official newspaper and in Commercial West, a financial paper published in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which affidavits were examined and found satisfactory and ordered placed on file. The City Clerk presented the bids which had been received, opened, and tabulated by her at the time specified in the notice of sale. Such bids were as follows: After due consideration of said bids, Councilmember adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $1,800,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BONDS OF 1985; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT. BE IT RESOLVED, By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The bid of Miller Securities, Incorporated, Minneapolis, Minnesota to purchase $1,800,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985 of the City described in the notice of sale thereof is hereby found and determined to be the highest and best bid received pursuant to duly advertised notice of sale and shall be and is hereby accepted, such bid being to purchase such bonds at a price of $ lr775,426.22 plus accrued interest to date of delivery, such bonds to bear interest as follows: 6.50% - 1988 8.30% - 1997 6.50 - 1989 8.50 - 1998 7.00 - 1990 8.60 - 1999 7.20 - 1991 8.70 - 2000 7.40 - 1992 8.75 - 2001 7.60 - 1993 8.80 - 2002 7.80 - 1994 8.90 - 2003 8.00 - 1995 8.90 - 2004 8.15 - 1996 The sum of $ 2,426.22 , being the amount bid in excess of $1,773,000 shall be credited to the bond sinking fund hereinafter created. The City Clerk is directed to retain the good faith check of the successful bidder pending completion of the sale and delivery of the bonds. The City Clerk is directed to return the checks of the unsuccessful bidders forthwith. 2. The City of Mound shall forthwith issue and sell its General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985 (the 'Bonds") in the principal amount of $1,800,000, dated October 1, 1985. The 'printed, fully registered bonds, shall be in the denomination of $5,000 each or any higher multiple thereof for a single maturity, bearing interest as above set forth, all interest payable April 1, 1986, and semiannually thereafter on October 1 and April 1 in each year, and which bonds mature serially on October 1 in the years and amounts as follows: YEAR AMOUNT YEAR AMOUNT 1988 $ 35,000 1997 $125,000 1989 40,000 1998 125,000 1990 50,000 1999 150,000 1991 75,000 2000 150,000 1992 75,000 2001 150,000 1993 75,000 2002 150,000 1994 100,000 2003 150,000 1995 100,000 2004 150,000 1996 100,000 The Bonds maturing after October 1, 1999, will be subject to redemption and prepayment, at the option of the City and in whole or in part, in inverse order of maturities and by lot assigned in proportion to their principal amount, within any maturity, on October 1, 1999, or any interest payment date thereafter at a price equal to the principal amount thereof to be redeemed plus accrued interest to the date of redemption. 3. Both principal of and interest on the Bonds shall be payable at and the City of Mound shall pay the reasonable charges of said bank for its services as paying agent. 4. The Bonds shall be in substantially the following form: (Face of the Bonds) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF ~ENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT BOND OF 1985 Rate Maturity Date of Original Issue CUSIP October 1, 1985 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, a municipal corporation, (the City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and, for value received, hereby promises to pay to or registered assigns, the principal sum of FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS, on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above, payable on October 1 and April 1 in each year, commencing April 1, 1986, to the perscn in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the 15th day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal office of the Bond Registrar hereinafter designated, the principal hereof are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft of the , in , Minnesota, as Bond Registrar, Transfer Agent and Paying Agent (the Bond Registrar), or its successor designated under the Resolution described herein. Additional provisions of this Bond are contained on the reverse hereof and such provisions shall for all purposes have the same effect as though fully set forth hereon. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been executed by the Bond Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed by the facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the Acting City Manager, and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set forth below. Dated (Facsimile Signature) Acting City Manager (Facsimile Signature) Mayor CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within. as Bond Registrar and Paying Agent By Authorized Representative (Reverse of the Bonds) This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $1,800,000 (the Bonds), all of like date and tenor except as to serial number, denomination, interest rate, redemption privilege, and maturity date, issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council on October 22, 1985, (the Resolution), to provide funds to defray the expenses incurred and to be incurred in financing public redevelopment costs of a Tax Increment Project, pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.521 and 273.71 to 273.78. This Bond is payable primarily from tax increments resulting from tax levies upon the increased value of property within said Project as pledged in a certain Tax Increment Agreement executed by the City and the Housing and Tax Increment Authority of the City of Mound on , 1985, but the City is required by law to pay maturing principal hereof and interest hereon from any available funds of the City if moneys on hand in the Bond Fund are insufficient therefor. The Bonds are issuable only as fully registered bonds, in denominations of $5,000 or any multiple thereof, of single maturities. All Bonds maturing after October 1, 1999, are subject to being called by the City for prior redemption on said date and any interest payment date thereafter at par plus accrued interest. As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or his attorney; and may also be surrendered in exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange, the City will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. IT IS ~EREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City according to its terms have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed in regular and due form as so required; that the City has levied or will levy special assessment and ad valorem taxes, collectible in the years and amounts required, along with tax increments, to produce sums not less than five percent in excess of the principal of and interest on the Bonds as such principal and interest respectively become due, and has appropriated the same to the Bond Fund in the manner specified in Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61; that, in the event of any accumulated or anticipated deficiency in the Bond Fund, additional ad valorem taxes are required by law to be levied upon all taxable property in the City without limitation as to rate or amount; and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed any constitutional or statutory limitation. The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to the applicable laws or regulations: TEN COM - TEN ENT - JT TEN - list. as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT...Custodian .... (Cust) (Minor) as tenants by the entireties as joint tenants with right of survivorship and not as tenants in common under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act ..... (~t~t~) ' Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above ASSIGNMENT For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns, and transfers unto the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. Dated: Signature Guaranteed: NOTICE: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or any change whatever. Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a national bank or trust company or by a brokerage firm having a membership in one of the major stock exchanges. The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning the assignee requested below is provided: Name and Address (Include information for all joint owners if the Bonds are held by joint accounts) PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER OR OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE 5. The Bonds shall be issuable only in fully registered form. The interest and principal amount thereof shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 6. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond shall be dated as of the last interest payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to April 1, 1986, in which case such Bond shall be dated as of October 1, 1985. The interest on the Bonds shall be payable on April 1 and October 1 in each year, commencing April 1, 1986, to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day. 7. Registration. The City shall appoint and shall maintain a bond registrar, transfer agent, and paying agent (the Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its principal corporate trust office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of Bonds and the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or exchanged. (b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of any Bond duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until such interest payment date. (c) Exchange of Bonds. Whenever any Bond is surrendered by the registered owner for exchange, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the registered owner or the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. (d) Cancellation. Ail Bonds surrendered upon any transfer or exchange shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City. (e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When any Bond is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Bond or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to m~ke transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name any Bond is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of such Bond, whether such Bond shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Bond and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner's order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the City upon such Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of Bonds, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. In case any Bond shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Bond of like amount, number, maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of any such mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any such Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case of a Bond lost, stolen or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Bond was lost, stolen or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it, in which bond the City and the Registrar shall be named as obligees, all pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Sections 475.69 and 475.70. All Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the City. If the mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed Bond has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Bond prior to payment. 8. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City hereby appoints as the initial Registrar. The Mayor and the City Manager are authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with as Registrar. Upon merger or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, such corporation shall be authorized to act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove any Registrar upon thirty (30) days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor Registrar shall deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and shall deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date, without further order of this City, the City Treasurer shall transmit to the Registrar, from the General Obligation Redevelopment Bond Fund described in paragraph 16 hereof, monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due. 9. Preparation and Delivery. The Bonds shall be prepared under the direction of the City Clerk and shall be executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager, provided that the Mayor and Manager's signatures may be facsimiles thereof. In case any officer whose signature, or a facsimile of whose signature, shall appear on the Bonds shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of any Bond, such signature or facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless and until a certificate of authentication on such Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different bonds need not be signed by the same representative of the Registrar. The executed certificate of authentication on each bond shall be conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. When the Bonds have been so executed and authenticated, they shall be delivered by the Clerk to the Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price, and the Purchaser shall not be obligated to see to the application of the purchase price. 10. The Clerk shall cause the proceeds of the Bonds to be applied for the financing of public redevelopment costs authorized and approved pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.515, 462.521, 462.545, 462.585 and 273.71 to 273.78. 11. The Bonds will be payable primarily from tax increments collected from the redevelopment district and project. It is hereby determined that the estimated collection of tax increments for the payment of the Bonds will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the County Auditor of Hennepin County and obtain the certificate required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.63. 12. When all of the Bonds have been discharged as provided in this resolution, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the holders of the Bonds shall cease. The City may discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds which are due on any date by irrevocably depositing with the Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full; or, if any Bond should not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit. The City may also at any time discharge its obligations with respect to any Bonds, subject to the provisions of law now or hereafter authorizing and regulating such action, by depositing irrevocably in escrow, with a bank qualified by law as an escrow agent for this purpose, cash or securities which are general obligations of the United States or securities of United States agencies which are authorized by law to be so deposited, bearing interest payable at such time and at such rates and maturing on such dates as shall be required, without reinvestment, to pay all principal and interest to become due hereon to maturity. 13. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the Reglations), and covenants to take any and all actions within its powers to ensure that the interest on the Bonds will not become subject to taxation under the Code and the Regulations. 14. The City has agreed to furnish to the purchaser the approving legal opinion of Messrs. Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton, Larson and Underwood, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and such opinion is hereby requested. The Clerk shall obtain a copy of said approving legal opinion, which shall be complete except as to dating thereof, and shall cause said opinion to be printed on each Bond, together with a certificate to be signed by the facsimile signature of the Clerk in substantially the following form: Ihereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the legal opinion executed by the above named attorneys, except as to the dating thereof, which opinion has been handed to me for filing in my office prior to the time of bond delivery. Francene C. Clark City Clerk City of Mound At the time of delivery, the Clerk shall prepare a similar separate certificate, and the Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to execute such certificate in the name of the City upon receipt of such opinion and to file the opinion in the City offices. 15. The Bonds issued hereunder shall be payable from the General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985 Fund (the "Tax Increment Bonds Sinking Fund") created by this resolution adopted October 22, 1985, and the City hereby pledges to said fund the proceeds of all tax increments from the Project Area in which the Project financed by the Tax Increment Bonds (the "Project") is loca%ed and received by the City from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the Tax Increment Agreement (the "Tax Increment Agreement") executed by the City and the Authority on , 1985. If any payment of principal or interest on the Tax Increment Bonds shall become due when~here is not sufficient money in said fund to pay the same, the City Finance Director shall pay such principal or interest from the general fund of the City and such fund may be reimbursed for such advances out of proceeds of tax increments and tax levies when received. 17. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the purchaser of the Bonds and to the attorneys approving the same, certified copies of proceedings and records of the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the Bonds and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein. 19. The Mayor and Acting City Manager/City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the official statement or prospectus prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief said statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of said official statement or prospectus as it relates to the City. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Approved and signed this day of October, 1985. MaWr Attest: City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF MOUND I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on October 22, 1985, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript therefrom. WITNESS My hand officially as such Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of , 1985. Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION WHERE NO AD VALOREM TAX LEVY I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on October 22, 1985, relating to the issuance and sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985 in the amount of $1,800,000, dated October 1, 1985, has been filed in my office and said obligations have been registered on the register of obligations WITNESS My hand and official seal this 1985. in my office. __day of County Auditor Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) By Deputy Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. Toll Free Minnesota (800) 862-6002 Toll Free Other States (800) 328-6122 Northwestern Financial Center · P.O. Box 789 · 7900 Xerxes Avenue South · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431 · (612) 831-1500 RE: RESULTS OF SALE - OCTOBER 22, 1985 BID OPENING 12:00 p.m. BID AWARD 7:30 p.m. $1,800,000 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REDEYELOPMEN~' BONDS 0F 1985 RATING: A - Standard & Poors A - Moody's Investors Service, Incorporated BIDDERS Miller Securities~ Incorporated RATES 6.50% - 1988 6.50 - 1989 7.00 - 1990 7.20 - 1991 7.~-0 - 1992 7.60 - 1993 7.80 - 19914 8.00 - 1995 8.15 - 1996 8.30 - 1997 8.50 - 1998 8.60 - 1999 8.70 - 2000 8.75 - 2001 8.80 - 2002 8.90 - 2003 8.90 - 200# PRICE $1,775,426.22 N.I.C. 8.5988% ($1,983,323.78) First National Bank of Minneapolis The First National Bank of St. Paul Merrill Lynch Capizal Markets Dean Witter Reynolds, Incorporated M. H. Novick & Company, Incorporated Marquette National Bank 7.00% 7.00 7.20 7.25 7./40 7.60 7.80 8.00 8.10 8.25 8.40 8.60 8.70 8.80 8.80 8.90 8.90 - 1988 - 1989 - 1990 - 1991 - 1992 - 1993 - 199# - 1995 - 1996 - 1997 - 1998 - 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 20014 $1,773,1##.00 8.610% ($1,985,931.00) Headquarters: Minneapolis, Minnesota Branch Office: Downto~'n Minneapolis · Solana Beach, California · Santa Monica, California · Northbrook, Illinois · St. Paul, Minnesota · Naples, Florida · Tallahassee, Florida · Carson City, Nevada u!suo~s!fA'OO~im~t,l!la[ o M~Ol::l'OOss~q,ql,q · mos~uu!Di 'ln~d '.sS o s!OU!lll'~loo.,Clq~,oN · mosouu!l~ 'S!lode~uu!lN mm.nmbp~H Of' T 10'E/Z' l~ #OOg - 00'6 EOOZ - 00'6 gOOg - 06'R IOOg - Og'8 O00g - OZ'R 666I - 09'~ R66T - L66! - O#'S 966I - OZ'g C66I - OT'R #661 - 06'L E66I - OZ'Z Z66I - OC'L I66I - O#'L 0661- OE'Z 6g6I - O~'Z gg61 - %OZ'L (O~'gZ6'E66'I~) %OC#9'g O0'~EZ~ELL~T~ #OOg - 06'R £00~ - 06'~ gOOg- O~'R lOOg - fL'R O00g - OL'R 666I - 09'g R66I- 0~'$ L66! - 0~'~ 966I - ~'$ f66I - Ol'~ ~66I - 06'Z £66I - OZ'Z g66I - Of'Z 166T - 066T - 6R6I- fZ'Z p~Te.JodJo:)ul '.:eqqeA~ 'eU!~d po:l.'e.lodJo:)uI ~$~.o::)..rel~ )g u!uoJD pe~.'eJodao::)uI 'Apool~ ~ u~Jnf p~3.~JodJoDuI ~q~Jo/~so~] m.~Cl 00gi'1£9 (EI9) · I£~99 e~°sauu!IN 'S!l°dgauu!IAl · qm°s anua^v saxaax 006L · 69L xoH Oil · ~a:~uaT) lepUeU!H u'~a:~saaqaa°N · aul 'Naumn..:I :apaoxp$ ZZI9'gZg (005) sa~e~g laq~O amd 11% Z009'Z95 (005) ~°sauu!N °%t 11°I $ i, 800,000 G.O. City of Mound, Minr~esota Tax Increment Redevelopment Debt Service Schedule Bonds of 1985 Issue Date: Settlement Date: First Coupon: 10/01/85 11/26/85 4/01/86 Date Princioal Coupon 4/01/86 10/01/86 4/01/87 10/01/87 4/01/88 10/01/88 4/01/89 ~,.~,~,10/01/89~ 4/01/90' 10/01/90 4/01/91 10/01/91~ 4/01/921 10/01/92' ~ 4/01/93 10/01/93 4/01/94 !0/01./94 4/0!./95 10/01/95 4/01/96 10/01/96 4/01/97 10/01/97 4/01/98 10/0!/98 4/01/99 ~_~./0~tq9 410!/00 t0/01/00 4/01/01 10/01/01 4/01/02 10/0!/02 4/01/03 10/0!/03 4/01/04 10/01/04 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000. 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 35,000.00 6.500 0.00 0.000 40,000.00 6.500 0.00 0.000 50,000.00 7.000 0.00 0.000 75,000.00 7.200 0.00 0.000 75,000.00 7.400 0,00 0.000 75,000.00 7.600~ 0.00 0.000 100.~00.~ 7.8~0 i00,000.00 8.000 0.00 0.000 100,000.00 8.150 0.00 0.000 125,000.00 8.300 0.00 0.000 t25,000.00 8.500 0.00 0.000 ~0.~0 00 8.600 i50,~00.00 8.700 0.00 0.000 150,000.00 8.750 0.00 0.000 150,000.00 8.800 0.00 0.000 i50,000.00 8.900 0.00 0.000 i50,000.00 8.900 Int erest 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 73,337.50 73,337.50 72,037.50 72,037.50 70~287.50 70,287.50 67,587.50 67,587.50 64,812.50 64,812.50 61,962.50 61,962~50 58.062~50 58,062.50 54,062.50 54,062.50 49,987.50 49,987.50 44,800.00 44,800.00 39~487.50 39.487.50 33,037.50 33,037.50 26,512.50 26,5!2.50 19,950.00 19,950.00 13,350.00 13,350.00 6,675.00 6,675.00 TOTALS 1,800,000.00 !,958,750.00 Accrued Ir~terest to 11/26/85 = 22,756.25 Total Bored Years = Gross Interest Cost Average Couoon N!C = Average Life = Discount @ 100.0~0 = $ 23065. 1,958,750.00 8.492% 8.492% 12.81 Years 0.00 Debt Service 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 74,475.00 109,475.00 73,337.50 113,337.50 72,037.50 _cc,037.50 70.287.50 t45,287.50 67,587.50 142,587.50 64,812.50 !39,8!2.50 61,962.50 16!.962.50 5~62.50 158,062.50 54,062.50 154,062.50 49,987.50 174,987.50 44,800.00 !69,800.00 39,487.50 189.487.50 33..037.50 !83,037.50 26,512.50 !76,512.50 19,950.00 169,950.00 t3,350.00 163,350.00 6,675.00 156,675.00 3,758,750.00 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE AS TO REGISTRATION WHERE NO AD VALOREM TAX LEVY I, the undersigned County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on October 22, 1985, relating to the issuance and sale of General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds of 1985 in the amount of $1,800,000, dated October 1, 1985, has been filed in my office and said obligations have been registered on the register of obligations WITNESS My hand and official seal this__ 1985. in my office. day of County Auditor Hennepin County, Minnesota (SEAL) By Deputy CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOO ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: Acting City Hamager Officer Ewald October 17, 1985 I have made'several checks after dark in the ~800 block of Shorewood Lane in reference to the street light request. I have also talked to all residents who had signed the petition which read, "We request approval for the installation of a street light located at ~871Shorewood Lane in Mound", which does include the entire block. All comments made by the individuals were basically the same, as they have discussed the street light in depth between themselves. The reasons for their request are as follows: The safety for the numerous children living in the area · The hill in the block being so dark · Several thefts and reports of vandalism in the area Two reported cases of burglary The person most affected by the thefts and burglaries has been Mr. Briggs of ~87~ Shorewood Lane, although all residents of the area would like a street light. My pe'rsonal recommendation would be to install a street light, center block, near the bottom of the hill. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Officer Ewald Badge ~ 18 JNE/kee CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: JOHN EWALD FROM: ACTING CITY MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 8, 1985 Attached is another request for a street light. Please check into this and let me know what your is before October ]7, 1985. recommendation Fran An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. October 2, 1985 Mr. Greg Skinner, Public Works Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Mr. Skinner: I am writing to request approval for getting a street light installed at 1871 Shorewood Lane in Mound. This neighborhood is exceptionally dark due to its being located in a heavily wooded area and because of it's winding streets. There have been several burglaries and incidents of vandalism in this neighborhood in the past 2-3 years. I myself have been the victim of 5 of these incidents. I have attached a petition signed by many in the immediate area, who would like to see a street light placed in the above location. Thank you for your time in reviewing this request. Your immediate at- tention and resolution to this problem will be greatly appreciated. Regard;~, Stephen L. Briggs ~/~ · puno~ u~ ~u~ poo~oqs Y£8I ~ p~soI ~6TI ~s ~ ~o uo~ll~su~ ~q~ ao~ i~Aoadd~ ao~ NOIAIA~d · .... October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $22,231.00 FOR 1976 WATER REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS, funds from water revenue will be great enough to pay principal and interest payments due in 1986 on the 1976 Water Revenue Bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby request that the County Auditor not levy the $22,231.00 established for the taxes payable in 1986 for Water Revenue Bonds. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember andseconded byCouncilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1982 IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,000.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution ~82-242 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $18,000.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $18,000.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1982. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1976 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,685.00 ~HEREAS,.there is a Resolution ~76-372 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $1 ,685.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1976; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1985. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $1,685.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1976. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1979 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,44~.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution ~79-295 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $20,444.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1979; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $20,444.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1979. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION CANCELLING THE LEVY ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS OF 1980 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,288.00 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #80-223 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $6,288.00 for General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980; and WHEREAS, it appears that there will be sufficient funds to cover the principal and interest due in 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to make the levy of $6,288.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1980. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $18,693.00 FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1981 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #81-143 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $40,100.00 for Fire Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1981; and WHEREAS, there will be funds provided through contracts with surrounding municipalities to cover the principal and interest due in 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to levy $18,693.00 of the $40,100.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the Fire Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1 981. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk $200.00 ON SALE $25.00 OFF SALE Date of Application CITY OF HOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR October 15, 1985 License Period: May through April 30 of the fo 1 ] ow.i.ng -_yea r- OPT _ Original: X Renewal Applicant Name: David (Owner/Manager) (First) Applicant Date of Bir(h: 3/29/58 Yes Citizen: Home Address: 6673 Kara Drive Alan (Middle) Drivers Lic. No.: Edquist (Last) E 322 135 040 249 City: Eden Prairie Zip: 55344 Home Telephone No.: 612/934-7837 Company Name: SuperAmerica stations Inc Social Security No.: 476- 78 - 6958 Company Telephone No.: 612/887-6100 Company Address: 1240 W. 98th'Street C i ty :Bloomington Zip: 55431 Company Officials: 1, STORE LOCATION 5337 Shoreline Blvd 2. Mound, MN 55364 SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 1 (First) (Middle) (Last) (First) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) (Date of Birth) o (Fi rst) (Middle) (Last) (Date of Birth) Type of Business Sale of groceries~ merchandise, sundry items and petroleum products References: (List three - name and address of each) Wally Anderson RC Cnl~ - Go]de Medal Bev,, PO BOX 43466, St.Paul~ MN 55164 - Coors - Mark 7 Dist., 81St.Anthony Pkwy., Mpls, MN (Tom Frid) 645-0'501 781-6636/646-6063 College City Beverage., Hw7 3., Northfield, MN 507-645-4106/333-1302 Indicate whether you sold $10,000 or more of non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine in pre- vious year: Yes: No: X All applicants are to file a copy of the proof of insurance With fhe Commissioner of'Public- S~fet~/' (Minn. Stat., Sec. 340.11, Subd. 21). SECTION 32.03. Application for License. A~i applications for any license to sell 9on-into)~cating malt liquor shall be made on for~.s to be supplied by the City setting forth the name of the person asking for such license, his age, representations as to his chara'ctsr ~ith such references as may be required, his citizsnship, the location %.~ere such business is to be carried on, whether such application is for "on sale" or "off sales", the business in connection ~th ~ich the proposed license ~ri]_l operate, whether ~pplican% is o~rner and operator of such business, the time such applicant has been in that Yusiness st %hat elaco, and such other information as the governing body may require rom to It to a alse t Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Approved Denied Police Oept. Administrative ..... Street Dept. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Water & Sewer Dept. ATTACHMENT 1 OFFICERS & DI'RECTORB OF BUPERAMERICA STATIONS, INC. NAME & ADDRESS Richard Albert Jensen 4516 Hibiscus Ave. Edina, MN 55435 Clyde whirr, Rt. 2, Box 73-B Catlettsburg, KY 41129 Robert Harold Compton 1724 S. llth St. I~onton, OH 45638 Gler, n Gene Wilson 1109 Walnut Ave. Ashland, KY 41101 PDSITION & SOCIAL SECURIty ~9. President/Director 471-12-2770 Vice President 404-~8-0036 Vice President/ Director 407-42-~085 Secretary/Director 403-20-8364 August 20, 1923 Kimball, MN February 13, 194~ Sandy Hook, Kentucky September 26, 1934 Milford, OH October 10, 1920 Russel 1, KY Joseph Marvin Quirt 117 Stoneybrooke Dr. Ashland, KY 41101 Paul Steven Meyer 605 Sunset Drive Ashland, KY 41101 Frank Johnston Smith~t. 2500 Elm Street Ashland, KY 41101 Charles David Ellis 1201Medellin Court Lexington, KY 4050~ John McDowell Ross 205? Parasol Drive Lexington, KY 40513 Treasurer 425-96-9700 Assistant Secretary 405-58-5750 Assistant Secretary 404-36-2595 Asst. Treasurer/ Asst. Secretary 232-62-2758 Asst. Secretary/ Asst. Treasurer 403-36-8966 August 18, 1947 Vicksburg, MS July 7, 1945 Covington, KY March 25, 1925 Allensville, KY December 16, 1938 Huntington, WV December 27, 1932 Cincinnati, OH Ashlar. d Sub Six, Inc., 2000 Ashland Dr., Russel, Kentucky. the sole stockholder of SuperA~nerica Stations, Inc. All of the above natured individuals are citizer, s of the United States. REVISED 4/15/85 307/03 NOTICE Pursuant to Laws of Minnesota, 1984, Chapter 502, Article 8, Section 2 (270.72) (Tax Clearance; Issuance of Licenses), the licensing authority is required to provide to the Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification num- ber and the social security number of each license applicant. Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the use of this infor- mation: This information may be used to deny the issuance or renewal of your Hcense in the event you owe Minnesota sales, employer's withholding or motor vehicle excise taxes; e Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will supply it only to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement the Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service; e FAILURE TO SUPPLY THIS INFORMAl-ION MAY JEOPARDIZE OR DELAY THE PROCESSI2qG OF YOUR LICENSE ISSUANCE OR Applicant's Last Name Jensen Applicant's Address First Name Middle Initial Richard A. C~ty, State, Zip Code 4516 Hibiscus Avenue Applicant's Social Security No. 471-12-2770 Business Name SuperJLmeri ca Stations, Business Address Inc. Edina, MN 55435 "' P°sitioh (Officer, Partner, e{~.) Officer City, State, Zip Code 1240 West 98th Street Minnesota Tax' I(~e~'tiI~ica't~}{n Number Bloomington, MN 55431 5321216 Signature~ R..A. Jensen Date NAME AND ADDRESS OF AGENCY United Service Agency, lng. Post Office Box 11 ?6§ Lexington, Kentucky 40577 NAME AND ADDRESS OF INSURED SuperAmeri ca Subsidiary of Ashland Oil, 1240 West 98th Street Bloomington, MN 55431 Inc. A Insurance Co. of North America B INA of Texas C INA Ins. Co. of Illinois D Atlantic Employers Insurance Co. E Texas Employers' Ins. Association F G This is to certify that policies of insurance listed below have been issued to the insured named above and are in force at this time. COMPANY LETTER A TYPE OFINSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY [] COMPREHENSIVE FORM [] PREMISES--OPERATIONS EXPLOSION AND COLLAPSE [] HAZARD [] UNDERGROUND HAZARD [] PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS HAZARD [] CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE iNDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS [] PERSONAL INJURY AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY [] COMPREHENSIVE FORM [] OWNED [] HIRED [] NON-OWNED EXCESS LIABILITY [] UMBRELLA FORM [] OTHER THAN UMRRELLA FORM WORKERS' COMPENSATION and EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTHER POLICY NUMBER LAB 26604 LAB 26604 RSCC18142983 RSCC20572243 RSCC18135000 RSCC18135036 WC-A-93478 POLICY EXPIRATION DATE 12-1-86 12-1-86 12-1-84 8 renewats thereofto 12-1-86 Limits of Liability in Thousands (DO0) BODILY INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED EACH OCCURRENCE 1,000 PERSONAL INJURY BODILY INJURY (EACH PERSON) BODILY INJURY (EACH OCCURRENCE) PROPERTY DAMAGE $ BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE COMBINED STATUTORY $ 1,000 AGGREGATE $ 1,000 ~'~'~';F,-:_(,-. ,¥'~ -. ~,~<,~ ~.,~,~ ~- ~- ~5,-~ ~.. DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS,' LOCATIONS/VEHICLES Policy No. LAB26604 includes Dram Shop Coverage. Store No. 4194, in Hound, Dram Shop coverage covers the period Nov 1, 1985 through April 30, 1986. Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will endeavor to mail __days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CERTIFICATE HOLDER: City of Hound 5341Haywood Road Mound, HN 55364 DATE ISSUED: October 11, 1985 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 99343 Ill 83) October 22, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR NOT TO LEVY $12,823.00 FOR FIRE EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES OF INDEBTEDNESS OF 1984 WHEREAS, there is a Resolution #84-119 with the Hennepin County Auditor directing a levy of $27,510.00 for Fire Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1984; and WHEREAS, there will be funds provided through contracts with surrounding municipalities to cover the principal and interest due in 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby direct the Hennepin County Auditor not to levy $12,823.00 of the $27,510.00 for 1986 taxes payable for the Fire Equipment Certificates of Indebtedness of 1984. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk BILLS ........ OCTOBER 22, 1985 Batch 854101 .... Computer run dated Batch 854102 .... Computer run dated Bills listed below 10/15/85 10/17/85 Total Bills 248,640.48 36,178.41 2,364.26 287,183.15 American Financial Printing Contel Financial Communications Deloris Schwa lbe Todd Truax John HcKi nley Mike Savage Print Bonds-TIF Telephone Legal notice-TIF Bonds Mileage thru Sept School Expenses II II Reimb Spectacle Kit & 1,188.75 990.59 48.94 65.25 8.64 '7.96 lens 54.13 W o O N N ~ :3: 0 C3 0 td 0 Z C~ ~' ~.1 6J L~IW m.m ~.1 ~7~ 7 Z Z Z m. m" Z Z ~ Z Z U U U U U u U U I I I ",% ,.; · j.,,' . J ~ (,9 U I~ 1:3 bJ Id .-I Z 0 ,r I-- u 0 0 ..J ¢i. t~. I-- 0 ~ ;:~ 0 Z \ S ~0 Z Z Z Z ~' Z ~: Z Z Z r.l.. ~1. 0.. {1. {~. I.i ~J bJ Ld bJ L~ bJ LU LU i., ~ ~ ~ ~ ...I.J ..J .~ .J _J .._1 _.1 ..I ..J U. Z '~' I-.- ~ v I , '~ I I 31 I I I I · I I I I I I I I',- r,- Z Z N N N Z s' (:3 Z 0 o L,.I 0 Z bJ Z I ! I 1 I ! I I /,'1 I I i I I t 1T (:3' U I I t I I I I ! I ! t i ! I I I I I ! I ~Z~ZZZZZ 0 ZZZ .2..2--1 ~>~ Z U W w ~3 t~ W L~ 0 e ~Z Illllal w Z 0 z w -,?- -Z .n- O CJI_) ,~. THOMA.~ WURST, CURTIS A. PEARSON, PA,. JOSEPH E:. HAMILTON, P. A. ~AHES D. LARSON, ~A. THOMAS ~ UNDerWOOD, LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IlO0 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 October 10, 1985 Mayor Robert Polston 5780 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: October 7, 1985 Council Meeting Dear Bob: It's my understanding from Jim Larson that at the'October 7, 1985 council meeting a couple of items came up which relate to the'Metropolitan Council. The first item, as I understand it, is the question about sewer unit reatlocations and the ability of Mound to continue to make sewer connection'hookups in the future. The second item, as I understand it, relates to whether the Metro Waste Commission and the Metropolitan Council will build a forcemain called Lake Virginia or a different type of sewer interceptor called the Lake Ann line. If I understand correctly, the City Council is very concerned by the possibility of having limitations placed on them as it relates to sewer connections and also they want the Lake Virginia forcemain con- structed rather than the Lake Ann line because it will result in additional costs ~o the City of Mound. I am not sure, but it appeared that the question posed to us is what legal actions can be taken to stop the Metropolitan Council. It is my opinion at this time that there is no legal action at this time that could be co~enced now which would be successful. The court would hold that the City has not exhausted its admini- strative remedies and that the acts have not actually been taken by the Metropolitan Council which adversely affect the City of Mound. It therefore seems imperative that Mound through its lobbying representatives (whoever they might be) put together a campaign and information to the Metropolitan Council to state the City's views with as much force as possible. I am well aware that the City is in a bind at the moment because it is operating on a very limited staff and that Fran is not in a position to carry through and try to do this lobbying at the Met Council. I do think if the City Council feels these are important issues to the City, they should hire someone to put together a campaign and a presenta- tion before the Met Council on both of these issues. I do not WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Mayor Robert Polston October 10, 1985 Page Two think that the time is ripe for legal action and I also might state that when the Met Council acts the City may be able to bring an action for a review of those decisions, but it is unlikely that a court is going to turn them over. The time to act is now and the place to do it is through lobbying and presentations before the Metropolitan Council, presenting in ,the most logical and forceful manner possible the City's position and its arguments. If I can be of further assistance please give me a call. Very truly yours, ~./ ./' ~ /~'~ ~' ~ ~ : -. Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CAP/ej cc: Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager O~tober 3, 1985 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robed Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone [6t2] 29t-635o John Reiling, President Health Resource Incorporated 2696 Hazelwood Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota 55109 SUBJECT: Oct. 24 and 25 Breakfast Discussions on Regional Development Dear Mr..Reiling: The Metropolitan Council is taking your advice. The ideas you contributed at last winter's breakfast meetings for regional business leaders, which focused on how the Council and the business community could strengthen their relationship, are becoming ~n integral part of the Council's work program. A report is enclosed that describes some specific activities the Council is undertaking to ensure that business has a voice in regional policymaking deliberations. I'd like to invite you to participate in one such activity. The Council is holding breakfast meetings Qctober~with business leaders to discuss one of the most important tasks we're currently working on: updating our development and investment framework plans for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The "development framework" is a 1975 plan that sets forth Council policies for guiding development in the region. Basically, it calls for supporting urban growth with key public services only in-the central part of the Metropolitan Area, revitalizing the Minneapolis and St. Paul downtowns and other older areas, and protecting f~rmland from premature development. A new draft plan under Council consideration raises issues of critical interest to business, and the Council members want to hear your thoughts about these issues. Here are some of the issues we plan to explore at the meetings: - The' Council needs to be concerned with carefully managing bhebig regional systems--highways, sewers, airports,' parks. It should balance the need to protect and improve these public facilities with the need to extend them to serve new growth. What are the implications for the business community? - Should the Council continue to serve 'growth and development wherever it occurs within the metropolitan urban service area, or should it direct growth to particular areas? If the Council were'to become involved in. directing growth so that it is more balanced, who should define the "proper" balance? What should the Council s stance be toward sewer capacity reallocation in the event that development occurs at a different pace than expected (for example, one community grows more slowly than anticipated ~nd, thus, has excess sewer capacity, while another community grows faster and needs additional capacity)? How can the Council avoid imposing development j moratori,,m~ in the event that additional sewer capacity does not exist? What role should the Council play in reviewing "unique facilities" such as a racetrack, stadium or "megs-mall"? Currently, the Counc&l merely reacts to a proposal based on information provided by project developers, at a point when several planning-related decisions have already been made (except where a "metropolitan significance" study is requested). The draft development framework proposes that the Council be involved not only at the beginning of a project, but that it look beyond the impact such a project may have on the regional systems to the impact it may have on other existing private or public investments. The breakfas~ meetings to discuss these issues--and bring 'you up to date on other Council activities--will be held Thursday, October 24, at the Amfac Hotel, 30 S. 7th St., Minneapolis, and Friday, October 25, at the Stl Paul Athletic Club in St. Paul. The meetings will begin at 7:30 a.m.., and we'll have you out by 9 a.m. You may choose the meeting that is convenient for you. Please confirm your attendance with Shirlee Smith, of the Council staff, at 291-6481. A reprint from the Metro Monitor that gives an overview of the issues is also enclosed. If you would like more information, please call the Council's Communications Department at 291-6464 and request a copy of the draft summary of the development and' investment framework. I'm looking forward to seeing and talking with you again. Sincerely, Gardebring ~. Chair SS~/mmb October 7, 1985 TO: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager Chief Leonard~ Harrel FROM: Herman "Buzz" Kraft 6140 Hawthorne Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 It becomes my sad duty to inform you and the City of Mound, as my employer, that I wish to tender my resignation as of October 10, 1985. Over the years I have always been proud of my position as a police officer .and have tried always, as a representative of the C%ty, to present a good.image and have served the citizens of Mound to the best of my ability. Needless to say, I will miss the close association that I have had over the years with all of the City employees and I hope that if in the future I can be of any assistance in any way, you will feel free to call me. ~zry since~ yours, HK/dv October 11, 198~' Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 2ffl-6359 TO: Metropolitan Area Cities and Towns The Metropolitan Council is administering the Metropolitan Area Household Rebate Program. The Metropolitan Landfill Abatement Cost Recovery Program, known also as the Household Rebate Program, was created by the 1984 Minnesota Legislature through the Waste Management Act. Through the program, Metropolitan Area cities and townships will be reimbursed for qualifying landfill abatement and resource recovery expenses. Solid waste abatement and resource recovery activities reduce the dependence on landfills for the disposal of solid waste or involve the reclamation for sale, use or reuse of materials, substances, energy or other products contained in or derived.£rom, waste. Funds for the program come from:'-~':surahsrge,'on"mi'xed-mu~.icipal, solid waste deposited in landfills. A max'S'mum· off D(~'-cents.:,per'-houS~hot:d;:~'i~.l.!be',.a~.ailable to each community for qualifying soliS:.was~e.~:abatemen-t.-and resoumce recovery activities. A certification letter and documenta%ion'.of..e]d'gib~.e'-expenses can be submitted to the Council starting Dec. 2, 1985. ApplicatiOns will be taken until 5 p.m. on Jan. 15, 1986. Payments will be made by Jan. 31, 1986. Landfill abatement or resource recovery programs or activities you undertake must be included in your county's solid waste master plan or approved by the Council. These include, but are not limited to, leaf and yar~waste compost- ing, curbside or alley collection of recyclables, drop-off recycling centers, office paper recycling and processing centers for recyclables. An information meeting to answer questions about the Landfill Abatement Cost Recovery Program guidelines will be held Tuesday, Oct. 22, 1985, at 9 a.m. in the Metropolitan Council Chambers. To request a copy of the guidelines call Dale Strohbeen at 291-6336 or Sunny Emerson at 291-6499. Sincerely, Katy ~oone,\ Supervisor Abatement Assistance Program Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry 480 Cedar Street 300 Hanover Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 SUBJECT: Meeting on Solid Waste Issues--Oct. 29 On behalf of the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota AssociatiOn of Commerce and Industry, we want to invite you to participate in a discussion meeting Oct. 29 on what may become the environmental issue of the 198Os--how we dispose of solid waste. The critical, controversial issue of how the region handles its solid waste demands thoughtful discussion, and we believe the business community must have a voice in these deliberations. ~ laE_passed~by the 1.985 legislature prgh_ibits burying~processed solid waste in Twin Citie~ Area l~ndlsf~O. ~nstea~t waste must be burned ormade into fuel~yec¥c_l, ed~_gr com_~pQsted,..with only unprocessleb-I~aterials or "residuals" from processing going to landfills. The legislature's aims were to p~-~~'th~ region's valuable groundwater supply from pollution, preserve the landfill space we have, and reuse valuable resources. What this means for business will be explored at a breakfast meeting for executive directors of regional Chambers of Commerce and trade associations~ Metropolitan Council members and MACI board members, and Twin Cities Area legislators. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Oet.~9,~at the Sheraton Mid~400 N. Hamline, St. Pau]~_f~L~:0 to 10 a.m. An agenda and background information are attached. Please confirm your participation .by calling Shirlee Smith, of the Metropolitan Council staff, at 291-6481. For more information, please call Smith or Shirley Brantingham, of the MACI staff, at 292-4670. .. MACI and the Metropolitan Council need your thinking on these issues. We hope you will be able to attend, and look forward to meeting and talking with you. Sandra Gardebring, Chair Metropolitan Council Winston W. Borden, President Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry JA~ES D. LARSON, · ~o~ ~ ~m~wooD, ~A. LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WE~:T MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5S~OP October 9, 1985 TELEPHONE Mr. John Lichter Eugene Hickok and Associates, Inc. 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Allied Painting and Renovating v. City of Mound Dear John: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim which was filed today. This in effect is a response to the claims that the City of Mound made against Allied when we answered their original complaint. I would appreciate it if you would go through this article by article and give me any comments you have. It seems clear at this time that the lawsuit will go forward. We will have to consider taking the depositions of Ralph Ruiz of Allied and any other people at that company who we feel can substantiate our view of what happened. We can proceed with interrogatories which is a less expensive method of discovery, but it is not as effective as a means of pursuing the lawsuit. I am copying Fran Clark on this letter and enclosures, and I hope she is keeping the City Council advised of this lawsuit so they are aware that legal expenditures are being incurred in connection with this matter. CAP:Ih Enclosures CC: Curtis A. Pearson, City ~Attorney City of Mound Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City of Mound, Defendant. COurt File No. ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM For its Answer to the Defendant~ Counterclaim, Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc. ("Allied Painting"), states as follows: 1.- Allied Painting denies every allegation in the Counterclaim except to the extent admitted or qualified below. 2. Allied Painting admits the allegations in paragraphs 1; 2; 3, subject to the qualification that on or about November 14, 1984, the City of Mound ("City") agreed to pay Allied Painting $735.00 to paint certain safety cages, which Allied Painting did, making the total contract price $42,735; and paragraph 4. 3. With respect to paragraph 5, Allied Painting is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations therein and puts the City to its strict proof thereof. 4. With respect to paragraph 6, Allied Painting is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in the first sentence; alleges that any delay in commencing or completing work was the result of weather conditions and circumstances of force majeure; and alleges that the work was completed by November 1, 1984 or very shortly thereafter; and that Allied Painting did the work as expeditiously as circumstances would allow. Page 2 5. The Counterclaim fails to state a claim whereon relief may be granted. 6. The City has failed to and is failing to mitigate any damages it incurred or ~s incurring on account of the poor condition of the tank. 7. The City is estopped from complaining about alleged deficiencies in the tank exterior preparation work inasmuch as the City's representatives viewed and approved said work. 8. The City is estopped from complaining about any peeling of paint now occurring on the exterior of the tank inasmuch as Allied Painting expressly warned the City that SSPC-SP7 was not appropriate and would not° suffice to remove the old paint, the City~ own consulting engineers recommended, shortly prior to the repainting of the exterior, that SSPC-SC6 be substituted for SSPC-SP7, as per Allied Pa~nting's recommendation, and the City, ignoring this expert advice, insisted that Allied Painting" proceed in accordance with SSPC-S?7. 9. Not only was SSPC-SP7 inadequate to remove the old paint to the desired end, but it materially promoted subsequent peeling. The City's dissatisfaction is attributable soley to its choice of painting specification, and not to the work Allied Painting did to implement that choice. 10. Any delay in installing the Cathodic system was due to the City's delay in supplying the tank blueprints necessary for the installation. 11. On information and belief, the City paid a grossly excessive and unreasonable amount to effect certain repairs on the tank, the cost of which repair work it seeks to.recover from Allied Painting. 12. On or about January 24, 1985, the City agreed to pay and subsequently did pay to Allied Painting $26,421.50 for work, including tank exterior preparation work, for which Allied Painting was entitled to receive $33,135.00 under the Contract, the difference being a retainage as described in a letter, dated January 8, 1985 from Page 3 Dated: October 8, 1985. John Lichtner, of Hiekock and Associates, to Allied Painting. This money was paid out pursuant to a pay estimate drafted by Mr. Lichtner and approved by him and Jon Elam, of the City. Not only had City representatives viewed the exterior preparation work prior to painting, as previously alleged, but, on information and belief, the City ,].~o had received, before honoring the pay estimate, a post-work completion re~ort from Twin City Testing, that the City had commissioned, setting forth that firm's conclusions concerning its examination of the tank exterior. In reliance on the City's representations, made with full knowledge of the situation, that Allied Painting would receive at least $26,421.50 for the work done to date, which includes the work complained of in the Counterclaim, Allied Painting proceeded to install in good faith a Cathodic protection system (contract price $9,000). While voicing no complaints with the_. system, the City has since refused to pay for it, evidently claiming some right of set-off (the legality of any such right to set-off being denied by Allied Painting) arising from damages, greater than the retainage described in the aforementioned January 8, 1985 letter, it ascribes to the work covered by the pay estimate. The City has, by the foregoing conduct, waived any right it might otherwise have had to claim damages in excess of the retainage amount and is estopped from making any such claim. 13. Allied Painting alleges the following' defenses: accord and satisfaction, assumption of risk, and contributory negligence. WHEREFORE, Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc., prays for an order for judgment dismissing the City's Counterclaim and awarding Allied Painting and Renovating, Inc., its costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees. HILLSTROM & BALE, LTD. Nell Polstein (#135446) Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 Minnesota Federal Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 332-8063 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St, Paul, Minnesota 55 01 Telephone (612) 291-6359 MEMORANDUM ..... TO: C~nc~l Members FROM: Sandra Gardebring FRIDAY REPORT Oct. 4, 1985 ~f Homart Yesterday I initiated our formai "metropolitan significance" review of the proposed Homart project in Bloomington. As you'll recall, Edina asked for our involvement because it's concerned about transportation and land-use impacts. I've offered to have the Council play the'role of mediator. The cities are meet%ng to discuss their differences and at this point I'm optimistic about resolving the issue. 3oing Ove~ Our Solid Wast~ Metro Systems Dir'eCt°r Judy Pinke and I reviewed the status of our solid ~ste program Wednesday with Council Member Jo Nunn, Sen. Gene Merriam, Reps. Dee Long and Darby Nelson, and'Sue Robertson, director of the Legislative Commission. on Waste Management. We also talked about changes in the assumptions about what-forces are driving the program and the impact.of those chan~es~on priorities for work ' · effort. Another" informal meeting will be scheduled this month to deal with how expectations might need to be adjusted. I am pleased that the Lake Virginia/Lake Ann sewer interceptor issUeh is finally going to be resolved at the Systems Committee meeting Oct.\ 7, with Council action on Oct. 10. In my opinion the matter should \ have been decided some time ago and we simply must "get on with it." ~ I respect the fact that our staff's analysis concluded that the Lake\ Virginia force main is the preferred alternative. However,' the staff report also makes clear that if our growth assumptions turn out to 0e I The $~e)t Solut~n San Dlego wrong and/or our expectations of inflow removal prove unfeasible, the argument for the Lake Ann·alternative becomes stronger. In my opiniqn, that alternative offers a less disruptive and more timely solution to our immediate sewer problems in the west suburban commun- ities. I believe we can attach sufficient conditions to the Council's action to provide needed development controls and a creative financing solution that's consistent with regional and local interests. Executive Director Moe Dorton is in Sa~ Diego for a two-day meeting of executive directors of NARC (National Association of Regional Councils). The meeting, on the metro caucus, is to define better the roIes of regional agencies and recommend a course of action to the policymakers involved in the metro caucus. Moe will make a presenta- tion for me .on the Council's solid-waste program as an innovative way in which regional councils are addressing current issues. league of minnesota cities October 7, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: Mayors, Managers, and Clerks Amp Donald A. Slater, Executive Director Tax Increment Finance Study The staff of the League of Minnesota Cities became concerned about the future integrity of tax increment financing (TIF). There are several reasons for this concern: The Legislative Auditor is conducting a study of TIF and is scheduled to report to the legislature in January, 1986. The Senate Tax Committee established a special task force on TIF and development tools. This group, under the chairmanship of Senator Larry Pogemtller intends to produce recommendations for changes in the TIF program for consideration during the 1986 session of the legislature. 3) The House Tax Committee has established a special subcommittee to study TIF. The Citizens League of the Twin Cities/Metropolitan area issued a report on the subject of TIF recommending the abolition of this legislative authority and the replacement of it with an entirely new program. Over the summer, meetings of interested municipal officials took place in which it was concluded that a more general discussion of this subject should be held. In August, the League invited all cities in Minnesota to a review of the legislative situation and a discussion of the potential courses of action. At the August meeting, after reviewing information from representatives of the legislature, independent students of this issue, and League staff, League members adopted a resolution directing the League to formulate a joint program to protect and improve TIF and work together with the Minnesota Chapter of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO). City officials agreed that any extraordinary costs associated with studying or lobbying TIF should be borne by a voluntary assessment of cities participating in TIF. Meetings of representatives of the League and NAHRO met and reviewed the situation, concluding that it would be necessary to do additional studies of the current state of TIF as well as be prepared to mount a vigorous campaign at'~the 1986 legislature, as necessary. 123wmiversicyavenueeasC. st. paul, minnesoCa55101 (612) 227-5800 Pa~e 2 October 7, 1985 These officials concluded that this effort would exceed the capabilities of either organization under current arrangements.· It was decided that the League and NAHR0 would work out a special voluntary assessment of cities currently utilizing TIF who have a major interest in the preservation of this important development tool. It was also concluded that the League would provide in-kind services to the effort which would represent a contribution from cities throughout the state having an interest in this tool although they are not currently using TIF. Discussions also suggested that those cities not currently using TIF but desiring to contribute should be encouraged to do so. A direct billing is being computed for cities currently employing TIF as an active development program. The League Board of Directors reviewed the tax increment situation and the joint program worked out with NAHRO. The Board approved the joint program, recognizing the importance of tax increment to the cities of Minnesota. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT ': ;:-"::";' :~; ' ""'~;'- F · ' 'i",' .' .~ - - - · ', ..- .... ':;,','-, ;: .- ,~,:.' ROM: F.~ Mzxa, - ....: _ :~,':.~-;~'~;~;~:?~::..4 ..... ;:7:., ~.~:;'.. :Attached ~s a draft of the proposed BWI ordinance based on ~:":-:';":'"~'~"':~:~::' '~'-' research of the attorney's legal department. Please review for discussion at the Lake Use Committee meeting on Monday, October 21, 4:30 p.m. at the LMCD office. j~ enc c/enc=-Sheriff's Water Patrol ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR MANDATORY TESTING OF WATERCRAFT OPERATORS FOR ALCOHOL OR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES; ADDING NEW SECTION 4.121 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that the LMCD Code of Ordinances by and hereby is amended by adding new Section 4.121 as follows: 4.121 MANDATORY CHEMICAL TESTING. Subdivision 1. Chemical Testing. A person who operates or is in physical control of a watercraft while on the waters of Lake Minnetonka is required, subject to the provisions of this ordinance, to take or submit to a test of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the presence and amount of alcohol or a controlled substance. The test shall be administered at the direction of an officer authorized to stop and detain watercraft observed in violation of Minnesota Statutes and rules. Taking or submitting to the test is mandatory when requested by an officer who has probable cause to believe the person was operating or in physical control of a watercraft in violation of Minnesota Statutes ~361.12, Subd. 1, and the person has been lawfully detained for violation Minnesota Statutes ~361.12, Subd. 1. Subd. 2. Penalties. A person who refuses to take a test required under subdivision 1 is guilty of a misdemeanor. Subd. 3. Rights and Obligations. At the time a test is requested, the person must be informed: (a) that Lake Minnetonka Conservation District regulations require' a person suspected of violating Minnesota Statutes ~361.12, Subd. 1 to take a test to determine if they are under .the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance; (b) that a person is subject to misdemeanor penalties for refusing to take the test; (c) that if testing is refused it will not affect the person's motor vehicle driver's license; (~) that if the test is taken and the results indicate that the person is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, the person will be subject to criminal penalties; (e) that, after submitting to testing, the person has the right to have additional tests made by a person of his or her own choosing; and (f) that the refusal to take a test may be offered into evidence against a person at trial. Subd. 4. Breath Test Using an Infrared Breath-Testing Instrument. In the case of a breath test administered using an infrared breath-testing instrument, the test shall consist of analyses in the following sequence: one adequate breath sample analysis, one calibration standard analysis, and a second ade- quate breath sample analysis. In the case of a test administered using an infrared breath-testing instrument, a sample is adequate if the instrument analyzes the sample and does not indicate the sample is deficient. For purposes of this section, when a test is administered using an infrared breath-testing instrument, failure of a person to provide two separate adequate breath samples in the proper sequence constitutes a refusal to take the test. 2 Subd. 7. Manner of Makin~ Test; Additional Tests. Only a physician, medical technician, physician's trained mobile inten- sive care paramedic, registered nurse, medical technologist or laboratory assistant, acting at the request of a peace officer authorized to stop and detain persons observed in violation of Minnesota Statutes and rules pertaining to watercraft, may withdr~w blood for the purpose of determining the presence of alcohol or controlled substances. This limitation does not apply to the taking of a breath or urine sample. The person tested has the right to have a person of his or her own choosing administer a chemical test or tests in addition to any administered at the direction of a peace officer; provided, that the additional test sample on behalf of the person is obtained, at no expense to the state, at the place where the person is in custody, after the test administered at the direction of the peace officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test or tests by a person shall not preclude the admission in evidence of the test taken at the direction of a peace officer unless the additional test was prevented or denied by the peace officer. The physi- cian,. medical technician, physician's trained mobile intensive care paramedic, medical technologist, laboratory assistant or registered nurse drawing blood at the request of a peace officer for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration shall in no manner be liable in any civil or criminal action except for negligence in drawing the blood. The person administering a breath test shall be fully trained in the administration of 3 breath tests pursuant to training given by the commissioner of public safety. % This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members and has the effect'of an ordinance. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Board of Directors this day of , 1985. ATTEST: Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman Frank Mixa, Executive Director oV ime Paet l AllowsTime Off Lieu of Pay By Jo~rN 'S. LUBLIN Staff arleporter of THE WALL S'r'o. IgE? JOURNAL WASHINGTON - A compromise be- tween public-employee unions and local government groups has cleared the way for legislation allowing cities and states to grant employees limited compensatory time off instead of paying overtime. The compromise would reduce the im- pact of a Supreme Court decision initially estimated to cost state and local govern- ments $3 billion a year. The high court ruled last February that state and local governments couldn't use time off to com- pensate about half of their 14 million em- ployees for Overtime work. Under the compromise, compensatory time off would be at a time-and-a-half rate and employees would receive over~ime pay in cash after accumulating eight weeks of compensatory time. Senate and House aides from both par- ties expressed optimism that the legisla- tion could pass before the Labor Depart- ment begins to enforce the ruling Nov. 1. 'il think there will be a lot of support for the compromise we are hammering out r~ght now," said Edmund Cooke, a House Labor Committee counsel. "We are coming' up with a compromise that' makes sense and that everybody can live with,'" he Today, the 8enate Labor Commltiee is expected to approve the compromise bill, which would a.mend the federal rninimuni- wage and overtime-pay law, effective next April 15. Senate action could come as soon · as late tomorrow. A House Labor Commit- tee panel probably will support it, too, at a markup session set for tomorrow; a vote by the full committee would follow in about two weeks. Many mayors 'and governors have 'warned that compliance with the Supreme Court decision could trigger widesprea~l layoffs, reduced services and higher taxes. City and state groups lobbied hard to win Reagan administration s[tpport last month for legislation modifying the decision.. But many Public-employee unions, led by the 1.1 million-member American Fed- eration of State, County and Municipal Employees, hailed the Supreme Court rui- Lng and Lnitially opposed any change. Union lobb:.-,.'sts insisted that the corn-' promise, worked out late last week and formally drafted yesterday, preserves the integrity of the federal overtime-pay !aw, The c°mpromise measure would allow' public employees to build up a maximum of only 180 hours of compensatory time off before they would have to receive pre-. mium overtime pay. , , It would curb a costlY, but popular practice in which government employees accumulate extensive compensatory time off, enablhng them to get bigger pen- ,L JJ league of minnesota oities October 10, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: City Clerks, Managers and Administrators Ann Houle, Research Assistant Congressional Action on Fair Labor Standards Act The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has approved a bill to provide permanent relief from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Howver, cities should not make any change in their present policies regarding FLSA regulations until a bill is actually pass. ed by Congress and signed by the President. We will keep you informed on the progress of FLSA legislation. The bill passed by the committee is a compromise based on negotiations with members of Congress and representatives of organized labor, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National League of Cities. As agreed to, the Oill provides: Cqmp time: a state or local government may grant employees comp time in lieu of paid overtime at a rate of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay. In those jurisdictions were there is a collective bargaining relationship, a collective bargaining agreement may include provisions for comp time in lieu of paid overtime consistent with the 1.5× premium rate. In any case in which the a collective bargaining agreement in effect on the effective date of the law provides for comp time at a rate of less than 1.5x, such provisions for comp time are enforceable, except that comp time must be provided at a 1.5x rate. Joint employ, ment: special detail work by public safety employees on an optional basis will be defined as separate employment and not added together with the employee's regular hours for purposes of computing overtime. This will be the case even if the city or state requires that the second employer hire the city's public safety employees for particuiar work or if the city is involved in any other way (e.g., the city approves the job, collects the compensation from the OVER ~ university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55101 (61 2) 227-5600 second employer, and then directly pays the public safety employee). In cases in which full-time state or local employees on an optional basis work part-time occasionally and sporad-ically in a different capacity from their primary employment in-a jurisdiction, the two jobs will not be treated as one for the purposes of determining overtime liability under the FLSA. Regardless of the existence of a mutual aid agreement between two or more jurisdictions, a state or local employee may serve as a volunteer in another jurisdiction without the primary employer being deemed a joint employer under the FLSA. Volunteers: a person who performs work on a volunteer basis for a state or local government will not be deemed to be an employee under the FLSA even if expense money, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee is provided by the state or locality. The Department of Labor will be required to issue regulations not later than six months after the effective date of the legislation to determine the appropriate amount, of such payments. Effective date: the FLSA shall not apply to employees of state and local governments until April 15, 1986. Final Senate action on the proposal is expected this week. The bill will then go to the House Labor Standards Subcommittee and then to the House Education and Labor Committee, followed by action by the full House, possibly as early as the end of October. D~fferences in the Senate and House versions of the bill will be worked out by a conference committee and after pasage of a compromise measure by both houses of Congress, the legislation will go to the President. If there are no major dificulties, the President could receive the bill for signature the first week of November. It is not certain that all of the provisions of the Senate bill outlined above will remain as they are in the final version of the bill. However, there is hope that there will be at least some kind of relief from the FLSA by the end of the year. Because of uncertainty as to what form the relief will take, it is important that cities continue their present policies involving overtin~e and other FLSA regulations until the law is actually changed. FLSA delayed to Nov,. bY DOL after HOUse vote. .... ~ ': "' John E. Porter (R-_gl.).~ropbsed a c~m- by Cynthia~Pols . The House approved a compromise measure last week prohibiting the De- par.tment of Labor (DOL) from enfordng the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) until Nov. 14, 1985. In response to the vote DOL announced plans to defer enforce- .ment of the FLSA until NoV. 1. DOL had originally pl~nned to begin enforcement activities against 'states and localities on Oct. 15. The extension means that the authorizing committees in the House and the Senate should have suffident timeto act on substantive legis- lation to address the problems which the Supreme Court's ruling in Garda V. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority has caused for dries. The amendment was included in H.R. 3424, the appropriations bill for fiscal 1986 for the Departments of Labor, Edu- cation, and Health and Human Services. The House's action came just a w..eek after a one-vote defeat of a delay, in DOL enforcement until March 31, 1986 by the House Appropri.'ations Committee. Rep. promise amendment on the House flo~? which would preclude DOL from under- taking enforcement activities uhtil Nov. 14, the' date on Which th"e ~o.nfi~mJing resolution is sch~d~aled to expire. . 'Thus, if Congress fails to act on 's~b'- stantive legislation by. that date, Con- gress will have another' opportu, nity.' to further delay' the enforcement of the FLSA by DOL. The compromise proposa, l was accepted'in a'~,oice vote after Rep. Augustus Hawkins' (D-Calif.),' ch~lrmah of the House Education and Labor Com- mittee, dropped "his obje~cti0n~"'io the amendment; . ~ ................... 7-'-' ......... The measure now moves to the Senate' where it is being considered by'the'Send ate Appropriations Committee.. 'N-LC Exe;:utive Director Alan ~eal~' said, "We are grateful to Rep. Porter for his leadership in. ensuring that the House'. took up this issue of fundam~n[al impor-. tance to dties." Beals conti.nued, "City. officials should'urge member~ of Con- gress to support immediate action on permanent relief for dries ufide~ the-' · 1- dty ~°undls and other state and local jegislative'bodies from the overtime pro- . visions of the FLSA, and excludes special . detail assignments for police officers and i~ .fir~.fighters from overffrne hours. - In addition to NLC, other participants ih the negotiations which resulted in the · agreement.were the U.S.' Conference of '.Mayors,. the National 'Association of Connties; and the National Conference of State L6gislato~sl] The National PUblic Employer Labor Relations Assodation. . (NPELRA), an organization of public em: .. · ' ployer negotiators and labor re!a. tions :l specialists, provided technical assistance . to the' four state and local' groups. ' throughOut the negOtiations, '"'. : Partidpating in the negotiations for or~ . ganized' labor were- the major-.unions~ representing'public employees. The ne- gotiations were undertaken at the'request' of key memb~i-S of Congress afte~ NLCL~ .suppo.rted legislation to 'exempt 'states· and localities from the. overtime provi, 'sions of the FLSA becamebogged down in comrrdttee. The Senate Labor and Human sources Committee approved the le. gisla-.. [ion in a 1610 vote as an amendment in . the nature of a substitute for .S.1570 (S.1570 as originally introduced would have established an. exemption for states .and localities from the overtime Pr%i- sions of the FLSA). The substitute legisla- tion is jointly sponsored by Sens. Don Nickles (R-Okla.), chairman of_the labor-" subcommittee and the original sponsor of' S.1570, and Howard Metzenbaum Ohio), ranking .Democrat' on .the. ~ub~ ' committee. Companion legislation (H.R.3530) was introduced in the House by Rep. Austin Murphy (D-Pa.), chairman of the labor standards subcommittee, on Oct. 9 and unanimously approved by the sub- committee the following day. It' is sponsored by all seven members of the. subcommittee, including Reps. gustus Hawkins (D-Calif.), Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee; James Jeffords (R-Vt,), ranking Republ~-. can on the full committee; Thomas Petri (R-Wis.), ranking Republican on the sub- committee; Steve Bartlett (R-Tex.), a for- mer member of the Dallas dry council; Pat Williams (D-Mont.); and William Clay (D-Mo.). H.R.3530 is expected' to be acted on by the Education and Labor Committee on Oct. 23 and by the full House under suspension of the rules on Oct. 28. The major provisions of the legislation are the following (in general the provi- sions of the House and Senate bills are the same in substance except where dif- ferences are noted): EFFECTIVE DATE The legislation would eliminate all ex- ~sting liabRity under the overtime provi- sions of the FLSA and establish April 15, 1986 as the effective date for the applica- tion of the overtime provisions of the FLSA to states and localities. These pro- tections 'against retroactive liability and the prospective effective date would ap- ply to all employee~ formerly defined as exempt from the-FLSA under the' Su- preme Court's 1976-National League of : C/fi'es 0. Use~ ruling which excluded em- .~ .... : ............. :-;-..~ -...-.. - ployees engaged, in ;traditional govern-- . mental fimctio.ris fr.~m. FLSA.cove. rage: · ..z '. 'This provision Of th'e:legislafion over- . _ tums the Departme.nt: of Labor's (DOL) detem(ination to applY the FLSA retroac-r ;i~ lively'to-states and localities as of April ~;: 15, 1985 and. t.6 l~e. gip,'~nforcement ac-. '~ tions against states and localities on Nov,: · ' '-' The legi~lafi°n als6..huthorizes states and localities to def~.r ~he act:ual p.~yment · of overtime ~or~tpeo'sation until Aug. 1, "1986. Thus, .w.hile .s~ate. a.nd local em-' ployees would be c6vefed by the over- time provisions on..Ap~il 15, 1986, the'-. employer could delay the actual payment" of overtime compensatign earned follow- ing that date until Aug.-.l: '" The additional three 'and a half month deferral period is ir~tei~ded to provide. states and localities, wit.h suffident time to revamp computer, systems to accom- modate the FLSA an.d. !o. budget for over- , ._ time pay. ' .. · ........... Employees engaged lift traditional gov- ernm'ental functions Would include those who have been defined· as exempt from the FLSA in the NLC v. Usenj derision and regulations issued[by DOL. Those traditional governm~ntai functions have - been defined ag ificluding schools 'and hospitals, fire prevention, police protec- tion, sanitation, publi.'c health, parks and recreation, libraries, and museums. The legislation, l~owever, is neutral : with respect to whether' DOL's ,ruling in 1979 that local mass transit employees' and public power employees are nontra-. ditional and subject, to the FLSA under the NLC v. Usery rulihg'~,.as correct. As a result, employees, defified by DOL as_ nontraditional employees prior to the ~ Garcia ruling would remain subject to the FLSA unless the cburts' determine that DOL erred in defining them as nontra- ditional. ' - · Sen.-Don '.Ni~kles ~ ~..Sen. Howard Metzenbaum egory o[ employe.es is ultimately deter- mined to be nontraditional by the courts, the legislation's' protectib, ns against active liability and the p~'ospective elfec- tire date will not be applicable. The ma: ]or category of emplbyee, s which could be affected by thi.s prqvision is transit em- ployees. While the ]egislafic~n ?ould not delay the effective date of the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA or eliminate ret- roactive liability for the minimum ..wage, it does make clear that any person de- fined as a volunteer by'a city would be considered a volunteer.-for purposes of the FLSA (and therefore not entitled to the minimum wage ?r overtime pay) dur- ing this interim period before the new legislation takes effect on April '15, 198~.'"! In. other words, the existing FLSA.'j ~'.e§ula. ti0ns definin§ a volunteer fir. e..-~ fishter who receives more than $2.50 per call unless additional expenses can be shown as an employee (and therefore covered by the'minimum wa§e and over- "ti~e provisions of the FLSA) would be invalidated and paid i, olunteer fkefight- ers would be considered volunteers foi''] purposes of the FLSA. COMP TIME The legislation would authorize states and localities to' use compensatory time' off in lieu of overtime compensation. However, comp time would have to be provided on'a time and one-half bagis (i.e., one and one-half hours of comp time for each hour of overtime). Rep. Austin Murph~ ' . ' _ . Rep. Augustus Hawkins ;i-~'flr{Tg~h%~:al;"~bmp time Polities' ~6'u]d' be determined either by the emploier o;: ' through the collective bargaining proL cess..Whatever practices a dry has in effect on April 15, 1986 for determining the circumstances in which it will pro- vide comp time would remain in effect in noncollective bargaining situations. For example, a put.:lic employer ~:~,ith a poli~y of requiting employees to take comp...time instead 'of overtime com- pensation could continue that polic); without obtaining the consent of existing employees.. With respect to new employees hired after April 15, 1986, the employer would be re'quit'ed to reach an "understanding" with the employee regarding c.omp time. practices. This understanding could be obtained by providing the employee' with notice of the dty's practices at the time of hirin~ or be some other method.: In cities where the collective bargain- ing agreement defines the drcumstances in which comp time can be provided, the relevant provisions of the collective bar- gaining agreement would continue to ap- ply except that comp time would have to be provided on a time and one-half basis. An employee would be allowed to ac- cumulate up to 480 hours of unused comp time (the equivalent of 40 working days for employees with' eight-hour work days) in a bank. After more than 480 hours of unused comp time are accumu< lated in the bank, the city would be required to pay overtime compensation in cash until the amount of time in the bank is reduced below 480 hours. Addi- tionally, when the employee le~v.e$ em- ployment with the dty, the comp time bank must be cashed 6ut at whatever rate · the employee is earning at that time. The House bill limits the availability of the 480-hour comp time bank to employ- ': . e~s Whose ~ctivit~es include public sa'~ety, ;' -"emergen.cy response, or seasonal activi- _ '-.'~ ties. (e~g., public works e.m_p.lpye _es such as - snow plow drivers). All other employees · would have a 180-hour limit (the equiva~ -lent 0I 15 eight.-hour days) on banked - - - comp time. - - ', ....' .This provision was included at the in- ''' ' sisten~e of several members of the I--I,odse · ": 'lfibor"'standards committee who were "' ~nc~-ned priinarily about clerical. em- :' - ploye~fi'who might a~ckim~lat~ 10 c;~ 12 · ' da~;s:'of comp time Wi~but e~r:being gi'~en"~he' 01~portuni~ to take th~ flEe OiL Th, is: limiting provision wa~ not in- · d{lded in-the Senate bill and, as a'result, th'e.d'iffeiences Betwee'n the House and Senate bills on ~his issue will have''to be resolved in c~nfe~er~Ce. -- ...... ' Th~ :res~riction~ on th~ ba. nki~g' of comp .time would hot apply to. any comp time a~cumulated prior to. April 15, 1986~ Addi~0nallyj it xdould not apply to comp time granted for "gap time" overtime hoursi Gap time is a term of art which refers to the overtime wo~'ked in excess of the e'mployee's regular workweek 'but which is less than the FLSA ~orkweek (i.&, 40 hours for nonpublic safety em- ployees, 43 for police officers, and 53 for firefighters) in cases in which 'the regular workweek is less than the FLSA's maxi- mum number of permissible hours. For example, if the employee's regular workweek is 37 hours and the employee workfi three hours of overtime, those three 'hours would be considered 'gap time find would not count towards the 480-hour. limitation· The employer also would not be required to provide comp time 6n a time and a half basis for those three l~.ours unless the collective bargain- ing agreement includes such a require- ment. ' ' V~)LUNTEERS The.legislation makes clear that any person currently regarded by a city as a volunteer would maintain that status un- til- DOL issues regulations implementing the. provisions of the legislation which establish a broad definition of a volun-' tebr. Under the legislation, a person who performs services for a city on a volun- tee'r basis would stil} qualify as a volun- teer ev. en if he or she receives a no'minal feq, expenses, or reasonable benefits. Additionally, a person who is em- ployed by the city may perform volun- ! tee. r s~.rvices for the cit3, as long as the f services are not the same type of services as !he ~)erson is employed to perform. For. examl~le, a police officer could serve as a ref~re~ on. a volunteer basis without · ... Seep. 22, c~l. ll · ~se hours being treated as hours of ! work. ' MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS 'A dty employee ma~ perform services °~ ~ volunteer basis of the same type as · thcJ'se for which he or she is hired for a n.e',arby jurisdiction, even if the employ- ~g jurisdiction has a mutual aid agree-. '~1 m~nt with the other local govemment.- ~.Thi~ change in the law was necessary tO .overrule existing-DOL regulations which :. pre.dude dry ftrefighters from serving as 'v~)lunteer firefighters in nearby jurisdic- ~ 'tioris__ with' which the employing dty has a, rn'utual, aid__ agr??ent. · -. '~ '; .The legislation overturns existing DOL regulations 'which make 'the practic6 of' shift trading among ftrefighters or police' officers very difficult. Under the legisla:' tion, public safety employees could agree. .to swap shifts with the dty's approval, 'v,:ithout the dry being subject to over:time - SPECIAL DETAIL.WORK ~ ~ '" Under the legislation, poli~e-.'~)fficers, . firefighters, and other publio safety em- ployees would be able to ac'c~pt kpecial detail assignments with secon'd.~mploy- ers without the dry being sub]~/{o over- time liability. This protection froin over- time liability would apply ev~n.~ihe city requires that the second employer'hire a city police officer for speci~ed work or "facilitates the employment by.'"acting as the fmanda] intermediary (e~g.p,.the dty collects the money from the second em- .ployer and reimbdrses the empt. oyee for the spedal detail work). .. : .This provision means that. d~ police officers and other public safety employ- ees may continue to "moo.nli~ht" by working at Concerts, sports, events, pa- rades, and construction sites'W{th, out the hours b~ing treated as overtiroe work. DUAL'EMPLOYMENT . ' '-' WITH THE CITY - · .' ' In certain limited drcumstahkes, a dty employee would be allowed.to.do addi- ,. tional part-time work [or the d~.without the hours beh~g counted as Overtime work. The work, however, muir be in a 'different capadty:from the employee's ~-~' regul.~ j.ob and tls~ part-time.work must .be or/an occasional or sporadic basis2 Fo~ example, a dty police officer could be hired to sell tickets at a sporting event without the" additional hours being ...... added to his' or her regular hours 'for :. purposes of dete ,n:rdrdng 0vei-time liabil- - EMPLOYEES OF CITY COUNCILS ..-.' AND OTHER ~LEGISLATIVE BODIES ['.. , 0 ld employ- ees of state and local legislative booties from the overtime provisions of the FLSA .unless they are covered by civil service. laws or employed in the legislative .li- brary. This provision means that many individuals who are employed by ci..ty councils, county commissions, and simi- lar local legislative bodie§ would not be covered by the overtime provisions of the FLSA. It is intended to parallel a similar brovision in .the FLSA for Congress: ANTIDISCRIMINATION The legislation includes a provision preventing states and localities from dis- criminating against employees Who have asserted rights underl the FLSA. The type of discrimination this provision is in- tended to cover is the discharge or demo- tion of employees who have sought over- time pay under the FLSA. Senate cuts from p.1 '2-Iere, at a tim~ when the Congress is actually considering trying to cut tax rates, they clearly want to force state and local elected officials to raise their taxes. What they don't seem to understand is that we have already adopted budgets for this year--balanced budgets. We have - adopted our budgets in good faith rell- ance on the budget adopted by the Con- ~ress. : ~ - "Cities have taken enough. I hope that every dty offidal will hold the Senate · accountable when revenue sharing is considered on the Senate floor this week," Voinovich concluded. · . The House version of the HUD-I~de- pendent Agencies, passed before the bud§et resolution.was adopted, calls for a 25 percent cut in revenue sharing. At the time o£ 'passage, however, the House leadership had agreed to restore full GRS funding if the budget resolution so pro- vided. But, unless the full Senate restores revenue sharing this week, there will be no choice but to cut GR$ in conference between the House and Senate. - The Senate Appropriations Committee also agreed to make an additional cut of $100 million in the Community Devel- opment Block Grant program below the 10 percent cut it had already proposed. The CDBG change would cut the pro- gram approximately 13 percent from the current funding level. The House passed companion bill ca_lis for only a. 10 perce!3t Ctlt. · The reconsidered spending bill does not call for any deeper cuts in UDAG; it calls for no cuts in the municipal waste- water construction grants program. The revised bill does, however, cut exfen more severely i~to housing pro- grams: § It would cut both the Housing Devel- opment grants (HODAG) program and the rental rehabilitation grants program by 33 percent to $50.million and-S100 million respectively. § Public housing operating subsidies would be reduced by an additional $20 million to $1.24 billion. - · § It would cut the Section 8 moderate rehabilitation program by 500 units down to 5000--10000 less than in the House bill. § It would cut public housing units l~y an additional 500 units down to 2000-- 1000 more than in the House bill. § It would assume the return to"~ax exempt financing for public housing.. § It would cut Superfund by an addi- tional $100 million. ... Other hoUsing and ' community development budget issues: reductions; repeal of the CDBG section 108 loan guarantee program, reductions in the Farmers Home (FmHA) rural housing programs and changes .in the way public housing is financed. In addi- tion, although not required under the reconciliation instructions, the Senate recommendations contain a change in the Urban Development Action Grant (UDAG) selection criteria: The inclusion of the UDAG selection criteria changes is a significant victory, for -.- dries, because it was the only-non-ir~- structed budget resolution provision con- tained in the Senate Banking Committee reconciliation-' package and the bu. dget- . recor~ciliation bill will likely be one of the few legislative vehicles to be acted upon by the Congress this session, thereby permitting a more expeditious resolution of the UDAG selection controversy. The UDAG provision is based on an NLC resolution as embodied in legisla- tion sponsored by Sons. Riegle (D-. Mich.), Grassley (R-Iowa), D'Amato (R- N.Y.), Heinz (R-Pa.) and others that would distribute UDAG funds under a two-part system. Two thirds of the funds would be awarkled based on impaction and distress criteria while the remaining one-third of the funds would be awarded based solely on project merit.. In addition, the measure calls for an evalu~tion of the eligibility and project selection criteria by March 15, 1986 Efforts by Congressional authorization commit-tees to comply with the budget resolution instructions -affecting housing and community development programs also continued last week. Both House and' Senate Banking Com- mittees submitted their recommenda- tions for spending reductions to their respective budget committees to be in- cluded in an overall Senate budget recon- ciliation bill, however, there were signifi- cant differences in their content. Under. the House-and Senate budget resolution compromise the-Banking ........ 7: ". ':_:..'.'. '.'. ......... Committees were required to-assume four spedfic program areas for spending Nation's 'Cities Weekly .... . Under t e.4 ate Ba; g Co i.ee measure,,instead of repealing the section · 108 loan guarantee program, the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) would be prohib- ited from purchasinl~ section 108 notes . after July 1, 1986, leaving it to the pri~ate · sector to finance loans guaranteed under ' the 108 program, This approach makes the necessary budget savings, while pro- -viding for any new i HUD guaranteed .-I6ans through private lenders ai a kome- what higher cost to borrowers~': ~'-~:.-.'.:~ ;..'. The: Senate~ recommendations would '. 'also make reduction in the FmHA rural housing programs, cut public housing operating subsidies from $1..4 b'.rllion Pro- vided in FY 1985 to $1.279 billion, and · forgive Treasury loans used to retire out-. · standing public housing notes assuming · a return to tax exempt fin_a_ncing of public housing notes..-.. ' - In. contrast to the Senate Banking com- mittee recommendations, . which include ;' only the four budget reconciliation as- -'sumpti.ons and the UDAG selection , change, the House Banking Committee' reconciliation bill includes the four provi- sions as well as major, housing and com- munfty development contained in its' 1985 housing reauthorization bill HR1. The authorizations in this bill were . . scaled down to conform the budge{ reso- lution ceilings (See The Weekly, Sept.30) Among these provisions is also a change in the UDAG .selection' system providing for a two--part mechanism un- der which 40 percent of the funds would be awarded solely on project merit and 60 percent distributed on distress and impaction, and project quality factors. · In addition, along with ma-l~T-ng changes in public housing finandng; r. educing FmHA housing and' public i Odober 7, 1985 'h~)using operating subsidies, the House provisions Would impose a one-year moratorium on additional section 108 loan guarantees instead of-repealing the program. The. stage-is now set for a House- Senate budget reconciliation conference in which the House bill will contain sig- nificantly more substantive provisions than contained in the stripped down Sen- How senators voted GRS Vote in Senate. Appropriations Committee, Democrats Voting Yes: -- John C. Stennis (Miss.) William Proxmire (Wis,) '- Lawton Chiles (Fla.) J. Bennett Johnston (La.) -- Jim Sasser (Tenn.) . - Republicahs Voting Yes: James A. McClure (Idaho) Paul Laxalt {Ney.) Jake Garn (Utah) Thad Cochran (Miss.) -- Mack Mattingly (Ga.) Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) - .- Mark O. Hatfield (Ore.) Ted Stevens (Alaska) Democrats Voting No:- Tom Harkin (Iowa) Dennis DeConcini (Ariz.) Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.), Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.) _ Republicans Voting No: Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (Conn.) Mark Andrews (N.D.) James Abdnor (S.D.) Bob Kasten (Wis.) Allonse M. D'Amato fbi. Y:) Arlen Sp.ecter (Pa.) " ate budget reconciliation measure. The House and Senate reconciliation bills could go to their-respective floors this week. With a possible budget recondlia: tion conference beginning the week' of · .Oct. 14, following the Columbus Day · recess.E3 '" .' ' · ~' ' ' ' '' October 14, 1985 . Nahon s .Cfhes ly ' Fight to restore GITI,. iundi . aa4_'nS in Senate ' by Laurie' MicCich'e amendment .. An tO fully restore Reve- nue Sharing Funds for dries in fiscal yeak 1986 has rapidly gathered ~'~ firm sup- !- port of 38 Senators,.and sigBs of support ;; .'.'from at least 11 others.. "...' ~- .-' Sen. Dave Durenberger'(R~.Minn.) Will :' '.~ek' t'0 ~everse an 'amendfnent t° the : ..Sena(e' ;APl~ropriation~ b'ilL HR 3038 !_ ' which would cut $570 rr~.tlion in Rove- : hue Sharing funds for 1.986,. beginning with the first payment dries will receive · in 1986.~i:':7 -'- :.:):: ': ~,' :=- ' ' A.letter signed 'by Durenberger and ~". eight' Other senato/s asking'for ~'and restoration' bf GRS'fu.i1 fdnding was ~ent to all senators last w~el<. The eight : co-signers are Sens. Ford..(.D:KY.), Grass'- ley (R-Iowa), Harkin (D.-Iowa)} Heinz (Re Pa.), Long (D-La.),' Ndnn (D:Ga:), Simon 4. .. (D_Ii1.) and Specter (R-Pa:) ....~. ' ' As/The- Weekly w,ent~'to.: press; the appropriations bill wa~ expe.cted to [ome to the floor this week. The Senate Appropriations .c~mni"ittee i~ Voted last week to make'othi~'cuts in the funding despite the fact that ~hle Congres: . See p. 23, coL~r~ sional Budget Resolution agO'bed to by] both the House and the Senate includes full $4.6 billion'funding. ' ' ':'~' ~ 't The surprise vote hits most cities at a! time when the),, are already into th.{Sir budget year and after the federal fiscal t year has begun. These citie¢ enacted their own budgets and local tax rates in go'od faith reliance on the Congressional bud- get resolution. Cities are required to bal- ance their bu'dgets each ),ear making it difficult to reverse the budget process and make up for these crucial dollars. Not only are Qtms unprepared for th~s 'hntimely ~ut in Revenue Sharing, they .,are unju. stly targeted for the b.ala, ncel c~f the Senate's effort to make up fSr all · 7programs over the Budget Resolutions . assumpti0ns.':.~LC's President..G~prg~ Vo~novich said. make an.all out effort to hold the Conn. gross to its budget re~olufion .... ~e Senate Appropriations Co'mit-.. tee~ U~der p'r~ssure ~rom the Senat~ Bud?, get Committe'e ~See ~e WeeUy, 0¢.7),-.J reexamined, its .. xrafiou~_' SUbcommittee b~ls. . In a dls. put~. b~kteefl-the'a hons and budget kommi~ees, the. Senate' Budget: Committee mainfdin~d had 'the.authority'. to limii _ amouot.pf bgdggt.aut~ofity available t9 each subcommitte'eyrmher thah~he full committee2but that the actoal rate df spending, According to Senate Budget Commit- tee Chairman Pete Domenici's (R:N.M.) staff, even under those new ground rules, the revenue sharing Rrovided forin the appropriations bill fell well within the budget resolution for two reasons: ~ first, the budget resolution clearly provided for full funding ~ot' revenue shafin~ ' ... ~ second~ the budget qommit!ee ac- cepts that revenue sharing isan eDtitle_ ment program; therefore; it ik not subject to appropriations. Had the Senate Budget ? Committee direcled that revenue shar~g paymen{s to cities exceeded the budget resolution, it would have directed the Senate Finance, not the Senate'ApprsPri- ations Committee to: m~ke cuts in"the program. :- - ., . 'In fact, accord, ing to t.he Sena{e Budget Committee, the city programs funding in the HUD Independent Agencies Appro- priations bill were all either under or barely over the budget 'outlay ceilings.· ii. .Waste Control salaries raised The Metropolitan Wast* Control C, onu~t.~ton on Tue~h~y approved ~t pt~ ~ r~lze the pay of salaried employe~s, including the highest- paid r~Dagen, an ave~e o! 7 percent. The plan gives chid admlnlztra- t~ Lou Breimhttr~t couslderable ~atitude I~ awarding pay represented Toy uflio~ are eovere~ b~ the pta~, w~ch takes effec~ month and ezten~ through the eod of ned Brein~urst, who earns annually, and deputy chiei ~dmin- $62,500, will receive $ percent in- creases - a 2 percent Increase in -their Toa-qe pay and a 4 percent Ittmp sum p~ymeflL aOO~ tmnagers in the top ~y de are t~ receive In~ sed solely on perlermanee, ~ Brei~urxt will de~rmine, Although there ts no f'Lzed perce~t- age, the to~l a~nount must aver- age i-'~s ~ ~ percent for these employe~ tn addition to I~relm~ur~t and 'H in, kef, t~-ee m~nagers now at L~xst $~0,000: Eeger Act~n, dep- uty director of engiueering and conztructlo~ $~1,37~ Waltex Jolm- son. director o[ planning. and Edward De La Fore51., director at engiaeerhxg and construction, $~0,000. Another eight n~ager~ now earn $50.000 or more. Employees below the top grade will receive a 4 percent.acro.~z-the- b:~rd Increase.. They will alu) recei~,e an additional increa.,~e up to 4 percent Toased on their per. refinance, with employees eon~ld- eced better getting more. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY 320 Washington Ay, South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-338'1 'FI'Y-935-6433 October 3, 1985 COMPOST OPERATION 1985 We would like to bring to your attention again this year the leaf recycling operations carried on by Hennepin County. We will operate two sites: the "new" Eden Prairie site, located 1 1/2 miles west of T. H. 169 on County Road #1 to County Road #4 then 1/4 mile south on County Road #4; and the Maple Grove site, located in the old county gravel pit one mile west of County Road #18 just off County Road 109 (85th Ave. N.). These sites will be open to receive leaves starting Saturday, October 12. We encourage municipalities, lawn services, golf courses and the public to deposit leaves at our sites. Hours of operation will be seven days a week, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The leaves will be processed into compost (soil conditioner) during the winter and early spring and then distributed to the public sometime in April, free of charge. We will notify you as to the specific date. Just as a reminder, we cannot accept leaves and grass with foreign materials included, such as concrete, plastic, bottles and large branches, as these items can damage our leaf shredder. Also, all leaves must be bagged or covered when transported in an open vehicle. After emptying plastic bags, they should be removed from the site. Thank you for your cooperation in past years. Sincerely, William J. Brenn~, Environmental i st WJB/srn HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity ~mploycr ~722 c ~00 ~0~ - INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #277 WES~0NKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING - LEVY REFERENDUM Tuesday, October 8, 1985 (Minutes to be approved October 15, 1985) ATTENDANCE/ LOCATION CANVASSING OF VOTES FOR REFERENDUM 1985 LEVY AUTHORIZATION ADJOURNMENT The special meeting of the School Board was called to order at 10:09 p.m. in the Lecture Hall of the Westonka Community Center by William M. Goblirsch, Chairman. In attendance were board members Goblirsch, Chelberg, Pitsch, Hallowell, Schmidt and Mayer. Ritchie had an excused absence. Others in attendance were election judges, Superintendent Stevenson, principals, supervisors, teachers, staff, parents and community members and public relations coordinator. Chelberg moved and Mayer seconded the motion that School District #277 declared a special election held on October 8,. 1985 that was in all respects duly and legally called and held and the returns were duly canvassed, and the votes cast at said election for and against the question submitted to the electors as stated in agenda item #1 resulted in 766 YES VOTES and 926 NO VOTES, with 1 empty Absentee Ballot Envelope. Said question NOT having received the approval of a majority of the votes cast thereon, was declared NOT to have carried. On roll call v. ote, all members voted AYE. Chelberg moved and Pitsch seconded the motion that the clerk of the School Board be authorized to certify a 1985 levy to the county finance division which will generate tax receipts permitted by law for the 1986-87 school year approximately as listed in agenda' item #2A*. With no discussion, a roll call vote was called with all members present voting AYE. The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. Patricia C. Chelberg, Clerk William M. Goblirsch, Chairman *Complete documentation can be found in the official minute book. Planning Commission Minutes October 14, 1985 - Page'3 DISCUSSION ITEM - Memorandum'on Conditional Use Permits City Planner Mark Koegler explained the need for updating Conditional Use Permits for various facilities within the City of Mound; i.e. Blue Lagoon Marina, Century Auto Body,'etc. The City has no basis to document property use changes when they come about and when intensifications occur. He is asking direction from the Com- mission'on whether they should be done uniformly' for all applicable facilities wlthin the Community or whether we should_continue.to update them on a case. to case basis when the City receives an application for modification of the use of a property. And, if review is done uniformly to all applicable facilities, who pays the costs? The Commission discussed the pros and cons of the subject at great'length; that it is not going to'be simple and the biggest problem is proving when somethi'ng occurred. Mark stated there could be trade-offs. Reese moved and Ken Smith se.conded a motion that the P.lanning Commission be on record as in favor of having the'staff examine those nonconforming uses with a goal of converting uses; .intent is not to create a-bunch of new uses. The vote on,the motion was unanimously in favor. November Meeting - The Planning Commission will hold one meeting in November on the 18th. Commissioner Weiland asked'to be excused, for the next two meetings and Commissioner Ken Smith for the October 28th meeting' ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Reese seconded a motion to .adjourn the meeting. favor, so meeting was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. All wer in "Eli'zabeth'Jensen' Attest: POPHAM, HAIK, 3CHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN Ex 434,4 ~OS CE:NTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 612-333 MICHArL O. THOMAS C. OAVIO ~. LE~ C. ~OeC~T ~, LYNN ~HO~A5 ~. THOMAS ~:. SANN[~ BI'Ut~' B. McPHEET~RS SCO~ ~. ~ICHT~ LARAY~ M. OSBORNE DorY, ltD. TC~COPI~R {202~ 8~8-S3~8 September 30, 1985 The Honorable Rudy Perpich The Honorable Joan Anderson Growe Governor of Minnesota Secretary of State of Minnesota State Capitol Room 180, State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Arne H. Carlson The Honorable Robert Mattson State Auditor of Minnesota State Treasurer of Minnesota Suite 440 1208 Grand Avenue 555 Park Street St. Paul, MN 55105 St. Paul, MN 55103 The Honorable Marlene Johnson The Honorable Hubert H. Lt. Governor of Minnesota Humphrey III 122 State Capitol Attorney General of Minnesota St. Paul, MN 55155 102 State Capitol St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Proposed DNR Access on King's Point, Halsted Bay, Lake Minnetonka Dear Members of the Executive Council: Our law firm represents the City of Minnetrista. We have recently been informed that the Department of Natural Resources has acquired an option to purchase a parcel of private land on King's Point in Halsted Bay, which it hopes to develop as a public access to Lake Minnetonka. This parcel of land lies within the City of Minnetrista. The option will expire before the end of October. 28 September 30, 1985 Page 1 The Executive Council plans to address the issue of public accesses on Lake Minnetonka at its meeting scheduled for October 2, 1985. It is our understanding that at this meeting, representatives of the DNR will inform the. Council of the current status of efforts to acquire access sites on that lake. Although it is our further understanding that the DNR will not request the Council for any specific recommendations or actions as to the King's Point site, Minnetrista intends to appear at that meeting and to request that the Executive Council recommend to - Commissioner Alexander that he take the following actions and postpone any further efforts to acquire the King's Point or any other site on Lake Minnetonka until those actions have been taken:, The DNR shall prepare an inventory of potential lake access sites on Lake Minnetonka which may satisfy the criteria and standards set forth in the 'Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force' dated June, 1983. The DNR shall submit this inventory to all municipalities bordering Lake Minnetonka and request -' their review and comment within ninety (90) days. Municipalities should be able to suggest additiQnal access sites which the DNR should evaluate based on the standards recommended by the Task Force. As part of its report, the DNR shall respond in writing to the objections to the lake access proposed for King's Point on Lake Minnetonka, and, specifically, the DNR should explain why the preferred sites discussed in Section VI are not adequate, feasible alternatives. The DNR should promulgate rules governing the siting and acquisition of public lake accesses. We are writing this letter to encourage you to support these recommendations. We believe that the King's Point site should not be acquired and that the four general actions outlined above should be taken for the following reasons. Background on King's Point and the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. Concern over the development of a public access site at King's Point in Halsted Bay is not a recent phenomenon. In late 1981 and early 1982, the DNR's acquisition of an option to September 30, 1985 Page 3 purchase a 2.6-acre site on King's Point generated a Considerable amount of controversy and discussion among the City of Minnetrista, local landowners and citizens groups, the Department of Natural Resources', the Governor's Office, and the Legislature. The King's Point site was opposed by the City and affected citizens on numerous grounds, including the inadequacy and inappropriateness of the site, the potential impact of the proposed development on surrounding residential and environmental amenities, and the availability of feasible alternative sites more desirable for development. Opponents also sought a comprehensive. study of all issues associated with providing access to Lake Minnetonka. The controversy ended when Governer Quie ordered a halt to the acquisition of the King's Point site because the City of Minnetrista had complied with a condition which he had established and identified the Lost Lake site in Mound as a feasible alternative to King's Point. In addition, the Governor endorsed a plan proposed by Commissioner Alexander to establish a task force charged with developing a complete recreational management plan for the Lake, including public water access. In July, 1982, a 20-person Task Force was appointed by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, the Commissioner of Energy, -- Planning and Development, ~nd the Chairman of the Metropolitan Council. Nine task force members represented various governmental agencies, including DNR, the Department of Energy,.Planning, and Development, the Metropolitan Council, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Freshwater Biological Institute, Hennepin County, Carver County, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. Four task force members represented non-Minnetonka area communities; three represented Minnetonka area communities; and one member each represented boating, sailing, and fishing interests. Following a year of study, investigation, and public hearings, the Task Force submitted its report in June, 1983. The City of Minnetrista Supports the Policy of Public Access to Waters of the State and Has Acted Accordingly by Supporting Four Existing Water Access Sites. Minnetrista is not opposed to public accesses within its city limits. Indeed, it already supports more than its share of public accesses and nonprofit parks and facilities. 'There have been four public accesses within Minnetrista for years. Two are on Lake Minnetonka: one is the Williams access which is on Halsted Bay approximately one-half mile from the proposed King's Point site; the second is on Phelp's Bay. In addition, there is a public access on Whaletail Lake (over which the DNR assumed 30 September 30, 1985 Page 4 jurisdiction about ten years ago) and there is one on'Li'ttle Long Lake. Over the years, the City has maintained the access roads to these sites, grading and regraveling them more often than other roads because of their greater usage; leveled and graveled the access sites themselves to maintain a firm base for boat ramps; and installed refuse collectors and satellite rest areas. Moreover, the City supports further development of the Williams access and in 1983 approved an agreement with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District guaranteeing §8 automobile-trailer or 116 automobile parking spaces within walking distance of that access.- Finally, within the City limits, there are numerous nonprofit camps, including the YMCA Camp, Boys' Club Camp, Girl Scout Camp, and Methodist Camp Kingwood. Other tax exempt properties include the Minnetonka Sportsman Rifle Range and a Hennepin County Park Reserve. Like the public accesses, these properties are not included on the City tax rolls. III. State Law Requires that DNR's Procedures Governing Lake Access Siting and ~C%uisition Be Adopted by Rule. ' The Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act ("MAPA") requires adoption of agency procedures through, rule-making: 'Each agency shall adopt rules, in the form prescribed by the revisor of statutes, setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures related to the administration of official agency duties to the extent that those procedures directly affect the rights of or procedures available to the public." Minn. Stat. ~14.06. Similarly, Minnesota'Statute ~86A.06 states that every agency "shall" promulgate rules relating to units of the outdoor recreation system within its jurisdiction, which certainly embraces the DNR lake access si.res. The Minnesota Supreme Court strictly enforces this requirement. Johnson Bros. v. Norsk, 295 N.W.2d 238 (Minn. 1980); McKee v. Likins, 261 N.W.2d 566 (Minn. 1977). Public participation and input is at the heart of these procedural requirements. One need only look at DNR's "procedures" pertaining to lake access siting and acquisition and DNR's unilateral and unannounced actions to conclude that rules are necessary in this area and required by law. Rules should require public notice of lake access siting activities, opportunities for "review and comment" by affected local units of government on specific lake access site proposals, and established standards for lake access siting and acquisition. The Halsted Bay access controversy is a perfect case in point why rules should be adopted. First, DNR has provided inadequate notice to citizens or affected municipalities about its current plans for possible lake 31 September 30, 1985 Page 5 access siting and acquisition on Halsted Bay. Yet, it has negotiated an option for the acquisition of land at King's Point for that purpose. DNR's secretive conduct and failure t6 respond in a timely manner to inquiries by public officials has heightened public dissatisfaction with the process and raised questions about DNR's good faith dealings with the cities and their citizens. Second, in 1983, as discussed above, the Governor commissioned a comprehensive study of public access to Lake Minnetonka. The Lake Minnetonka Task Force report suggested specific criteria and standards which should be applied in siting public accesses on Lake Minnetonka. We have seen no report from the DNR analyzing the Halsted Bay public access proposals based on those criteria; rather, the DNR apparently chooses to follow separate, different standards. DNR's conduct renders the efforts of 1983 Task Force a useless undertaking. Third, there are at present no procedural . requirements directing the DNR to request input from affected local units of government, which is a fundamental principle of comity. Promulgated rules setting forth procedures and standards which mandate an orderly process would go a long way towards eliminating the aura of secrecy surrounding the DNR's actions and would help to instill public confidence in the openness and merits of decisions. IV. King's Point Is Not an Appropriate Site For a Public Access. AQ An access on King's Point would violate the City of Minnetrista's zoning ordinance. The area on King's Point proposed for public access is located within an R-2, Medium Density, Single-Family Residential zoning district. A public access is not a permitted, or even a conditional, use within this zoning district. Minnetrista City Ordinance 49.133. Moreover, section 49.132 (c) of the zoning ordinance states that the intent of the R-2 single family residential district is to "provide areas of single family neighborhoods with public utilities." Section 49.132 (a) of the City's zoning ordinance states that the intent of the R-A agricultural residential district, which borders the area to the south, is "1) to preserve lands in the natural state and in agricultural uses pending the proper timing of the economical provision of utilities, streets, parks and other public facilities so that orderly development may occur, and 2) to preserve and extend the area for single-family dwellings and very low densities with spacious environments." Hence, the development of an access is barred in the R-2 district. Morever, it is not consistent with the intent of the 32 September 30, 1985 Page 6 R-2 district or the nearby R-A zoning district, and thus it is not consistent with section 49.132 of the zoning ordinance. In Minnesota, the State is not totally exempt from local zoning requirements. Town of Oronoco.v. City of Rochester, 293 Minn. 468, 197 N.W.2d 426 (1972). Instead, there must be a balancing of the public interests to determine whether one government agency is bound by the zoning policy of another. Under this rule, governmental needs for the proposed facility will be balanced against the-local municipality's need to control land use within its boundaries. And nowhere has the Legislature granted DNR the authority to ignore local land use policies. Here, the City's interest in controlling land use on King's, Point is clear. The City's engineers have determined that the public access may cause serious damage to King's Point Road, thereby jeopardizing access 'by residents located on King's Point. Construction of the access is contrary to the City's comprehensive plan and is in conflict with the existing single family use on the point. Balanced against the City's interest is the fact that the DNR has shown no-acute need for access at this particular point. As is well demonstrated, there are alternative access locations," even within the immediate vicinity, that do not present violations of the City's ordinances. Construction of the access would create substantial traffic problems. The construction of an access will generate substantial traffic and safety problems. Kings Point Road, the only access road to the proposed access, is a narrow gravel ro~d over a base which is inadequate to service a lake access. Construction of an access on Kings Point would surely increase the traffic usage on that road. The road simply cannot bear any further increase in traffic usage for the following reasons: The car and trailer traffic that would be generated by the access would create many potholes and washboard areas on the road. This would not only make the road even more unsafe than it is today, but would result in substantial repair costs in the future. The City has no plans to upgrade'the road. The Comprehensive Improvement Plan does not provide for any upgrading of the road. The City Engineer recommends that in order to handle the estimated 50% to 60% increase in traffic, the. City should upgrade and asphalt the road at a cost of several hundred thousand 33 September 30, 1985 Page 7 dollars, plus acquire additional right-of-Way. The City cannot afford to do so, and there do not appear to be any other sources of funds available. There is only one road to the access, which is not a through road. If there is an emergency at the access site, and the road is blocked, there is no other road for emergency vehicles to drive to and from the access. There is no cul-de-sac in the road near the access. Thus, vehicles and trailers may turn around in private driveways in order to return to Highway 7. The only cul-de-sac in the area is 1015 feet away and does not meet City standards. It is inadequate for cars and trailers. The City has only limited personnel and equipment to maintain 110 to 120 miles of City public asphalt and gravel roads. The City would face substantial difficulty in maintaining King's Point Road, particularly in light of the serious degradation which is likely to occur. There has not been any showing by DNR that use of King's Point Road will be consistent with the standards' of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Ce Construction of an access would require the condemnation of an easement. In addition to the land that would have to be purchased for development of this site, an easement, currently possessed by a neighboring landowner, would also have to be obtained by the DNR. If that particular individual is at this time unwilling to sell his interest in the easement, the State would be required to proceed with a costly and expensive condemnation proceeding. Development of the access'would adversely affect the environment. Development of the King's Point site would also have material adverse effects on the environment and natural resources of the State. Halsted Bay, on both sides of the point which separates the Bay from a small lagoon, provides habitat and spawning areas for a variety of bass, northern pike, the 34 September 30, 1985 Page 8 ubiquitous carp, and smaller species of aquatic life used as food by those fish. The depth of the water on both sides of the point is approximately two to three feet, but the lakebed in that area consists of approximately one to three feet of detritus material. Boat launching in the area surrounding the point will'result in considerable "fluffing" of the water, which will be detrimental to aquatic life for several reasons. First, fluffing reduces sunlight, and thus adversely affects growth of the vegetation necessary for aquatic life. Second, the agitated bottom sediments may settle on fish eggs and suffocate them. Indeed, in 1984, when the Tandem Corporation proposed a residential development on King's Point and applied to the DNR for a Section 105 permit to dredge a portion of the lagoon for the purpose of creating a dock, the permit was denied. While the state hearing examiner recommended that the permit be granted, he was overruled by Commissioner Alexander, who specifically found 1) that both dredging and fluffing would be detrimental to the aquatic life in the area, and 2) that use of boats in the shallows on both sides of the point would result in detrimental fluffing. In denying the permit, the Commissioner pointed out that 50-foot docks on the Bay side of the point would reach an area of four-foot-and-greater depths, where fluffing, apparently, would not be a problem. Here, however, if a boat ramp is constructed on the Bay side of the point, the fluffing problem would clearly not be avoided. Moreover, if dredging is required for construction of that ramp, -- existing habitat, according to the Commissioner's findings in the Tandem case, would not only be injured, it would be eliminated. Thus, constructing an access at King's Point would not only be inconsistent with the previous ruling of the DNR denying a permit to the Tandem Corporation, but, if it involves dredging, it could be in violation of the Department's own rules. In addition, development of an access on th~ Bay side of King's Point would result in the cutting of trees, and any blacktopping of the site's parking area, which may be necessary to render the spongy soil on King's Point firm enough to sustain automobile traffic, will lead to increased runoff of pollutants into the Bay and its fish spawning areas. Further, the heavy boat ~affic which would be generated in Halsted Bay by the development of an additional access could threaten lotus beds on the southwest portion of the Bay. Under the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act and the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act% any State action which impairs, pollutes, or destroys natural resources of the state is prohibited if there is a feasible and prudent alternative to that action. Here, such alternatives clearly exist. 35 September 30, 1985 Page 9 V. An Access at King's Point Would Not Meet the Crit~'ria Recommended by the Lake Minnetonka Task Force. Following a year of study and investigation, the Lake Minnetonka Task Force found that "there is no demonstrated need for additional lake access for boats other than fishing craft and small recreation boats". (Task Force Report at 3.) The Task Force further recommended ten criteria for use in evaluating and selecting potential new access sites for fishing craft and small recreational boats. The proposed DNR access at King's Point, however, meets few of these ten criteria. The criteria recommended by the Task Force are the following: 1. "Relationship to Residential Areas. Positive and negative impacts of access sites on adjacent residential areas, including distance between a site and nearby homes~ screening the site from homes, and creating new access opportunities for nearby off-lake residents." As discussed above, an access at King's Point would have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area. 2. "Accessibility to Primary Highways. Potential sites near major highways {State Highways 7 and 101, County Roads 19 and 15 are examples) can reduce traffic impact on residential streets." The proposed King's Point access is approximately 1.7' miles from Highway 7, the nearest major highway. Moreover, King's Point Road is of marginal quality and is a residential road on which approximately 25 children live. On the other hand, the Williams access, which could be expanded with City Support, is only 3/4 of a mile from Highway 101. 3. "Public Use Precedent. Sites already in public ownership or in commercial or industrial use, have the least neighborhood impact, where public facilities or services have been provided and accepted." There is no precedent for use of the King's Point site as a public access, and the adjoining landowners have not found the development of an access on the site acceptable. The Williams access, of course, has been used by the public for years. 36 September 30, 1985 Page 10 4. 'Intensity of Boating Use Near a Potential Access Si~e. Sections of the lake where there is intense boating use should be avoided when possible." Halsted Bay is occasionally overcrowded with boats on weekends, the peak time for fishing and recreational boating. There have been several boating accidents on Lake Minnetonka within the last few years which have resulted from overuse. Moreover, stone reefs in the Bay increase the danger which is concomitant with overuse. Increased development at the Williams access and the additional development of a new access on King's Point is likely to increase existing overuse substantially. - 5. 'Wind and Ice Exposure of Site. Sites protected from predominant winds and.ice action are preferred.' Not'applicable. 6. 'Cost of Acquisition. ~operty and development costs must be considered. Implementing. agencies should apply a per-boat-launched and a per-car-trailer-parked cost analysis." -. We are not aware of any per-boat-launched or per-car-trailer-parked cost analysig performed by the DNR for the proposed King's Point access site. Approximate acquisition costs of $140,000 to $160,000 and approximate development costs of $50,000, however, suggest that those costs will be substantial. Further, such figures do not take into account any additional costs which may be associated with easement condemnation proceedings or other related litigation. 7. 'Physical Development Constraints. Minimizing the amount of site alteration needed on land and in the water to make the potential site usable is preferable." As discussed above, development of the site will require the removal of trees as well as measures to render the currently spongy land firm enough to sustain blacktopping ~nd motor use. Furthermore, some dredging in the lake may be required to make the site usable for boats. 37 - - September 30, 1985 Page 11 VI. 8. "Ability to Buffer Site from Surrounding Land Uses. The site should be large enough to support adequate vegetation to screen the site from adjacent land uses." The King's Point site is slightly lower than the surrounding land and will thus be difficult to screen from adjacent uses with small trees. Indeed, development of the site - if that development occurs on the Bay, rather than the lagoon, side of the point - will require removal of existing trees. 9. "Barriers. Restrictions such as low bridges and shallow launch ramps may be used to limit the accessibility' to the main lake for larqer boats." There are no restrictions on the access road to the King's Point site which would prevent the site from being used by large watercraft. Moreover, if DNR's previous design plans for the site are followed, the site will incorporate a double launching ramp, rather than a single .. launching ramp. Such a ramp would not only defeat' the purpose of limiting use to small fishing and recreational boats, but, by providing a new access for larger craft, may lead to further deterioration and maintenance needs for the already inadequate King's Point. 10. 'MultiPle Use Opportunities for the Site. Sites that could provide shore fishing alonq with boat access are preferred." Not applicable. At Least Two Preferred Lake Access Alternatives to King's Point Exist. At least, two preferred lake access alternatives exist -- Lost Lake in the City of Mound and expansion of the existing Williams access. The first alternative was described by the 1983 Task Force as "a special challenge and opportunity for a major access which seldom comes along at Lake Minnetonka. It is potentially of large capacity, adjacent to downtown, may have multiple use potential, enjoys local support, and i~ located in an under-served area. Successful development of this site would very likely have the effect of reducing over-crowding at other existing boat access sites." Minnetrista would be willing to support a reasonable expansion of the existing William access on Halsted Bay as well. 38 September 30, 1985 Page 12 A. Lost Lake. As evidenced by the 1983 Task Force, lake access at the Lost Lake site is an alternative preferred for many reasons and by several affected governmental bodies. In 1982, when the Governor requested the City of Minnetrista to identify feasible alternatives to the King's Point site, the City suggested Lost Lake and the Governor agreed that it was worth pursuing. Subsequently, he ordered a halt to efforts to acquire King's Point until the Task Force had completed its work. In spite of this history and the favorable comments of the Task Force on the Lost , Lake site, the'DNR is apparently unwilling to take the lead in developing that site, preferring to wait for initiatives by the City of Mound. With respect to King's Point, on the other hand, the DNR has once again acquired an option to purchase, in spite of the long history of opposition to that site by the affected municipality.and its citizens. Expansion of Williams access. For several reasons, the use and expansion of the William access is a course of action preferable to developing a new site at King's Point. The Williams site already exists and has been used by the public for many years for access to Lake Minnetonka. It is in closer proximity to a blacktopped county road than the King's Point site. There are only a small number of residences in the vicinity, and a public access would not be inconsistent with local zoning, as such a use is a grandfathered use under the zoning ordinance. The water at the Williams site is deeper than at the King's Point site, and the environmental problems associated with spawning beds and the potential need for dredging would not be present. Similarly, the shot.land at the William site is firmer and better able to sustain heavy use by automobiles and trailers. Finally, the access road to the site is not a dead-end road such as King's Point Road, an~ would be better able to accommodate traffic. The City of Minnetrista is willing to work with the DNR to develop any reasonable plan for expanding access at the Williams site. VII. The King's Point Proposal Exceeds DNR's Authority° Minnesota law requires the DNR to meet specific burdens when siting a lake access, and a cooperative agreement among the DNR and the Metropolitan Council assigning the Metropolitan Council the primary responsibility for lake access planning on Lake Minnetonka is being thwarted by DNR's actions. September 30, 1985 Page 13 Minnesota Statute §86A.05 sets forth requirements for classification, authorization, establishment, and administration of outdoor recreation system units, including lake accesses. Subdivision 9 specifically addresses lake accesses: Subd. 9. State water access site; purpose; resource and site qualifications; administration. (a) A state water access site shall be established to provide public access to rivers and lakes which are suitabl~ for outdoor water recreation and where the access is necessary to permit public use. (b) No unit shall be authorized as a state water access site unless its proposed location substantially satisfies the following criteria: (1) The body of water to which access 'is being provided and surrounding lands can withstand addftional recreational use without undue damage to the environment or undue risks to the health and safety of water users; (2) Public access to the body of water is either nonexistent or inadequate; (c) State water access sites shall be administered by the commissioner of natural resources or the commissioner of transportation in a manner which is consistent with the purposes of this subdivision to provide public access to water. Access roads, off-road parking areas, refuse containers, sanitary facilities, and facilities for limited picnicking and primitive camping may be provided when the Commissioner determines that these activities are justifiable and are compatible with the resource and the natural environment. Further, DNR is a party to "A Cooperative Program for Providing Public Access on Metropolitan Area Lakes," which assigns primary responsibility to the Metropolitan Council for lake access siting and acquisition. To our knowledge, the Council has provided DNR with no direction to acquire King's Point. Accordingly, DNR's conduct is unauthorized and in violation of the Cooperative Agreement and of the Metropolitan Council's regional planning authority and responsibilities. September 30, 1985 Page 14 For the foregoing reasons, the City of Minnetrista requests an opportunity to address the Executive Council to answer any questions and urges adoption of our proposal. ru~ yours , Lee~ Sheehy~~ LES/irk cc: Sandra S. Gardebring Commissioner Santa Hale Commissioner Mark Bo Dayton Commissioner Joe Alexander Senator Gen Olson Representative John Burger 3581v 41 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND ACTING CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH EDWAl{DJ. SHUKLE, JR. FOR THE POSITION OF CITY MANAGER WHEREAS, the position of City Manager in the City of Mound has been open since the end of August, 1985, and WHEREAS, applications have been solicited and there have been a great number of replies, and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed all of the resumes and has conducted personal interviews of selected candidates, and WHEREAS, after a thorough study the City has made a selection and desires to authorize the Mayor and Acting City Manager to contact Edward J. Shukle, Jr. and attempt to negotiate an employment contract, arriving on agreement on salary, vacation benefits, health benefits, and other such items, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the Mayor and Acting City Manager are hereby authorized to meet with and offer the position of City Manager of the City of Mound to Edward J. Shukle, Jr., said offer being contingent upon agreement on the contractual terms relating to salary and benefits. Adopted this 22nd day of October, 1985. Attest: Mayor City Clerk