The URL can be used to link to this page

1992-02-11CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT[ The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1992 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. t 10. 11. APPROVE MINUTES OF JANUARY 28 1992, REGULAR MEETING. ' 1991 DEPARTMENT HEAD ANNUAL REPORTS - GENO HOFF, STREET SUPERINTENDENT - GREG SKINNER, WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT - JIM FACKLER, PARK DIRECTOR CASE ~g1-057: REQUEST: APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR· SET DATE FOR ANNUAL BOARD OF REVIEW. (SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 12, 1992, 7:00 P.M.) COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PG. 305-310 PG. 311-316 PG. 317-321 PG. 322-333 DENNIS ZYLLA, (REPRESENTING JAMES & JOSEPHINE SHARP) 4925 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOT 22, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0097. VARIANCE TO CREATE A BUILDABLE LOT. PG. 334-364 PG. 365 PG. 366 ~ISCUSSION: PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY - SHOULD THE CITY OF MOUND USE ONLY ONE POLLING PLACE FOR THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY? APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS FOR 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. (SUGGESTED BID OPENING DATE: MARCH 6, 1992, 11:00 A.M.) LICENSE RENEWALS. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 367 PG. 368 PG. 369-387 PAGE 303 12. A. Department Head Monthly Reports for January 1992. B. LMCD Representative,s January 1992 Monthly Report. ' LMCD Mailings. Clarification re: Lakewinds Dock Application with LMCD. Pg- 388-416 Pg. 417-418 Pg. 419-424 Pg. 425-430 Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 1992. Pg. 431-437 We applied to WCCO Radio to nominate Cathy Bailey for the WCCO Radio "Good Neighbor,, Award. We were selected and City's selection will be broadcast on WCCO, Thursday, February 13, 1992 at 7:55 A.M. A special presentation will be made to Cathy at the Parks & Open Space Commission Meeting that evening. We will be presenting a plaque and a tape of the WCCO broadcast. Cathy has been notified about this award and the presentation. We have received another application for the Parks & Open Space Commission (POSC) vacancy. Enclosed is the letter of application and resume. An interview will be held at 7:00 P.M., February 13, 1992, before the POSC Meeting begins. Please attend if you can. Then you can also be present for the special presentation to Cathy Bailey. Pg. 438-440 Attached is a memo from the LMCD re: LMCD Lake Access Task Force. The first meeting, which is introductory, is scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 1992, at the City of Minnetonka. Please note that this meeting conflicts with the rescheduled Council Meeting. I asked Mark Koegler to attend on our behalf. He has indicated he will attend. This will probably be the first of many meetings of this task force. I will keep you posted as to the schedule and will provide pertinent materials to you. Pg. 441 Page 304 11 January 28, 1992 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 28, 1992 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 28, 1992, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said city. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Douglas Jepson, Ann Schouweiler, Greg Knutson, Tom Casey, Allan Blackwell and the following members of Scout Troop #571 (Our Lady of the Lake Church): Michael Blackwell, Brian Williams, Jason Berg, Steve Erickson, Nate Perbix, Ryan Schultz. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the January 14, 1992, Regular Meeting and the January 21, 1992, Committee of the Whole Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 CASE ~91-101: DOUG JEPSON & ANN SCHOUWEILER, 4618 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 11 & 37t BLOCK 11, SETONt PID ~19- 117-23 21 0031~ APPROVE A .TEMPORARY VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO PRINCIPAL DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT AND TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING SIDE YARD ENCROACHMENT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE NEW DWELLING The Building Official explained that the request is to allow an existing nonconforming dwelling to remain until a new dwelling is constructed on the same lot. Ordinarily this would not require a variance if the applicant is able to post the necessary guarantee for removal of the present dwelling, in this case a $3000 bond. The applicant would like to have $1000 put in escrow for the removal of the dwelling after the new structure is built. The Planning Commission recommended approval on an $ to 1 vote. The City Attorney suggested that his office prepare an agreement for the applicant to sign which would give the City a temporary easement to enter the property and remove the dwelling and assess the cost to the applicant if the dwelling is not removed in a timely manner. The Council discussed a time limit to have the dwelling removed. They suggested 60 days after the Certificate of 12 January 28, 1992 Occupancy for the new dwelling is issued. The Staff is to incorporate all of these conditions into the resolution which will be filed with Hennepin County. The City Attorney will prepare the agreement Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-12 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE TO ALLOWTWO PRINCIPAL DWELLINGS ON Om LOT AND TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING SIDE YARD ENCROACHNENT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE NEW DWELLING FOR THE PROPERTY AT 4618 KILDARE ROAD, LOTS 10 & 37, BLOCK 11v SETONv PID #19-117-23 21 0031, P & Z CASE #92-001, AS AMENDED The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.2 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS ANDOPEN SPACE CON)fISSION R~: LIGHT POLE ON PUBLIC LAND, 4701 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, GREG KNUTBON The City Manager reported that at the Park & Open Space Commission Meeting the Park Director informed them that the pole existed prior to Mr. Knutson purchasing the property. He recommended that the lights on the pole be shielded so that they do not create a hazard to navigation. At that meeting, Mr. Knutson confirmed that he did not install the pole, however he has replaced the spot lights and the speakers on the pole. He stated that the lights are needed for security and safety purposes since the grade is steep and the area is difficult to traverse in the dark. The outlet on the pole is used for a weed whip to trim the Commons area. The Park & Open Space Commission recommended approval on a 6 to 1 vote and 1 abstention with the following conditions: The electrical line be located and shown on a site plan for City records. The lights be shielded. Proof of an electrical inspection be submitted to the City. The Council discussed the stereo speakers on the light pole. The City Attorney stated that allowing this would set a precedent of allowing private property on public property. The Building Official recommended not allowing the speakers. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-13 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LANDS PEP. MIT FOR 3 YEARS RENEWABLE TO ALLOW A LIGHT POLE WITH TWO SPOT 13 January 28, 1992 LIGHTSv ~,'D~NELECTRICAL OUTLET ON DEVON COI'fl~ONS~ DOCK SITE ~42077v 470L ISL~d~'D VIEW DRIVE~ LOT 1~ BLOCK 7~ ARDEN The Council asked that the following be added to the proposed resolutiOn: Elimination of the stereo speakers by May 15, 1992; and Shielding of the spot lights on the pole to be as recommended by the Park Director. The vote was 4 in favor with Ahrens abstaining. Motion carried. 1.3 L.M.C.D. COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSES: AL & ALMA'S, BOAT RENTALS OF MINNETONKA, CHAPMAN PLACE, HARRISON HARBOR TWIN HOMES, SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS AND LAKEWINDS. REVIEW AND COMMENT. The City Manager explained that the following multiple dock and mooring licenses have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Parks & Open Space Commission: 1. A1 & Alma's 2. Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Inc. 3. Chapman Place 4. Harrison Harbor Twin Home Association 5. Seahorse Condominium Association 6. Lakewinds Association All were approved by both Commissions. The question of the statement on the Lakewinds application regarding the 16 transient boat slips being used by Donnie's Restaurant was again addressed. The City Clerk will get the information received from the LMCD on this issue and have it in a future packet. No action was taken. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.4 BID AWARD: 1992 DIESEL POWER SINGLE AXLE, 31,000 GVW WITH PLOW, WING, DUMP BODY & SANDER The City Manager reported that the following three bids were received: 1. North Star $68,519.00 2. Lakeland Ford Truck Center $69,004.00 3. Boyer Trucks, Inc. $68,200.00 Staff recommends Boyer Trucks, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: 13 January 28, 1992 RESOLUTION #92-14 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR A 1992 DIESEL POWER SINGLE AXLE, 31,000 GVW DUMP TRUCK WITH PLOW, WING, DUMP BODY AND SANDER TO BUYER TRUCKS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,200.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.5 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY ON-S~T.~ NONINTO~TCATING MALT 1.6 LIOUOR PERMIT - OUR LADY OF TN~ LAKE SCHOOL - FEBRUARY 8, 1997 MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jsssen to issue a Temporary On-Sale Nonintoxicating Malt Liquor Permit to Our Lady of the Lake School for February 8, 1992. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO STUDY THR FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING BOAT TRAILER PARKING FROM T~ NORTH ENTRANCE TO MOUND BAY PARK UP TO THE MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF BARTLETT BLVD The City Manager explained that at a previous meeting the question of allowing boat trailer parking on County Road 110 by Mound Bay Park was brought up and Staff was to explore this option with Hennepin County. The proposed resolution is the first step in exploring this option with Hennepin County. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #92-15 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF ALLOWING BOAT TRAILER PARKING FROM THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO MOUND BAY PARK UP TO THE MOUND BAY PARK DEPOT ON THE EAST SIDE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.7 RESCHEDULE MARCH 10, 1992, COUNCIL MEETING TO MARCH 11, 1992 MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to reschedule the Tuesday, March 10, 1992, City Council Meeting to Wednesday, March 11, 1992, at ?:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR OST t$11 Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-16 15 January 28, 1992 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE VFW POST %5113 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST - TUXEDO BLVD. - GMH $12,403.99 ASPHALT - The City Manager explained that the city Engineer has recommended this final payment request. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve a final payment request from GMHAsphalt, in the amount of $12,403.99, for the Tuxedo Blvd. Reconstruction SAP145-101-07. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $210,968.29, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ADD ON ITEMS 1.11 PROCL~uMATION - VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA WEEK The Mayor read the proclamation. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION %92-17 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING MARCH 1-8, 1992, AS VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 MINNETONKA BASS CLASSIC AT MOUND BAY PARK MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve Minnetonka Bass Club,s request to use Mound Bay Park for a weigh-in only site for their Minnetonka Bass Classic on Saturday, June 6, 1992. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of January 9, 1992. B. LMCD Mailings. 16 January 28, 1992 Ce De Ee Invitation from LMCD to attend the annual "Save the Lake" Banquet, Wednesday, February 19, 1992, at Lord Fletcher's. REMINDER: Elected Official Seminar sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Friday, February 7, 1992. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 1992. Economic Development Commission Minutes of January 16, 1992. G. Appointments to 1992 NLC Policy Committees. Councilmember Smith asked that the Staff get a list of required permits, charges and time tables from the L.M.C.D. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 8:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk CITY of MOUND lanuary 30, 1992 TO; FRON; SUB.IECT; Ed Shukle, City Manager & Mound City C:ouncil Ge no Ho f'f ?;treet St~p~rj. nt:'endellt 1991 Annual Report The Street Department is respol,sible for a lot of different jobs in our City, everything lrom Street Maintenance to staking out graves. That means we have to have a very versatile crew to handle tl~e different projects. I would like to take this opportunity to introcluc:e you our personnel. HAME T I TLE $]ARTING DATE YEARS Eugene Hoff Super int endent 1 -. 1-60 32 Gerald Henke Equip. Operator 7-5--65 27 Dick Johnson Equ. ip. Operator 4..-25-72 20 Don Heitz Equip. Operator 5-1-73 Tim Johnson Equip. Operator 4-17-83 9 As you can see from our starling dates we have some experience. These employees know their jobs and they're good at it. If there is any doubt think about how many complaints you get on Street Maintenance (very low). The Street Maintenance Supervision is handled mostly bx myself with help from fellow employees in the Public Works. I take most of the complaints and questions and try to solve them one way or another. Some of my other duties include reports (monthly and annual), budget preparations, supervising personnel, evaluation report, emergency call out, construction meeting, ~hly meeting, project, inspections, printed on recycled paper purchasing of road material and etc. It's also my job to decide when, where and how the work will be done. Here is a list of some of the duties of the department for the repair and maintenance of 50 miles of streets, 12 parking lots and 27 cul-de-sacs. plowing and sanding Curb & sidewalk sweeping street lights clearing street right- of way of brush and trees bituminous street patching preparing streets for sealcoating retaining walls guardrails maintenance of equip. cemetery work transporting street materials street sign repairing and installation of new ones repair & maint, of storm sewer system Christmas decoration GENERAL Let me go through the schedule of the Street Department for I year just touching on the main duties starting with Winter. SNOW ~ ICE CONTROL It's my job to determine when the snow equipment is called out. I depend on the National Weather Service for information concerning any weather systems moving is our direction, also the Police Dept. Most of the time I'm out and about to determine what has to be done. When it's icy we sand as soon as possible but when it snows we like to wait until it's over, if we can, because of a 8 to 9 bout plowing cycle. After that long a time behind the wheel you're tired and we don't bare any backups. We have a 11 man crew for snowplowing, 5 from the Street Department including myself, we also have 5 from the Water & Sewer Dept. The equipment used is 5 - 2 1/2 ton dump trucks equipped with plow, wing and sanders, 4 - 4X4 pickup trucks equipped with 8' plows. After the streets have been cleared and in good driving condition we have 11 miles of sidewalks to plow and haul the snow away. We use the blower and 3 trucks for the job, so as you can see when we get snow we are very busy. We're doing something a little different this year as far as cleaning sidewalks, we use to wait until we were done plowing and sanding streets before we could start cleaning sidewalks. This year we are getting help from the Sewer and Water Dept. at nLght or early m0rnJng before they go on there normal work schedule. They will use the bobcat to make a path so people can get around and after we're done with the streets we'll go back and do a better job of cleaning. We have one other thing that we changed, 3im Fackler, Parks Director, takes care of the plowing at City Hall, Fire Station, Depot parking lot and the 2 sidewalks on Maywood and Cypress. Jim Also has a number of streets and cul-d~ ~a¢~ to plow. SPRING WORK The early part of Spring is whell we do our ~treet way work, that means we cut. brush and trim trees that. are hanging in the street. The Spring clean-up is a big job, 2 street sweepers, 1 sidewalk broom, 2 trucks and 1 tanker. We sweep everything in town, 50 miles of streets, 12 parking lots, 11 miles of sidewalks and 26 cul-de-sacs. You're looking at 3 to 4 weeks of work. This year in 91 we picked up 278 dump truck loads. From our Spring clean-up work we move into our street patching. Our general street maintenance work isn't bad, t4e don't have a lot of potholes and cracks to repair. What takes the time and money is to repair the watermain b~eaks and frostboils. The main breaks have to be cut. square, compacted and repaved. STORM SEWER SYSTEM We have a very large storm sewer system to maintair,. I don't know how many miles of pipe we have. I know we .have 370 catchbasins and 81 sump catchbasir]s. The 370 catchb8sins are cleaned after every heavy rain and the sumps are cleaned ii] the Fall. The City crew maintains and repairs the c:atchbasins., but when it comes to repairing the pipe itself we have a contractor come in for the work. We ,don't have the equipment or manpower to handle it. Depending on the weather, tale Fall we use the vac-all and sweepers to start to pickup leaves, we never get the job done, there just isn't enough time before freeze-up. After freeze-up we move into ouT- material hauling, salt & sand, rock, winter mix, sandfiill, bttckshot and Class 5. From this point we move back into the snow season. 1991 STREET PROJECTS WALL WORK We had 8jork Country Stone come back again this year to work on a number of City retaining walls. He replaced or tore down and relayed 8 walls, cost $13,571.00. TUXEDO BLVD. CONSTRUCTION We had a good size construction project on the Island this year. The job consisted of reconstruction, curb, si,:tewalk and bituminous overlay on Tuxedo Blvd. We had the bid tabulation on the 3rd of May. G.M.t4. Asphalt Corporation was low bid with $142,165.95. We had a pre-construction meeting on May 24th and at that time the contractor informed tls that he was going to start the week of June 3rd and would be finished the week of June 24th. They started the 17th of June and we finished the punch list the 28th of October. John Cameron and myself spent alot of time inspecting and trying to get the contractor to show up for work. 'raking into consideration all the problems that we had with the General Contractor- the project turned out quite well. SEALCOATING Our sealcoating went quite well this year. We had the same contractor that we had in 90 (Bituminous Roadways) and as you remember we had some problems with their work. This year they did alot better job. I think a couple of reasons why it was better is because of gaining experience and alot better supervision from the company. The sealcoating contractor moved in on the 9th of July and finished the 12th. They shot 34,438 gallons of oil and spread 1,350 tons of buckshot. We did something a little different this year, we took 3 of our more heavily traveled streets, such as Wilshire, Bartlett and luxedo and instead of using buckshot we used 3/~" granite chips. This will give us a thicker mat plus 8 rougher surface. STORM SEWER WORK We had a catch basin and 2 lengths of pipe to replace on Dickens and Ridgewood. There was alot of digging that had to be done by machine so we had widmer Bros. come in to help do the work. We also had a catch basin on Basswood cave in, but this one was shallow so we dug it out by hand and rebuilt it from the bottom up. We had a number of other catch basins that had some minimal leaks that were repaired by plastering the basin walls with portland cement. We also had some problems with the open ditches. We had one by the watertower on Evergreen Rd. that washed away the banks and eroded some private property. To solve this we laid 30' of petro-mat and lined the ditch with rip-rap, this would take care of the wash. Whef] ever you have a surnmer with alot of rain, you're more likely to have some storm sewer problems. SIGN DEPARTHEN f We had our crosswalks painting done by Precision Striping Company. We had 14 full faced crosswalks with stop bars done at the cost of $1,761.48. You probably noticed the cost. is down from the 90 striping, the reason being budget cuts, resulting [n fewer crosswalks being painted. I put together a list of signs and posts that were installed and repaired in 91. 31 - Stop 30 - No Parking 34 - Street sign names 5 - 4 ton axel 2 - No Parking Here to Corner 5 - Slow Children 5 - Two Hour Parking 4 - Farmers MaT-ket 2 - School Zone 3 - Dead End 3 - Crime Watch 2 - No Motorized Vehicles 5 - No Dumping Straightened 50 posts, installed 126 complete tops and bottoms. The Street crew also hung the Mound City Days Banners and put up and take clown the Flags through out the year. BITUMINOUS ROAD WORK Besides our everyday maintenance on the streets such as patching holes, cracks and dips, we had a couple of major repair jobs. One was the restoration of the railroad crossing on Fairview. We took out a section of blacktop about 25' X 20' and changed the grade of the street to match the tracks. This is just a temporary patch until Dakota Rail replaced the ties and rails. We had a section of Ridgewood where the road was mostly flat and to remedy this we overlayed the street with 16 - 8 ton loads of blacktop to restore the crown. CEMENT WORK We had more cement work this year than we've had in the last couple of years. We had 2 crosswalks approaches by the 8eh Franklin to take out and replace about 40' of curb 8nd gutter in different spots around town. Ne had 5 driveway aprons to replace because of curb box problems. The cost of cement work this year was $6,000. PUBLIC WORKS. FACILITY We've been in the building for 3 1/2 years and counting our blessings for having a decent place to work. We had our parking lot sealed a year ago and it didn't turn out very well. We sealed it again this years, only we used chips instead of buckshot and got a much better job. The facility itself is in better condition now than the day we moved in. When anything needs repair' its taken care of immediately. We have a work detail every Friday afternoon to clean the garage, unless we are doing other work that can't wait · STREE~ BUDGET The Street Department had a budget of $392,670.00 fol' 91. As for what percentage the budget came in at, I'm not sure, I haven't seen the figures yet, but I'm sure we're a little over. The reason for being over is we had afl extra month and a half of winter and when you add up the extra salt sand, overtime, breakdowns, fuel and cutting edges we're talking a lot of extra money that we hadn't figured on. SHOP & STORES BUDGET Ne had a budget of $59,840 for the Shop and Stores fol- This money is used for the mechanics wages and the operatJor, of the city garage. The 23rd of August, Gregg 8ergquist, our city mechanic turned in his resignation. The city plans to operate without a mechanic for a year to see how things work out. I have a closing remark on the Street Department Annual Report. During the year (91) we had well above average rain and snowfall and alot of wind. After all the extra work that comes with above average weather conditions, the street crew managed to keep up with it's regular maintenance work through out the year. CITY of MOUND February 6, 1992 5341 M?JND MiN',:_SCTA FAX 10; FROM; SUBJECT; Ecl ~,huk]e, City Manager & Mound City Council Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. 1991 Annual Report Public Utilities for th~ City of Mound consists of 2' departments. One being Water Distribution and the other being Sanitary System. First I would like to start with t:.he Water Distribution system, l he Water Department has 2 1/2 full time employees, which consists of a supervisor and 2 maintenance men. We sell water to approximately 3250 customers within the Cit. y from 4 city owned wel~s, booster station, a combined storage of 575,000 gallons in 3 water towers and approximately 45 miles of watermain. We are also interconnected ~ith the City ~f Spring Park for emergencies if needed. EMPLOYEES I have been with the City of Mound since 1977. I started out in the Water Department as a maintenance worker. In 1982 1 became the Utilities Superintendent. I am responsible for maintaining the annual budget of approximately $:364,000 for 1991 , purchas~.s, schedu.L ing wot k loads, compla i nts, emp [ oyee evaluations, water inspections for new construction, sight plan review for new construction and development, watermain and shut off location, monthly report to State agencies and safety. In addition to my administration responsibilities, I also perform the same duties as the maintenance persona[ do in the Water & Sewer Department. Bob Shanley works full time fn maintenance, Bob has been with the City since 1967. Bob's job consists of daily well inspections, meter and outside reader installation, repairs and testing. In addition he handles service calls which consists of turn-ohs, turn-offs, final readings, valve printed on recycled paper maintenance and repair, watermain breaks and occasional snow plowing. Pat Cheney works fuII time in maintenance and meter reading. Pat has been responsible for our meter reading, service locations and working in the meter shop. He also does our Gopher One locations that totaled 588 for 1990. Pat has also helped out in snow plowing. We have trained him in the operation of our front-end loader, plow trucks and bobcat. 5oyce Nelson is tile Public Works Secretary and has been employed by the City since t977. 3oyce's job is to keep the office running smoothly and does an excellent ,job. She handles phone calls, complaints, all record keeping (work orders, invoices, reports, inventory report, etc..) typing, she also runs the City's Recycling Program. PUBLIC UTILITIES The Public Utilities are operated as a business. Revenues are generated from the sale of water, meter sales and service charges. Salaries and benefits are paid out of the revenue we receive. The Utility Department works closely with the Building Inspector and the City Engineer on new construction, new development, utility upgrades or new installation. ]'his incIudes site and plan review and inspections along with discussions with developers. There are 2 budget prepared for Public Utilities, 1 for Water and I for Sewer. 'the ~ater Department had a budget of approximately $364,000 for 1991. The Sewer Department had a budget of approximately $913,000 for 1991. The percent of increase from year to year is small in both budgets as far as day to day operations go. History has shown that Workman's Compensation, General Liability Insurance and MWCC have been the big reason for budget increases. Budgets are prepared by the Utility Superintendent. The budget then goes to the City Manager for review and approval. Each budget is then presented to the City Council by the Superintendent, so the Council may ask any questions in regards to certain expenditures. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requires that the City of Mound have at least 1 full time employee with a Class C certificate in Water Supply System Operations. "rile City is also required by the PCA to have 1 person with a Class D certificate in Wastewater Treatment. Each persol'] in the Water & Sewer Department has a certificate in either water' or sewer or in both. The certificates have to be renewed every 3 years. Each employee is sent to schools at least every 3 years, in addition they are sent to various i day schools, conferences and conventions. The purpose of this is to learn new up to date methods of maintenance, changes in laws and safety procedures. WATER PEPARTMENT WATERMAIN BREAKS The first quarter started out as busy one, we had 7 watermain breaks with 3 of these on February 12, 91. On February 15,1991 we had 2 breaks. The break at Lakeside and Beachside was a costly one. We spent 16 hours on the break and road repairs cost $2,200. After that run of watermain breaks they settled down a little. We had a total of 14 main breaks for the year. is one more than we had iT1 1990. fhis WATERTOWER MAINTENANCE The Altitude control valve at pumphouse ~3 (.on £hateau tn. ) failed in January. This valve controls the amount of water that flows in and out of the watertower. 'fhis failure caused the tower to drain to a low level causing the standpipe to freeze and break. We had Western Tower & Tank Co. out of South Dakota do the repair work. We purchased a new altitude control valve and put the tower back in service in April. The cost for this was $11,500. The Cities insurance company paid $3,200 for the valve. PUMPHOUSE MAINTENANCE We had a major unbudgeted expense for Well ~6. First a little history of Well ~6. This Well was drilled and put in service in 1977. This was suppose to be the greatest thing that would ever happen to the Water Dept. A big producing well that would give us years of good water and low maintenance, so they said. In 1979 the Well started pumping sand. In 1982 the Well plugged up. In 1985 the column pipe was bad. In 1987 major motor repair. In 1990 plugged again. As you ca~ see not a very good producing Well. $o in 1991 I met with and discussed with various Well Companies to try an find a solution. We decided to reduce our pumping capacity and install a low horsepower motor (original motor was 100 HP) and completely redevelop the Well. All this work was completed and the Well put back in service in September, total cost $26,500. I feel very confident that we will get many years out of this Well now. WATER METERS The cities current water meter system has been in since 1977. This is a 2 wire system with an outside remote that received a pulse from the register that is inside. We have found that this is a very unreliable way of accounting for water usage. Last year we purchased 100 Sensus Touchread meters and 100 Neptune Pro-Read meters. We will test this new system in 1992 and file a report to the manager with our results. We will also be testing a new system from Badger Meter. This system is called the Trace Radio Frequency meter system. As for our meter system this year, we are still plugging away at trying to reduce the number of repairs. HYDRANT MAINTENANCE This year we tried a new approach to our hyclrant program. Instead of flushing during normal work hours i rearranged the shift times t.o 9:00 p.m. so two maintenance workers would work from 9:00 p.m. to 5:30 a.m. for one week in May and one week in October. This worked very well, with very few complaints from the employee's or the customers. GENERAL INFORMATION We pumped 273,780,000 gallons of water in 1991. Water sold was 257,087,000 gallons. This equals 6~ for unaccountable water. The Water Department budget came if] at 100.59~. The Sewer Department has 2 1/2 'full time employees. Damon Hardina has been with the City Sewer Department since 1974. Scott Kivisto has bee;~ with the City since 1985. Their duties consist of maintaining 29 lift stations and approximately 60 miles of ~_anitary sewer lines throughout the City. Stations are checked 3 time a week. .It takes 6 hours per day to perform these checks. We perform minor maintenance, such as pump removal, seal replacement and electrical repairs, any major pump repair is sent out. The Sewer Department has a truck with a crane so we can pull the pumps. We also clean the sewer lines in the summer. We have 1 water tanker with a jet cleaner and 1 sewer fodder to perform this cleaning. The men also help on watermain breaks and with snow plowing. My responsibilities for the Sewer Department are pretty much the same as roi- the Water Department, except the budget approximately $913,000 for 1991. LIFT STATION UPGRADES Our 1990 lift station upgrades were completed in February of 1991. Bid opening for our lift station upgrades for 1991 were in April with LaTour Construction Co. of Maple Lake receiving the project. Their bid for 5 lift stations was $213,400. As of now all 5 lift stations are up and ru~lnit]g. All that remains to be completed is minor touch-ups and restoration. SEWER LINE MAINTENANCE We cleaned 30,000 feet of sewe~- line in l'P91. compares to 40.000 feet last year. This We televised 7,000 feet of sewer main with the bulk of this (5,720') on Tuxedo Blvd. fhis was done and repairs made (? total repairs) prior to Tuxedo Blvd. being repaved. The Sewer Departments budget came in at 108.37°~. fhe reaso~ for the 8~ overrur, is for the unbudgeted projects listed that came up in 1991. 1. 2 - force main breaks 2. The Tuxedo Street Project 3. Co. Rd. 110 overlay 4. Sewer line repair on Ridgewood $2,991.00 $3,600.00 $3,672.00 $3,150.00 $13,413.00 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report PERSONNEL ROSTER The Parks Department has only one full-time employee, the Park Director. The rest of the staff is made up of seasonal employees. During the busy spring, summer, and early fall, there are as many as ten full-time seasonal employees, between eight and ten part-time seasonal recreational program leaders, twenty-one lifeguards, and one contracted cleaning service. 1991 Current Employees Park Director Park Maintenance Park Maintenance Commons Maintenance Mowing Crew Tree Trust (2) Dock Inspector Summer Recreation Cemetery Maintenance Janitorial Service Jim Fackler Bob Johnson John Taffe Kent Kirsh Hal Proft none in 1991 Tom McCaffrey Grant Bergstrom Phil Haugen Pikes Cleaning Co. 1991 Non-Returninq Employees None. Date Hired July 1, 1985 May 1, 1982 May 12, 1983 June 1, 1989 June 1, 1990 Every June November 1, 1990 April, 1989 May, 1990 January 1, 1991 During 1991 the Parks Department was involved mainly with maintaining current playground equipment and lands. As you recall in 1987 a Playground Equipment Replacement Program was initiated. A number of Parks received new play structures and improved grounds. In the years of 1987 to 1990 there was $23,000 ear marked each year for improvements to parks, some of those which received attention were Pembroke, Philbrook, Langdon, Belmont, Chester, Tyrone, and Seton. The 1991 budget did not allow for any new equipment or improvements, so currently there are other parks in need of new equipment, including Mound Bay, Swenson, and Three Points. These parks have older equipment which needs to be updated. Parks such as Doone, Edgewater and Crescent need to be looked at for determining types of improvements, if any are needed. Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report Recently the Park and Open Space Commission determined that they would like to see maintaining what we have and not add more play structures. Along with development, maintenance for the parks must be planned. Maintenance and upkeep of the parks is a major ingredient for their success. Regular mowing, leaf removal, litter pick up and periodic repairs are unavoidable aspects of these Parks and generally take up the most man hours over the year. These improvements and maintenance will provide a visual commitment that the City of Mound has a dedication towards community development. Having moved into the Island Park Garage in 1989 and consolidated all of the park equipment, parts, vehicles and supplies there. We began to make improvements to the building. We began by following the improvements recommended in a 1987 engineering report for remodeling and repairing the garage. In 1990 a new roof was put on, in 1991 the electrical was updated, new garage doors were added, and the exterior of the building was painted. The repairs for 1992 were taken out of the budget due to budget restraints, but are still needed. These repairs were to average $20,000 per year over a four year span. They included, besides the work already done, replacing of the concrete in front of the building, an addition of a secured fence area adjacent to the garage, painting of interior walls, upgrade of bathroom facilities, and other improvements noted in McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. letter dated May 16, 1990 from Steve Jantzen, P.E. SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM In the past, the City of Mound has sponsored a summer recreation program that lasts six weeks, from mid-June through the end of July. A program supervisor oversees a schedule of events at five parks; Belmont, Swenson, Philbrook, Highland, and Three Points, where there is a Park Leader and an assistant to carry out the daily program. The 1991 program expanded its arts and crafts, games, and special events Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report for a broader age of children, and saw other parks receiving visits from the recreation staff to provide an opportunity for them to get involved in the program. Programs are proposed to be offered for middle school and high school age youth in 1992. This program is accomplished by co-sponsoring a program with Westonka Community Services. The basic concept is a program, still offered in the neighborhood park, but utilizing the Community Services special facilities, such as the indoor pool or gym, and co-offering events or field trips. This type of approach will offer a great deal of flexibility to a wide variety of age groups. The programming will represent their special interests and allow for expansion over the years. MOUND PARKS PROGRAM Cost Estimates LABOR Park Program/Lifeguard Supervisor Park Coordinators Park Assistants Day Camp Coordinator Day Camp Assistants Community Services Office Staff EQUIPMENT (Softball, Parachutes, Games, Coolers, etc.) SUPPLIES (Paints, Paper, Craft Supplies, Snacks) TRANSPORTATION MISCELLANEOUS Subtotal Administration Fee TOTAL REVENUES Day Camp Special Event Days Total Revenue CITY OF MOUND SUBSIDY NEEDED 1990 1991 $ 1,920 $ 2,346 3,084 3,355 2,903 3,167 1,087 1,330 1,760 1,760 1,500 1,500 400 500 500 500 750 800 100 100 $14,004 2,101 $16,105 $ 4,500 300 $ 4,800 $11,305 $15,354 mm $15,354 $ 3,300 300 $ 3,600 $11,758 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report MUNICIPAL CEMETERY The Mound Cemetery was established in 1884 and operated under an association until 1944, when the cemetery was turned over to the City of Mound. There are three divisions, A and B are the old sections to the west and the new section C, to the east. Currently, the grounds are maintained by a seasonal employee. He supplies his own equipment and is paid for time and machinery. The Park Crew helps when requested for projects that are larger in nature than the daily upkeep. The fertilization and weed control is done though a contract with ProLawns Inc. In 1990 a survey was done to compare the current fees for plots at the Mound Cemetery with other municipal and private cemeteries. The last fee change was done in 1989. The current fees are listed below: Adult, resident Adult, nonresident Baby, resident Baby, nonresident Ash Burial $200 400 100 150 * * No additional charge if plot is purchased as a single burial, $25 charge if ash burial is placed on top of a casket burial. A "resident" for the plot fee is defined as, "An individual to be interred is a current resident of the City of Mound at the time of his/her death, or at the time of purchasing his/her grave site." The operation of the cemetery is at a break even with income from the sale of plots. The current level of maintenance at the cemetery needs to be upgraded to aid in providing a more attractive setting. This could be done through irrigation, and fencing. 4 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report HAZARDOUS TREE REI~fOVAL As of December 31, 1991, the yearly total of hazardous tree removals from City property were 44 trees removed, 5 stumps chipped, and a number of limbs trimmed that posed a hazard. From private property under forced removal, 15 were taken, 13 were from one site. On an average, a tree is costing the City more to remove it in 1991 than in 1990. This is due to the high cost of disposal of the trees and higher charge for contractors for insurance that is forwarded onto the customer. Overall, in the budget for tree removal, there has been a reduction in the amount spent in 1991. This is due to the dutch elm removal program being around for a number of years and the tree count down. But, with the drought that ended, other trees such as maples and oaks have died. Diseased and hazardous trees are removed on a complaint basis. When a complaint is received an inspection of the tree is done to determine the need of removal and the ownership. City owned trees are removed by a contractor as soon as possible, while private trees are removed in accordance with City Ordinances. Private trees not removed in the grace period allowed, are forced removed. The cost of a forced removed tree is billed to the property owner. If this bill is not paid, it is then attached to their property taxes. COMMONS DOCKS The Commons Dock system is made up of approximately 4.5 miles of lakeshore, providing 445 dock sites. The Dock Inspector works under the direction of the Park Director. His main duties are the processing of dock applications, inspections of the dock sites, notification of the discrepancies to permit holders, and an informational source for the general public and City. 1991 was the fifth year that the Commons Dock Program had been assigned its own financial division. This allowed a concise look at the cost of the commons program and aided in setting a rate adjustment schedule to bring it to a self supporting Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report position. In 1991 the Commons budget showed a fund balance of $32,350. This balance will allow for future improvements to the docks program where we have seen cost. of dredging and shoreline repairs increase dramatically over the past years. In 1991 we supervised a dredge and riprapping at Emerald Lake. The necessary permits were obtained for this project, and the contractor completed the work December of 1991. We also processed the applications for the riprapping of 300 lineal feet of riprapping along Devon Commons to be done in February 1992. CITY BEACHES The beaches are operated under a contract with Westonka Community Services. The costs for 1991 and the 1991 estimates are as follows: 1990 1991 LABOR Community Education Staff Time $ -- Head Guards 4,715 Mound Bay Park Beach 4,185 Five Small Beaches 3,836 IN-SERVICE 1,012 MILEAGE 231 SUPERVISION 1,500 EQUIPMENT 100 Subtotal Administration Fee TOTAL NET INCREASE OVER 1990 FIGURES = 3.3% $ 1,000 1,912 9,568 4,600 950 180 440 $15,580 $18,650 2,337 -- $17,917 $18,650 These costs cover expenses incurred by Westonka Community Services in supplying lifeguards. They do not show the cost of maintenance, weed removal, buoys, portable toilets and life saving equipment. These come out of the park fund. 6 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report DEPOT AND ISLAND PARK BUILDINGS The Depot building has only seen minor improvements in 1991, the limitation has been due to financing of these improvements have been in part supplied by the City and government subsidies that are no longer available. Currently, there is still work that needs to be done, i.e. repair or replacement of exterior siding, soffits, fascia, and updated bathrooms to allow handicap accessibility. A new plant area has been installed along with new handrails along stairways on the deck. The facility is being used for meetings of local organizations and for rental by private individuals for parties. Response from these users has been positive. Future improvements at the Depot will reinforce the depot as an asset to our City. The Island Park building is not being used and has had the water, heat and electricity turned off. This facility is currently being used as a storage area for Police Department supplies, and the main hall will only be opened during elections for voting. Only minimum maintenance is being performed on this building. There is a need for updating, but use demand does not, at this time, justify the expenditure. CITY HALL MAINTENANCE/JANITORIAL The Parks Department is responsible for some areas concerning city shall maintenance and janitorial services. The grounds, lawn care and snow removal are seasonal, while responsibilities for heating/air conditioning are year round. All projects within the capabilities of the park staff are performed. This has been in the areas of repairs to plumbing, heating and related equipment. 7 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report Major repairs or cleaning services are contracted out through the direction of the Parks Department. Currently, we have a contract service for janitorial, carpet cleaning and the heating and air conditioning systems. Other projects have been assigned to the Parks Department as instructed by the City Manager. With the remodeling of City Hall, there naturally is an increase in maintenance responsibilities. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION The Park Commission is made up of nine members and a council Representative. Their activities are: o Commons Dock Programs and related concerns. o Parks/wetlands and related concerns. o Cemetery. o Island Park Hall and Depot buildings. o Open Space o Swimming beaches and lifeguards. o Hazardous tree removal. o Summer Recreation Program. o Budget preparation. Some of the areas the Park Commission has reviewed in 1991 were: o Commons maintenance permits. o Distribution of funds allotted for park improvements. o Inventory of City owned property for potential Nature Conservation Areas. o Commons dock fees based on a five year plan beginning in 1988 to bring the Dock program to a self supporting program. o Overseeing summer recreation/lifeguard programs. o Dock location map update. o Review of LMCD fees accessed to docks program. The Park Commission, along with the City Council and Planning Commission, toured the city's docking areas, parks and related properties that have come up in discussion during regular meetings. This tour will be conducted each year and will greatly aid in helping to make decisions affecting these areas. 8 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report EQUIPMENT ~4AINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT Preventive, daily, and unplanned maintenance of equipment is the responsibility of the Parks Department. on page 10 the equipment inventory. all related Please note The City did not re-hire an in-house mechanic after his resignation in 1991, therefore, we are currently taking major work to an outside contractor. We still receive help from other public works employees who are skilled in areas such as welding and electrical work. An equipment replacement schedule is maintained to allow for updating of major capital outlays (note: yearly purchase breakdown on page 11). This schedule when observed, will allow the Parks Department to operate efficiently and provide safety for the general public and the park crew. Recent cut-backs that have filtered down to the City level have made 1991 see a need for items cut from this area. I have readjusted replacement dates as shown on the attached Exhibit A. SUMMARY Listed below are some of the special projects completed in 1991. These are just areas of special note in the operation of the Parks Department. The year was consumed with the daily maintenance procedure of the parks responsibilities. Finished the upgrading of the grass area at Chester Park after the new equipment installation from 1990. Supervised the painting of the Parks Garage. Installation of a walkway over the storm culvert at Canary Beach to allow walk access to Commons docks. Installation of the new planter at the Depot building around the deck. City staff installed the timber wall and were aided by the Mohawk Jaycees in the plantings and ground preparation. 9 Parks Department - 1991 Annual Report 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Installation of concrete pads for portable toilets at all beach areas. Improved storm drain run-off at Mound Bay Park for the parking lot servicing the depot. Provided the ground preparation for the plantings at Lost Lake. Worked with the Adopt-a-Green Space in removal of trash and aided them in plantings and maintenance in park planters. Worked with a relative of the person who donated Carlson Park in the planting of a tree. Installed a covered picnic table at Philbrook Park. Initiated the dedication of the new flag pole at the Mound Union Cemetery by the American Legion. Installed the local organization sign at the entrance of Mound on Shoreline Drive. Installed riprap and ground restoration at Waterside Commons. Installed play equipment additional at Tyrone, Philbrook and Pembroke Parks. 1991 was a successful year with its highlight being the adoption of the requested 1991 budget. This new budget shows an active participation of the City of Mound in providing a progressive park system. 10 Parks Department 1991 Annual Report "EX1;IBIT An (page 1 of 2) REC# 2 3 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Curr ~quip 1 Ton Chev 4X4 Dump 5/4 Ton Chev 4X4 1 Ton Chev 4X2 Dump 3/4 Ton Chev 4X4 W/Plow Ford 2000 Tractor Loader, Sicklebar Mower, Plow 72" Mower John Deere Blower, Broom, Cab 72" Mower Howard Weedwhips (2) Brush Cutter Pushmower John Deere 21" Pushmower John Deere 21" Pushmower Toro 21" Blower Oohn Deere Backpack Skidsteer Bobcat 845 Planer, P.Forks, G.Forks, Bucket Utility Trailer 10,000 LB Utility Trailer 7,000 LB Utility Trailer 2,500 LB Utility Trailer 2,000 LB Outboard 10 HP Johnson Boat 14' Aluma Craft Chemical Sprayer 'Model Year 1990 1982 1978 1990 1974 1988 1984 1991 1990 1991 1992 1968 1988 1987 1987 1988 1984 1979 1961 1970 1990 Replace Year Service YearslReplace Cos+ 1996 1994 1993 1995 1992 1996 1992 1993 1995 1994 1994 1997 2002 2003 1999 1992 1997 12 15 5 18 2 3 2 2 10 15 15 15 13 $ 30,000 14,000 18,000 20,000 15,000 Trac & Flail used 15,000 750 625 45O 475 45O Parks Department 1991 Annual Report "EXI~IBIT A" (page 2 of 2) REC# YEAR I 1990 2 1991 3 1992 4 1993 5 1994 6 1995 EQUIPMENT BRUSH CUTTER 5/4 TON 4X4/PLOW 1TDN DUMP 4X4 CHEMICAL SPRAYER PUSHMOWER GROUND AIRATOR FLAIL MOWER WATER SPRINKLER WEEDWHIP (2) PUSH MOWER GROUND AIRATOR WATER SPRINKLER BOBCAT BUCKET 72" FRONT MOWER METAL LOCATOR 6000 lb TRAILER FLAIL MOWER (USED) ! TON DUMP 4X2 PUSHMOWER WEEDWHIP (2) BRUSH CUTTER UTILITY TRAILER PUSH MOWER 3/4 TON PICKUP 2X4 BACKPACK BLOWER WEEDWHIP (2) PUSHMOWER 3/4 TON PICKUP 4X4 (SNO PLOW) COST 550 14,990 24,000 950 400 2,000 24,000 4,000 600 400 2,900 4,000 1,000 15,000 700 2,000 15,000 18,000 450 750 625 2,500 475 14,000 450 775 500 20,000 REPLACES 1980 5/4 TON PICKUP 1976 3/4 TON 4X4 1987 PUSHMOWER 1974 FORD TRACTOR 1987 WEEDWHIP (2) 1989 PUSHMOWER 1987 BOBCAT BUCKET 1984 72" MOWER 1982 TRAILER 1974 FORD SICKLE 1978 1 TON DUMP 4X2 1991 PUSHMOWER 1991 WEEDWHIP (2) 1990 BRUSH CUTTER 1979 2,000 LB TRA. 1992 PUSH MOWER 1982 CHEV 4X4 1990 BACKPACK BLW. 1995 WEEDWHIP (2) 1991 PUSHMOWER 1990 CHEV 4X4 / PLOW CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - DECEMBER l0t 1991 1.5 CASE #91-0571 ~ENNI8 BYLL~, 4925 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOT 22~ BIX)CK 24, S~DYWOOD l~)II~l', PID ~13-117-24 11 00~7~ V~RI~CB ~O CR~A~B A BU~DABLB ~ The C~ty Planner explained that the applicant ~s seeking a varlance to create a butldable lot w~th a total area of 5,120 square feet. The lot ts located ~n the R-1 zone which re~res a minlmum off 10,000 s~are feet. A lo2 width variance would also be required. There ts no property adjacent to thls lot ~hat ts available to add s~are footage to the lot. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Mayor Johnson suggested tabling this item until further information is available and until sometime after December' 11, 1991, when there will be a Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss undersized lots, lots of record and develop a plan to deal with these lots. The following persons were present speaking against the parcel being a butldable lot: 1. Bill Carrow, 4929 Glen Elyn Road 2. Dick DeGuise, 4932 Glen Elyn Road 3. Brian Johnson, 4945 Glen Elyn Road 4. A letter from Catherine Kasprzak, 4939 Glen Elyn Road, was presented by Bill Carrow. 5. The following petition was received from the Glen Elyn Homeowners, signed by 10 persons. "We the undersigned, Glen Elyn Rd. Homeowners, wish to register our objection to the granting of any variance to the existing codes which would allow for building of any sort on the above extremely undersized lot. It is our opinion that any building squeezed into this lot can only succeed in destroying current aesthetic values in the area which in turn would severely lower existing property values. Granting of this requested variance can only succeed in harming many for the benefit of a few." Mr. Dennis Zylla, representing the Sharps (owners of the property), stated the Sharps have owned the property for 31 years and now would like to sell the property. The property is a lot of record and he feels this entitles the owners to a building permit if they can meet setback requirements. The City Attorney informed Mr. Zylla that the Council cannot declare the lot buildable when no actual plans for a building have been presented. There are other factors that must be considered when considering granting a building permit, i.e. drainage, elevations, etc. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jenson to table this item to the first meeting in rebruar~ (2-11-92). This will give tho Council time to assess the impaot on tho conunity and tho implications and alternatives. Tho vote was Vol. 30, No. 24 Monday, November 11, 1991 50¢ .C.row River News (USPS # 139-000) dina' 'C orcoran-Loretto Te. Sts show ash safer than gravel No significant risk found in ash 'TAP' product trol Agency (MPCA). The site identification was to examine in- "carcinogenic slope lactors and rcf- Lauri Winters A recent report says that waste ash, when used to pave roads in a bituminous product, does not carry health risks. 'he report, from AWD Tech- ;les, Inc. and released in ptember, states, "There is no significant hmnan health risk due to file use of TAP (treated ash product) as a replacement for a portion of the aggregate in a section of bitumi- nous pavement. In fact, the local air quality and thc health of thc local residents will be improved by paving the road." The assessment was prepared at the request of Municipal Services Corporation, the Georgia firm that manufactures the product, which uses of a combination of fly ash and bottom ash from Hennepin County's HERC Waste-to-Energy Facility in Minneapolis._ Frederick Gustin, senior project engineer for Municipal Services Corporation, and Dr. Haia Roff- man, director of risk assessment and toxicology for AWD, a sltbsidiary of Dow Chemical Compaiiy, were in the Twin Cities Nov. 5 and 6 to discuss the health risk report with state, county and city officials. They also met with residents of Corcoran who live on tile section of in r Trail which may be used as onstration project. PROPOSAL The county has proposed to pave a portion of Pioneer Trail between County Rd. 19 and the Greenfield border in Coreoran using a mixture of conventional materials antl tile s~'nthctic aggregate produced by Municipal Services Corporation. Thc purpose of the project is to demonstrate the environmental safety of the syntheti~ material and its physical road-building qualilies. The one-half mile segment of Plo- nee(Trail would be paved by Hen- .n/~llkCounty. This portion would i~e up to 750 feet containing the'"TAP. Approximately 30% of the pavement material would be TAP, according to Gusfin. TESTING The test project would be done under conditions of a permit issued by the Minnesota. Pollution Con- would be inspected and monitored on a regular basis for five years. Samples of the pavement would be analyzed for physical and chemical changes. In addition, air, soil and water in the vicinity of the test section will also be tested for chemical composition. "Anything coming off the road will be found in the soil long be- fore it shows up in the ground wa- ter,'' Roffinan said. She also stressed that Minnesota standards for concentration of contaminants in surface water from airborne de- po.sits and roadway runoff are more slnngent than the federal levels. ASSESSMENT Before beginning the actual test project, laboratory tests of unpaved roadway soils, conventional surfac- ing material and TAP were con- ducted to determine the potential · health risks and environmental im- pacts of three alternatives: leaving the road unpaved; paving the road with conventional asphalt ~naterial usin. g 100% natural aggregate; pawng the road with asphah in which 30% of the conventional material has been replaced with TAP aggregate. The combined TAP has been treated to make a physically suil- able aggregate material and an environ~nentally safe product, ac- cording to the health risk assess- ment report and Gustiu. He said heavy metals in the ash are bound with other materials and are chemi- cally immobile. They are not water soluble. The tesls used standardized proce- dures approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), the Minnesota Pollu- tion Control Agency (MPCA), Minnesota Department of Trans- portation (MnDOT), American So- ciety for Testing and Materials and the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. The three road materials were ex- mined for hazard identification: dose-response evaluation, exposure assessment and risk characteriza- tion. The main factors considered in each of these criteria are summa- rized as follows: IDENTIFICATION The objective of hazard formation and analytical data on contaminants in the three roadway materials and to identify the con- taminants which are detrimental to those who are exposed. This was done by reviewing existing scien- tific information regarding the toxicity of each contaminant. The research included plant, animal and human exposure information. DOSE-RESPONSE Another major component of the risk assessment is the relationship between the amount of material the individual is exposed to anti tile po- tcntial for adverse heahh efl'ects re- sulting from that exposure. This provides a means by which poten- tial public health impact is evalu- ated. Contaminants with established regulatory limits and toxicity data for potential health and environ- mental effects were identified in the three roadway materials and were included in the assessment report. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The exposure as~/essment evalu- ates the potential for human and environmental contact (exposure) with the contaminants identified in the roadway materials. This in- cluded chemicals released to the en- vironment, the route a contaminant follows through an environmental medium, the exposure or contact point and the presence of human or environmental recipients where ex- pose occurs. Exposure may be through inhalation, ingestion, dermal (skin) contact or lhe food chain. Further, exposures risks were figured on tile most conservative assumption that a person spends 24 hours per day outdoors, is exposed 365 days a year for 70 years only at the portion of the road where the paving mate- rial is used, infants would be ex- posed for the same period for three years, individuals would live within 33 feet of the road their entire life, consume only food products grown within 33 feet of the demonstration project and the only liquids they consumed came from the study area. RISK CIIAIIACTERIZATiON The risks to human heahh are examined through the use of crcnce doses." The United States EPA does not use a single number as criteria, but a range. The goal ranges are from one excess case of cancer in I0,000 people to one in 10,000,000. CONCLUSIONS The study showed the ground- level of TSP (total suspended par- ticulates) and respirable (breathable) particulate concentration estimates from unpaved roads were about 30 times greater than those on paved roads. It also showed the deposits of TSP and respirable particulates from vehicular traffic are 30 times greater on unpaved roads than on a paved road. The data from the study clearly de~nonstrates that none of the noncarcinogenic (non-cancer causing) hazard mounts exceed the U.S. EPA goal, for any of the roadway surfaces, and the potential carcinogenic (cancer-causing) risk is well below the U.S. EPA accept- able range, acconling to the sum, mary report. TAP materials contributions were less than all applicable criteria in regard to potential impact on the local aquatic ecology by comparing total water concentrations due to air-deposited and surface-water runoff. Food chain products grown or raised within 10 meters (less than 33 feet) from the road will not con- rain any of the heavy metals which cause concern in concentration Ihat would exceed levels which, occur naturally. "The study predicts no adverse health effects resulting from tile use of TAP in this demonstration pro- jects, because the noncarcinogenic. health effects are calculated to be below the U.S. EPA goal, and the potential carcinogenic risks are es- timated to be well within or below the U.S. EPA acceptable range of 10-4 (one in 10,000) or 10-7 (one in 10,000,000) excess cancer risks. All three alternatives considered in this study are safe, based on the re- .suits of the study." HE/~NEPIN COUNTY/HSC DEI{ONSTRATION PROJECT HEALTH RISKS WILL THE MUNICI2AL SERVICES CORPORATION DEMONSTRATION pROJECT POSE A THREAT TO THE RESIDENTS ALONG PIOArEER TRAIL, TO THEIR PROPERTIES, OR TO THE ENVIRONI4~NT? * No more than the construction of a road using conventional materials such as asphalt cement and' stone. * No more than using compost made from municipal solid waste in their gardens. * No more than spreading municipal sludge on croplands. Probably much less than leaving Pioneer Road unpaved and allowing the residents to breath in dusts that become airborne whenever a car drives past. A recent Hennepin County traffic count showed that 325 cars drove across this stretch of road during one 24 hour period. BUT ISI~'T IT TRUE T=~AT THE SY!~.THETIC AGGREGATE CONTAINS ASH FRO~ T!tE HE/fNEPIN COUNTY WASTE-TO-E~RGY FACILITY IN DOW-NTO~N M!NI~EAPOLIS? Yes, it i_~s true that the MSC synthetic aggregate, or TAP, contains MSW ash. However, MSC has spent the past several years developing a process to make that ash safe so ~hat those raw mata=ials can be put back to work doing something constructive, like building roads, instead of throwing away that ash forever in a landfill. Table 1 shows that the MSC TAP comes very close to meeting Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards for ,'heaVy metals" such as lead, cadmium and mercury in Class I compost. Class I compost is produced from yard waste and municipal solid waste, or garbage, and its.unrestricted use is allowed in home vegetable gardens, on croplands, and in landscaping of parks and playgrounds. Under Minnesota standards, a Class I! compost is any compost with concentrations of heavy metals above ~he Class. t limits. Class II compost may be used in specific applications with the permission of the ML°--CA. soils are divided into ~hree classifications, based on their ,,cationic Exchange Capacity", or ability! to ,,attenuate" or "tie up" the heavy metals in the s!udqe. Mil!iequivalents per !00 grams (Meca/!00 g) is the unit ~hat is used to TABLE ! TOTAL COMPOSITION ANALYSES OF MSC SYNTHETIC AGGREGATE (TAP) COMPARED TO CLASS Z COMPOST (ALL UNITS IN MG/KG) TAP CLASS I COMPOST CADMII/~ 17.3 10.0 CHROMIUM 56.8 1000.0 COPPER 465.0 500.0 LEAD 570.0 500.0 MERCURY 4.3 5.0 NICKEL 112.5 100.0 ZINC 1775.0 1000.0 PCB <0.25 1.0 NOTES: Tap Samples were crushed to powder (minus 100 sieve) prior to analysis. Minnesota Class II compost may have higher concentrations of one or more of the above parameters. Its use is restricted to certain approved applications only. TABLE 2 TOTAL COMPOSITION ANALYSES OF MSC SYNTHETIC AGGREGATE (TAP) COMPARED TO MI~NIYESOTA LAtYDSPP~EADI/~G REQUI!LE~LENTS MAXIMUM pERMISSIBLE LOADINGS (ALL U/~ITS IN LB/AC-~LE) Ii~orst-CaseI~ TAP Soil Soil Soil Disintegration p&rameter Type I Type II Type III Scenario LEAD 500 !000 2000 287 ZINC 250 500 1000 894 234 COPPER 125 250 500 NICKEL 50 !00 200 ' 57 CADMi[I~* 5 i0 20 9 NOTES: Soil Type I = Soil Type II = Soil Type Iii = < 5 'meq/ 100 g 5 - 15 meca/ !00 g > 15 meca/ !00 g * Special rules apply for cadmiums. measure the cationic Exchange Capacity of a soil. Heavy clay soils tend to have high cationic Exchange Capacities. The MPCA permits the use of municipal sludge on farmlands as a natural fertilizer, with certain restrictions. Limits are set by the MPCA for the total amounts of heavy metals that are allowed to be spread over farmlands. These are well below the amounts of heavy metals that can be attenuated before they will begin to pass through into the groundwater. When the limits are met, no additional municipal sludge may be spread. Table 2 shows that even if the entire roadway were to disintegrate into dust before action could be taken to remove it, the concentrations of the TAP in the road would not exceed limits that have been set for the use of municipal sludge on most soils in l~innesota. Of course, the test strip will be inspected frequently and if it shows signs of unusual deterioration, it will be picked up and disposed of properly, long before even partial disintegration could take place. Needless to say, nobody is suggesting that the TAP be used for growing vegetables or for spreading on croplands, although it is much less likely that heavy metals contained in the TAP could enter the environment than the metals contained in Class i'ccmpost or municipal sludge. This is because the heavy metals that are contained in MSW ash are first chemically changed by the MSC process so that they will not dissolve, cr "leach", under even very harsh conditions. The chemically treated ash is then mixed with cementitious materials to provide durability, and the mixture is processed into TAP. Out on the roadway, the TAP will be locked up in the asphalt pavement, providing an additional, although unnecessary, barrier. fLAK MST ASH BEEN USED AS A HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IN OTHER PLACES? Yes. In the United States, MSW ash is being tested in bo~ its natural state and in processed fo~s as an asphalt pavement in~edient and as a base course material benea~ the pavement in several locations, most not~ly New York, Florida, ~d New Jersey, with good results. The enviro~enta! standards for ~e ~C project far exceed ~ose re~ired in any s~ilar project to date. The T~ has been developed by ~3C to meet not only enviro~enta! safe~ retirements, but strict ~DOT standards for bit~inous pavement aggregates as well, and is ~e only product to t~e into accost both of these critical factors. There little doubt that the Hennepin County/MSC Demonstration Project is one of the most comprehensive studies of the envirorunental and physical suitability of an alternative roadbuilding material ever undertaken. WStAT TYPE OF TESTING WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE T~UE ROAD WILL BE ALLOW"ED TO BE BUILT? The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is requiring that the MSC TAP meet even stricter environmental standards than Class I compost or municipal sewage sludge before it will permit the test strip to be built. First, the ash in its raw, unprocessed state must be thoroughly analyzed in the laboratory to determine the components that are present when the ash is first produced in the waste-to-ener~cY facility. The other raw materials that are mixed with the ash to produce the TAP are also analyzed in this fashion to evaluate their environmental safety. The TAP is then subjected to a test where it is ground to a fine powder and placed in acid, and it is determined whether the heavy metals will "leach", or dissolve, from the TAP. The TAP will not be permitted to leach heavy, metals in amounts that exceed the Minnesota drinkinq water standards · ~' much stricter standard than is for prlvate wells. _~is is a re_cuired for Class I compost or municipal sludge. There are many commonly used construction materials , as well as natural soils, that do not meet these rigorous standards. Following the envirormenta! testing, the TAP is tested in a highway construction materials testing laboratory to verify that it will perform well as a pavement aggregate. These tests measure the TA-o's durability under harsh environmental conditions such as freezing and thawing cycles, chemical attack, and heavy traffic. W~AT y_E~ASU]LES WILL BE TAZZEN TO ENSUP~E TILAT TILEP~E WiLL BE NO PROBLF2~-$ AFTER T~E TEST STR!? ttA$ BEEN BUILT? The MPCA, Hennepin County and M~SC, with inmut from a wide variety of interested citizens, has spent the past one and one-half years developing -a permit for the Demonstration Project that has some very precise and rigorous requirements for monitoring of the site. Of course, t_he TkP must be tested and determined to be safe before the ~fPCA will allow the test strip to be built. After t_he test strip has been built however, test cores will be taken of t~ke actual pavement, as well as samples of the air, soils, and waters in the vicinity of t_he site, to determine if any deterioration of the TlP is taking place. These samples will be analyzed carefully by an independent !~borator~ to find out if even very small quantities of contaminants are leaving the roadway. If it is discovered that there are any problems with the test strip, the road would be removed and taken to a landfill disposal site for burial. The test section wo~ld then be replaced wi~k standard asphalt pavement. in addition to environmental scientists and technicians visiting the test strip on a regular basis to collect samples, the permit re~uires that Hennepin County and Minnesota Department of Transportation highway engineers visit the test strip on a regular basis to perfor~ inspections of the road. Any unusual deterioration will be spotted long before it has an opportunity to wear down or cause a problem. in shun, every effort will be made to guarantee the continued good health of residents in the vicinity of the test strip, and the protection of their property and the environment through the combined efforts of the MPCA, Hennepin County, and Municipal Services Corporation. For further information, contact: Hugh P. Shannonhouse, President Municipal Services Corporation !000 Cobb Place Blvd., Bldg 400 Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 (404) 424-!900 TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC LEACHING PROCEDURE (TCLP) AlqALYSIS OF NSC SYNTHETIC AGGREGATE (TAP) (ALL UNITS IN MG/L) PARAMETER UNCRUSHED TAP SAMPLE= = MINN. =3 ~% RAL ARSENIC BARIUM CADMIUM CHROMIUM LEAD MERCURY SELENIUM SILVER COPPER ZINC <O. O5 <O. O5 , <0.05 <O. O5 0.05 0.36 0.39 0.39 0.39 2.00 <0.0002 0.0009 0.0002 0.0003 0.00% 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.0% 0.10 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.02 0.0004 0.0007 0.0004 0.0005 0.001 <0.005 <0.005' <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.00 <0.01 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 0.70 PARAMETER ARSENIC < BARIUM CADMIUM CHROMIUM LEAD MERCURY SELENIUM SILVER COPPER ZINC ~ CRUSHED TAP SAMPLE = = ...................... MINN. ~5 ~6 ~7 ~s RAL 0.05 <0.05 0.05 <0.05 0.05 0.%1 0.58 0.62 0.59 2.00 <0.0002 0.0003 <0.0002 0.0002 0.00% 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.10 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.02 0.000~ <0.0002 0.000% <0.0002 0.001 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 1.OO <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.70 NOTES: (1) (2) RAL = RECOMM--~NDED ALLOWABLE LIMITS FOR CONTAMINANTS IN PRIVATE WATER SUPPLIES, MN DEPT OF"HEALTH. ALL ANALYSES PERFORMED BY BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIRONMENTAL, MINNEAPOLIS, MI1N-NESOTA, iN CONS'UlqCTION WITH THE HENNEPIN COU1NTY/MSC ASH DEMONSTRATION PROJECT. SAMPLE =='S 5-8 WERE CRUSHED USING A MORTAR AND PESTLE, WITH: 99% PASSING 'A =~40 SIEVE %8% PASSING A ==100 SIEVE 30% PASSING A %200 SIEVE DUE TO THE INITIAJ-. pM OF THE TAP, THE TCLP REQUIRES THAT ACID WITH A pH OF 2.88 BE USED IN THE EXTRACTION. TABLE 2 TOTAL COMPOSITION ANALYSES OF MSC SYNTHETIC AGGREGATE (TAP) (ALL UNITS IN MG/KG) CRUSHED TAP SAMPLE= ~ PARAMETER ~1 ~2 93 ~4 AVERAGE ARSENIC 30 28 20 21 24.8 BARIUM 750 710 680 660 700.0 CADMIUM 18 17 16 18 17.3 CHROMIUM 56 65 53 53 56.8 LEAD 570 650 510 550 570.0 MERCURY 4.6 4.1 ~ 4.6 4.3 SELENIUM <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 <0.25 SILVER 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 COPPER 520 430 460 450 465.0 ZINC 2000 1800 1500 1800 1775.0 NOTE S: (1) TAP SAMPLES WERE CRUSHED TO POWDER (MINUS 100 SIEVE) PRIOR TO ANALYSIS. (2) ALL ANALYSES PERFORMED BY BRAUN INTERTEC ENVIRONMENTAL, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HENNEPIN COUNTY/MSC M~W ASH DEMONSTRATION PROJECT. L~ ~ 0 xxx -- ~ ~ I ~ 0 . ~NTWR NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION ANALYTICAL SERVICES CERI!PICA!E O? ANALYSIS Pauls Connetl Braun Environmental LAbs, Inc. 6885 Washington Avenue South Edna, MN 55435 February 4, 1991 TDL PROJECT NUMBER: 482838 DEPARTMENT NUMBER' EG-808 CLIENT PO NUMBER: 16239 This is the Certificate of Analysis for the following samples: Client Project ID' E90-349 (Braun Environmental Labs, Inc.) Date Received by Lab' November 8, 1990 Number of Samples: Four (4) Sample Type' Ash/Cement ]. Introduction/Case Narrative Four (4) samples were received November 8, 1..~0 for the analysis of 2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF and tetra through octa (CI4-CI8) dioxin and furan homoloas (See Appendix A, Cross Reference List ~ esdm=t~on of all 2,3,7,8- ppendix C, Chain-of-Custody and'Request for Analysis records). An *' ~ ' substituted isomers was also requested, iFhe samples and blank were spiked with an internal standard mixture containing 5.0 ng each of ~3C-TCDD, 13C_TCDF, ~'~C-PeCDD, ~=C-PeCDF, ~=C-HxCDD, ~3C-HxCDF, ~3C-HpCDD, ~3C-HpCDF and ~C-OCDD. The samples and blank were extracted and cleaned u[: using a modified version of the EPA reference method described in "RCRA SW-846, Method 8280," revised September, 1986. Extracts were analyzed by GC/MS operating in the select, ed ion monitoring mode for enhanced sensitivity. The samples were labeled with the following: Crushed Ta:~ ~ Crushed Tea 2 C~shed Tap 3 Crushed TAp 4 Reviewed and Approved: Duane K. Rcot An~yticat Oper~-tions Manager 1-i' Ar-mi'Cdc'-' Sergces , 504 DL:?ct=.'~ Drove · i<r-=:c'~e, ~ 27~22 · (~15) (590-.~211 FHWA - DEMO PROJECTS 'INCIRERATOR RESIDUE (1974 - 1979) TABLE 6 INCINERATOR RESIDUE TEST INSTALLATIONS Project Asphalt 'Residue Cement Date Percent Percent Lime Length Thickness Percent Meters Centimeters Performance Houston TX Phila. PA Delaware Co.,PA Harrisburg PA Harrisburg PA fused residue Washington D.C. Lynn MA 1974 100 9.0 1975 50 7.4 1975 50 7.0 1975 50 7.0 1976 100 6.7 1977 70 9.0 1979 50 6.5 2.0 61 15 excellent base 2.5 .30 3.8 acceptable surface 2.5 18 3.8 acceptable surface 2.5 73 3.8 poor surface 0,0 55 3.8 surface excel 1 ent 2.0 122 11.4 good base 2.0 approx. 3.8 1610 binder and surface excel 1 ent DATA ~RNNEPIN COUNTY/MUNICIPAL SERVICES CORPORATION JOINT DEMONSTRATION OF MSW ASH UTILIZATION Hennepin County proposes to pave a section of Pioneer Trail west of County Highway 19 and east of the Corcoran city limit using a synthetic aggregate produced by Municipal Services Corporation, a subsidiary of USPCI and the Union Pacific Corporation. The aggregate, called "TAP," is made using the combined ash from Hennepin County's HERC Waste-to-Energy Facility as the principal ingredient. The Demonstration Project will verify the environmental safety and the physical roadbuilding properties of the TAP. It will also further reduce reliance on landfill disposal by putting back into useful service the ash that remains from the incineration of municipal solid waste. Here are some facts: The entire length of P£oneer Trail west of County Highway 19 and east of the Corcoran city limit will be paved by Hennepin County, although only a test strip of approximately 500 - 600 feet will contain the TA~. The ash has been treated to make the T~P an environmentally safe product that meets Minnesota Department of Health Drinking Water Standards. The TAP has been tested extensively using standardized procedures that have been approved by the following agencies and scientific organizations: - United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PLPCA) - Minnesota Department of Transportation (M/~ DOT) - American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) - American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO)-' As a comparison, laboratory analyses conducted on the T~3 show that it would be suitable for use on cer--ain pasture and cropland, as is municipal sludge. Further, the TA~ approaches the standards for Class I compost, for which unrestricted use Ls permitted on both ccmmercia! and residential soils as a natural fertilizer. The project will be conducted under the strict conditions of a permit to be issued by the M3CA. The site will be inspected and monitored on a regular basis over a period of five years. Samples of the pavement will be analyzed for any changes; as well as samples of the air, soils and water in the vicinity of the test section. For further information contact: Hugh P. Shannonhouse, President Municipal Services Corporation Building 400 lO00 Cobb Place Boulevard Kennesaw, Georgia 30144 (404) 424-1900 I HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF I MINNESOTA MSW-ASH UTILIZATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREPARED FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES CORPORATION ! ! PREPARED BY I AWD TECHNOLOGIES, I I I SEPTEMBER1991 ! I I i I I I I I I ! l HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT OF MINNESOTA MSW-ASH UTILIZATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PREPARED FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES CORPORATION PREPARED BY AWD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SEPTEMBER 1991 SUBMITTED BY: THOMAS M. JAC~ RISK ASSESSMENT Rf~HARD K. CAMBOTTI FOOD CHAIN AND ECOLOGY APPROVED BY: HAIA K. R , Ph.D. DIRECTOR RISK ASSESSMENT, TOXICOLOGY, AND RISK ASSESSMENT I I I I I I ! I 1 ! TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE ES-1 E$-2 ES-2 · 1 ES-2 · 2 ES-2.2.1 ES-2 · 2 · 2 ES-2 · 2.3 ES-2.2 · 4 ES-3 ES-4 ES-4 · 1 ES-4.2 ES-4 · 3 ES-5 Project Description Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Rationale Health Risk Assessment Methodology Hazard Identification Dose-Response Evaluation Exposure Assessment Risk Characterization Ecological Assessment Methodology Conservative Assumptions Used in the Risk Assessment Particulate Emissions and Dispersion Calculation Conservative Health Risk Assumptions Food Chain Modeling of Contaminants Major Conclusions of Study ii PAGE ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 E$-i ES-3 ES-4 ES-4 ES-6 ES-8 ES-ii ES-12 ES-12 ES-13 ES-14 ES-16 ! I i I I I l 1 l I ! ! I ! ! NUMBER ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 ES-5 ES-6 NUMBER ES-1 ES-2 TABLES Annual Average Ground-Level Concentrations of TSP and PM~0 from Vehicular Traffic on Paved and Unpaved Pioneer Trail Roadways Annual Total Dry Deposition of TSP and PM~0 from Vehicular Traffic on Paved and Unpaved Pioneer Trail Roadways Total Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risks Arising from Direct Exposure to Roadway Materials Total Carcinogenic and Noncarcinogenic Risks Arising from Exposure to Surface or Groundwater Total Human Health Risk Due to Food Chain Exposure Concentration of Contaminants in Surface Water (Pond) Due to Airborne Deposition and Roadway Runoff FIGURES Demonstration Project Location Terrestrial Food Chain Model iii PAGE ES-17 ES-18 ES-19 ES-20 ES-21 ES-23 PAGE ES-2 ES-9 1 I I I ! I i I i ! EXECUTIVE SUHNARY ES-1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Hennepin County, Minnesota proposes to pave a portion of Pioneer Trail in the City of Corcoran, Minnesota between County Transportation Highway (CTH) 19 and the Corcoran/Greenfield city limit using a mixture of conventional natural aggregate and a synthetic aggregate produced by Municipal Services Corporation (MSC). MSC is a subsidiary of USPCI and the Union Pacific Corporation. The synthetic aggregate, or treated ash product ("TAP"), is made using combined fly ash and bottom ash from Hennepin County's HERC Waste-to-Energy Facility and a proprietary mixture of other ingredients. The main objective of this Demonstration Project is to demonstrate the environmental safety of this material, as well as its physical roadbuilding properties. The entire 1/2 mile length of Pioneer Trail between CTH 19 and the Corcoran city limit (see Figure ES-i) will be paved by Hennepin County. A "test section" of approximately 750 feet will contain the TAP. Portions of the balance will serve as experimental control. The Demonstration Project will be conducted under the strict conditions of a permit to be issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). The site will be inspected and monitored on a regular basis over a period of 5 years. Samples of the pavement will be analyzed for physical and chemical changes, and samples of the air, soils, and water in the vicinity of the test section will be tested for their chemical composition. ES-2 HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HRA) ES-2.1 Rationale Prior to initiating the Demonstration Project, existing laboratory analytical data regarding the chemical composition of TAP, conventional natural aggregate road building material, and unpaved roadway soils as they currently exist were utilized to assess the ES-1 I I I ! I 1 I I ! ! I l ! I rw GREENFIELD CORCORAN h- , DEUONSTRAllON ~ I PROJECT i LOCAIION / AW'D TECHNOLOGIES, INC DEMONSTRATION PROJECT LOCATION o AWD O !0 C:U~IT: MUNICIPAL SERV1CES CORP. I Joe .uue~: 2165-000 o ~ n~J~ ES- 1 o · ni:c~oLoa~ ~ NOT TO SCALE ES-2 I I I I I [ I I relative potential health risks and environmental impacts of the following three alternatives: Leaving the existing road unpaved Paving the road with conventional asphalt material using 100 percent natural aggregate Paving the road with asphalt (Test Section) in which 30 percent of the conventional natural aggregate has been replaced with TAP aggregate The combined ash has been treated to make the TAP a physically suitable aggregate material and an environmentally safe product. The TAP, as well as natural aggregate and existing roadway soils, were analyzed using standardized procedures that have been approved by the following agencies and scientific organizations: · · · · · United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) ES-2.2 Health Risk Assessment Methodoloqy i I I Potential health risks and environmental effects associated with the three roadway materials (unpaved roadway soil, natural aggregate paving, and Test Section paving) were evaluated according to U.S. EPA methods and criteria (1989). The human health risk assessment process is composed of four components: ! i ~azard Identification Dose-Response Evaluation Exposure Assessment Risk Characterization ES-3 i I I I I I I I The hazard identification (sometimes referred to as contaminant identification and toxicological evaluation) and dose-response evaluation collectively comprise the toxicity assessment. The risk assessment process is completed by integrating the results from the toxicity assessment with the site-specific exposure assessment to yield a complete characterization of risk. ES-2.2.1 Hazard Identification The objective of this component is to screen the information and analytical data on the contaminants in roadway materials, and to identify those contaminants which present potential adverse effects to the exposed populations. This identification is accomplished through the review of published scientific literature regarding the toxicity of each contaminant. This research may reflect animal and plant toxicity or actual human exposure data. Important factors to be considered in the toxicity evaluation of each chemical include contaminant release, potential routes of exposure, contaminant mobility, types of toxicological effects (toxicity), and the weight of evidence supporting the validity of data and applicability to human receptors. Generally, those metal contaminants which are regulated in drinking water or hazardous waste regulations, have been studied and their toxicity documented to support the establishment of regulatory limits such as the Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC), Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), or action levels. These regulatory concentrations are established on the basis of toxicity research data mainly on animals and include generous safety factors for human exposure. For example, an MCL may be set at a fraction of the lowest concentration determined through toxicity studies, to exhibit no observable effects. ES-2.2.2 Dose-Response Evaluation A major component of the risk assessment process is the relationship between the dose of a compound, (amount to which an individual or population is exposed) and the potential for adverse health effects resulting from exposure to that dose. Dose- response relationships provide a means by which potential public health impacts are evaluated. ES-4 Contaminants identified in the three roadway materials for which there are established regulatory limits and toxicity data supporting potential health and environmental effects are included in this assessment. These contaminants of concern include the eight SWDA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) metals as well as 2378-tetrachlorodizeno-p-dioxin (dioxin). It should be noted that some of the contaminants of concern were not detected in a roadway material. In these instances, concentrations equal to one-half of the analytical detection limit were used in modeling and exposure calculations. This conservative procedure is in conformance with U.S. EPA risk assessment guidance and recommended criteria (U.S. EPA, 1989). I I I I I i Il, A brief summary of the methodology used to establish these parameters follows. This summary includes a discussion of the implications and limitations of the dose-response relationships, and the derived regulatory criteria. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) - MCLs are enforceable standards promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and are designed for the protection of human health. MCLs are based on laboratory or epidemiological studies and apply to drinking water supplies consumed by a minimum of 25 persons. They are designed for prevention of human health effects associated with lifetime exposure (70-year lifetime) of an average adult (70 kg) consuming 2 liters of water per day. Ambient Water Quality Criteria (AWOC) - AWQC are nonenforceable regulatory guidelines that are used to identify a contaminant's potential effects on aquatic species. AWQCs are research based minimum surface water concentrations which reflect acute and chronic effects in aquatic species. Reference Dose (RfD) - RfDs were developed by the U.S. EPA for chronic an4/or subchronic human exposure to hazardous chemicals and are based solely on the noncarcinogenic effects of chemical substances. It is expressed in mg/kg/day and is calculated by dividing the no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) or the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of a chemical by a series of uncertainty factors and modifying factors. The ES-5 I I I I I I I I I ! I i ! reference dose can be multiplied by the weight of an adult (70 kg) to obtain an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for an adult. Although the RfD is an acceptable guideline for the evaluation of noncarcinogenic risk, the associated uncertainties in the modification of a particular NOAEL preclude its use in precise risk quantitation. Carcinoqenic Slope Factor (CSF) - CSFs are applicable for estimating the lifetime probability (assumed 70-year life span) of human receptors contracting cancer as a result of exposure to known or suspected carcinogens. This factor is generally reported in units of kg/day/mg, and is derived through an assumed low-dosage linear relationship and the extrapolation from high to low dose- responses determined from animal studies. The CSF is the upper bound slope of the dose-response curve as determined by the multistage dose-response model (U.S. EPA, 1987). ES-2.2.3 Exposure Assessment This component of the risk assessment evaluates the potential for human and environmental contact (exposure) with the contaminants identified in the three roadway materials. A complete exposure pathway has four components: (1) a source of chemicals released to the environment; (2) a route of contaminant transport through an environmental media; (3) an exposure or contact point; and (4) the presence of a human or environmental receptor at the exposure point. Exposure pathways, or means of contact, with contaminants considered in this assessment include: Inhalation - Roadway materials are subjected to degrading forces such as vehicular traffic and water, which may generate airborne concentrations of contaminants in the form of particles eroded from the surface. Direct inhalation of these contaminants containing particulates by human receptors is considered. Airborne concentrations are calculated by U.S. EPA air estimation models utilizing local Minnesota meteorological data. ES-6 I I I I I I I I I I i I Inqestion - Human receptors are potentially exposed through oral ingestion of roadway material constituents: Leached into local groundwater from the pavement. These groundwater concentrations were determined utilizing conservative U.S. EPA modeling techniques and data regarding local geology and soils. In addition, the leaching solution was assumed to be much more aggressive than rain water. Contained in surface water runoff due to precipitation. Conservative assumptions regarding road constituent removal by rainfall were employed in the calculation of surface water runoff constituent concentrations. By direct ingestion of native soils affected by deposition (settling) of the road airborne particulates. Humans come into oral contact with soiled hands, and soil itself in the case of small children. Dermal Contact - Skin contact with contaminated materials (surface water runoff, roadway materials) permits the absorption of some contaminants. This pathway can be especially important in the case of children playing outdoors. Food Chain - Roadway material contaminants in the air and deposited on soils may accumulate in plant and animal tissues through the food chain, and present an ingestion exposure pathway to human receptor through food consumption. Therefore, a food chain model was chosen to evaluate this potential exposure pathway. The model was developed for the U.S. EPA by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to evaluate human exposure through the terrestrial food chain specifically to municipal waste combustor emissions. The model utilizes ambient air contaminant concentrations (~g/cu.m) and deposition rates (g/sq.m/yr.) to calculate the amount of a contaminant that has accumulated in plants, animals, and fish within ES-7 a given distance from the source over a specified period of time. This contaminant modeling tool is a predictive means of estimating the uptake, bioconcentration, and biomagnification of airborne pollutants through several ecological trophic levels and exposure routes. Ultimately, total human uptake (~g/day) of contaminants is estimated along with the relative contributions of the various exposure routes examined. Figure ES-2 illustrates the trophic exposure pathways. Three routes of vegetative uptake are considered: Uptake by the plant root system Wet and dry foliar deposition Contaminant vapor phase uptake portion of plant by the aerial This model estimates uptake for animal feed grain and forage vegetation as well as crops consumed by man. It predicts contaminant concentrations in animal tissue resulting from inhalation and ingestion exposures. Ingestion of animal tissues and crops are both included in the total human exposure. Calculation of aquatic deposition permits evaluation of contaminant uptake by fish and, subsequently, human exposure via ingestion of contaminated fish flesh. EB-2.2.4 Risk Characterization The risks to human health are characterized quantitatively. Quantitative risk estimates are generated through the use of Carcinogenic Slope Factors and Reference Doses. The ratio of Dose to Reference Dose is termed a Hazard Quotient and is a measure of the potential health effects of a given exposure. Thus: Hazard Quotient = Dose + Reference Dose ES-8 INHALA'I~ON UPTAKE UPTAKE & FORAGF INGESTION ANIMAL TISSUE AIRBORNE CONTAMINANT EDIBLE PLANTS INGESTION I I I I INGESTION HUMAN EXPOSURE ~ INHALATION DEPOSITION WATER CONCENTRATION INGESTION AQUATIC LIFE FISH INGESTION FIGURE E8-2 TERRESTRIAL FOOD CHAIN MODEL I ES-9 ! I I I I I i I I I I I I ! The hazard quotient is, therefore, simply a comparison between the amount of a chemical to which a person is exposed and an acceptable amount (RfD) published by the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 1989) explains that a reference dose (RfD) is an "estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude or greater) of a daily exposure level for the human population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects". The RfD is derived from human data, if available, or animal data and represents "the highest level tested at which no adverse affects ..... were demonstrated". It should be emphasized that the RfD is a level at which no health effects have been shown, even to more sensitive members of a population. "The noncancer hazard quotient assumes that there is a level of exposure (i.e., RfD) below which it is unlikely for even sensitive populations to experience adverse health effects" (U.S. EPA, 1989). The hazard quotient is a measure used to describe the potential for noncarcinogenic effects to occur in an individual, but it does not express the probability of an effect occurring. The following example explains the approach of evaluating noncarcinogenic risks. Assume that the U.S. EPA declares that the highest no-effect-level (RfD) for a certain compound is 5 milligrams per day. Assume further that site data indicate that a person is exposed to 2 milligrams of this compound per day. The ratio of the site specific amount and the U.S. EPA's published value is 2/5 or 0.4, which is less than 1, where 1 is the level that adverse effects may begin to appear. According to U.S. EPA guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1989), if the Hazard Quotient is greater than unity (1), "there may be concern for potential health effects". It is therefore desirable that: Hazard Quotient < 1 ES-10 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I ! To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects when there is more than one chemical of concern, individual Hazard Quotients for a given exposure situation are summed to provide a Hazard Index (U.S. EPA, 1989). Hazard Index = ~ Hazard Quotients As with the Hazard Quotient, when the Hazard Index is lower than 1, there should be no impact and therefore it is desirable that Hazard Index < 1 Carcinogenic risks are computed similarly to the noncarcinogenic risks by multiplying the doses with the CSFs. Therefore, Carcinogenic Risk = Dose x CSF The U.S. EPA does not use a single number as the criterion, but rather a range. The U.S. EPA states that its general goal ranges from 104 to 10.7 (1 excess case of cancer in 10,000 to 1 in 10,000,000). ES-3 ECOLOGIC/~L ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The potential ecological effects of the three roadway materials were evaluated by comparing available wildlife contaminant exposure data (Ambient Water Quality Criteria) to the total roadway material contaminants in a theoretical pond located 10 meters from the Demonstration Project Site. AWQC are nonenforceable regulatory guidelines that may be used for identifying research-based minimum surface water concentrations which reflect acute and chronic effects in aquatic species. The evaluation considered contaminant input from roadway surface water runoff and deposition of airborne particulate contaminants into a f~xed volume of pond water. The following factors contributed to this evaluation: ES-ii I l I I I I I I I ! I ! ! ! ! Terrestrial food chain evaluation of pond water contaminant concentrations due to deposition of airborne contaminants in the pond watershed for 20 years. Surface water runoff from the roadway materials removing the total mass of leachable contaminants from the entire roadway material volume (2 in x 750 ftx 24 ft) and depositing it in the pond. The pond water volume was considered static. In other words, flow through the pond which would dilute contaminant concentrations was not considered. ES-4 CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT ES-4.1 Particulate Emissions and Dispersion Calculation Standard methods provided by the U.S. EPA (1985) were employed to estimate particulate emissions (dust) from the roadway materials due to vehicular traffic and weather erosion. These calculations along with subsequent dispersion modeling of the air concentrations of dust included the following assumptions: Emission rates (g/s) paved/unpaved sources are assumed to occur continuously throughout the year. Therefore, concentration and deposition values represent continuous emissions. The particulate emission rate is based in part on the volume of vehicular traffic which was evaluated by the Hennepin County Transportation Planning Division in April 1991 to be 325 vehicles/day. This number was assumed to be the average annual daily traffic volume which is constant throughout the year, even during winter months. Reduction of particulate emissions due to wet road surface conditions and snow cover are not considered. The 10 meter receptor is within distance recommended by air quality model to provide conservatism. ES-12 ! 1 I I I I I I I I I I I Highest concentration resultant from the five most recent years of meteorological data were reported. · Regulatory default mode of ISC tends resultant concentrations. ES-4.2 Conservative Health Risk Assumptions The main assumptions made in this assessment are: to maximize A person spends 24 hours per day outdoors. A person is exposed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year for 70 years only at this stretch of the road and always outdoors. Infants are exposed 24 hours per day, 365 days a year for 3 years, and they spend all this time outdoors. The inhaled particulates contain the same chemical concentrations for the 70 year period. The entire amount of chemicals contained in the inhaled particles are absorbed by the body. All of the chromium inhaled is in its most toxic form, Chromium VI. Individuals live within 33 feet of the road their entire life Individuals consume their daily liquid consumptions only of the study area (within 33 feet from Demonstration Project) Individual consume food products grown and raised within '33 feet of the Demonstration Project. ES-13 I I I I I I I i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Leachates entering the groundwater are no% what rainwater or stormwater would leach from the road materials, but rather leachates produced by the TCLP extraction procedure. It is well documented that the TCLP extraction procedure, which uses acetic acid, is much more aggressive than rain or stormwater. Additional conservative assumptions used in this health risk assessment are listed in Section 3.3.1. ES-4.3 Food chain Modelinq of Contaminants The Terrestrial Food Chain Model (TFCM) requires various input data to estimate the accumulation of contaminants in plant animal and fish tissues, and calculate a human daily exposure based on consumption. If site specific or regional Minnesota data were not available, model input values were chosen which tended to overestimate accumulation and exposure. Some of these conservative assumptions include: Ail environmental matrices (plant, animal, fish, human tissues) considered by the model were assumed to be located at the point of highest air concentration and deposition of contaminants from the source (10 meters). This means that all crops, animal feed, animals, the pond containing fish, and human receptors were simultaneously located at the same maximum contaminant concentration point. Contaminant air concentrations and deposition rates used were based on total suspended particulate (TSP) concentrations rather than the lower concentrations for the respirable PM-10 particle sizes. A total deposition time period of 20 years was considered. Food chain trophic levels are exposed to environmental matrices containing constituent concentrations equivalent to 20 years of accumulation (deposition, uptake, retention). ES-14 I I I ! I I I I I I I I I Input parameters affecting the final concentrations of contaminants in environmental matrices were consistent for the three scenarios considered in the modeling of each constituent. Constituents deposited on soils were assumed to be deposited within only a depth of 2 centimeters beneath the surface, providing the highest possible relative concentration (this assumption is only valid for the food chain model and not for purposes of leaching to groundwater). Since none of the contaminants are significantly volatile, and soil organic carbon content of 1 percent was used in the model, minimal soil losses of contaminants due to leaching and volatilization were assumed. Additionally, it was assumed that the total contaminant concentrations in soil were bioavailable. Contaminant biotransfer (BTF) and bioconcentration factors (BCF) were obtained from the published literature (U.S. EPA, 1980, 1985; ATSDR, 1988) for specific matrices and constituents, when available, or derived from related chemical and matrix data. For example, predominant metal species solubilities, partition coefficients, and other environmental fate data were used in the derivation of BTFs and BCFs (Lyman, 1982; Dragun, 1988; Verschueren, 1983; Bowen, 1966). Contaminant concentrations used in the assessment were assumed to reflect the most toxic and environmentally critical species of each constituent. For example, total chrome amounts were assumed to be 100 percent hexavalent chrome, the more toxic valence state of the metal (Sax, 1989). Generous human food consumption rates were assumed, following current U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics (U.S. NRC, 1977). ES-15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I In the evaluation of contaminant bioconcentration in fish tissues, a 10,000 square meter watershed was assumed as the source of contaminated surface soil runoff to a 950 square meter pond, in addition to contaminants contributed by air concentration deposition. ES-5 MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF STUDY The results of this Health Risk Assessment clearly demonstrate that despite the extremely conservative assumptions employed in this assessment, there is no significant human health risk due to the use of TAP as a replacement for a portion of the aggregate in a section of bituminous pavement. In fact, the local air quality and the health of the local residents will be improved by paving the road. In addition, the beneficial effects from paving the road with either of the considered roadway materials are similar. Table ES-1 summarizes the Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) and Respirable Particulate (PM~0) concentration estimates from both paved and unpaved roads. It can be seen from the data provided in this table that concentrations from unpaved surfaces are about 30 times greater than those produced from paved surfaces. Also, the TSP concentrations are about 3 times greater than the respective PM~0 concentrations, and concentrations at a distance of 10 meters from the road are about 8 times greater than at a distance of 100 meters from the road. Table ES-2 summarizes the results of the deposition calculations. It can be seen from the data provided in this table that deposition resulting from unpaved surfaces is about 30 times greater than deposition from paved surfaces. Also, TSP deposition is about 20 times greater than PM~0 deposition due to the higher settling velocity. Finally, deposition amounts at 10 meters are about 9 times greater than at 100 meters for TSP and about 7 times greater than at 100 meters for PM~0. Tables ES-3 through ES-5 summarize the total carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic health risks to infants, children, and adults resulting from inhalation, ingestion, dermal contact, and consumption of foods raised and grown near the demonstration ES-16 TABLE ES-1 ANNUAL ~VERAGE GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTI~ATIONS OF TSP ~tND PM~0 FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON P~VED ~ UNPAVED PIONEER TRAIL ROaDWaYS Annual Average Concentration (~g/m3) Total Suspended Respirable Receptor Particulate (TSP) Particulate (PM~0) Distance Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved 10 meters 12.0 372.7 4.0 134.5 100 meters 1.4 44.0 0.5 15.9 I I I I I I I I ! I I ! ES-17 TABLE ES-2 ANNUAL TOTAL DRY DEPOSITION OF TSP AND PM~o FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON PAVED AND UNPAVED PIONEER TRAIL ROADWAYS Annual Total Deposition (~g/m2) Total Suspended Respirable Receptor Particulate (TSP) Particulate (PM~0) Distance Paved Unpaved Paved Unpaved 10 meters 563.2 17,556.6 23.7 788.6 100 meters 60.5 1,888.5 3.1 102.9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ES-18 TABLE ES-3 TOTAL CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS ARISING FROM DIRECT EXPOSURE TO ROADWAY MATERIALS ~URE F. XPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCLNOGENIC PATt-P~AY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 3.4E-01 7.5E-05 (UNPAVED ROAD) LI~ETLME INHALATION NATURAL AGGREGATE 3.6E-02 3.0E-0o OF PARTICULATES TAP/AGGREGATE 7.4E-02 7.1E-06 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATHWAY M~_DIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 8.3E-01 7.7E-06 INHALATION (UNPAVED ROAD) OF PARTICULATES NATURAL AGGREGATE 8.5E-02 3.1E-07 BY AN INFANT TAP/AGGREGATE LSE-01 7.4E-07 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARC[NOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATI-SVAY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 3.6E..03 NA (UNPAVED ROAD) DERMAL CONTACT NATURAL AGGREGATE 4.8E-04 NA BY A CHILD TAP/AGGREGATE 9.5E-02 3.9E-07 ~LrRE EXPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATHWAY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 7.7E-03 NA (UN~AVED ROAD) ACCIDENTAL INGF_,~I~ON NA~ AOGREOATE 3.5E-03 NA BY A CHILD TAP/AGGREGATE 9.5E-02 1. IE-07 NA = COMPOUNDS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS CARCINOGENS UNDER THE SPECIFIED SCENARIO. ES-19 ! I I I I I TABLE ES-4 TOTAL CARCINOGENIC AND NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS ARISING FROM EXPOSURE TO SURFACE OR GROUND WATER F~XPOS U~RE EXPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCI~'OGENIC PATHWAY .MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 1.5E-02 NA (UNPAVED ROAD~ LIl::ETI34~ [NGES'I2ON NATU~,a,L AGGREGATE 1.2E-02 NA OF GROUNDWATER TAP/AGGREGATE 3.9E-02 4.6E-09 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARCLNOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATHWAY MEDIL~Vl ~ QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 3.0E-02 NA INGESTION (UNPAVED ROAD) OF GROUNDWATER NATURAL AGGREGATE 1.5Ed)2 NA BY AN INFANT TAP/AGGREGATE 4.4E-02 7.8E- 10 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATHWAY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL Z 1E-04 NA DERMAL CONTACT (UNPAVED ROAD) WITH ROAD RUNOFF NATURAL AGGREGATE 4.1E-05 NA BY A CHILD TAP/AGGREGATE 1.2E-04 Z 1E- 12 EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARCINOGENIC CARCINOGENIC PATHWAY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL Z6E-03 NA ACCIDENTAL INGEb-q'ION (UNPAVED ROAD) WITH ROAD RUNOFF NATURAL AGGREGATE 5.1E-04 NA BY A CI4~ r~ TAP/AGGREGATE 1.5E-03 Z7E-11 NA = COMPOUNDS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS CARCINOGENS UNDER THE SPECIFIED SCENARIO. ES-20 TABLE ES-5 TOTAL HUMAN HEALTH RISK DUE TO FOOD CHAIN EXPOSURE EXPOSURE EXPOSURE NONCARCINO~ENIC CARCEqOGENIC PATHWAY MEDIUM HAZARD QUOTIENTS RISKS ROADWAY SOIL 3.7E-03 NA (U,'NPAVED ROAD) FOOD CHAIN NATUq~AL AGGREGATE L5E-04 NA TAP/AGGREGATE 4.9E-03 1.4E-08 I I I I NA = COMPOUNDS ARE NOT CI..ASSIleIED AS CARCINOGENS UNDER THE SPECIFIED SCENARIO. I I I I I I I ES-21 ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. project respective for the three considered scenarios (nonpaved road, or road paved with the two considered road materials). The data provided in these three tables clearly demonstrate that none of the noncarcinogenic hazard quotations exceed the U.S. EPA goal, for any of the considered scenarios, and that the potential carcinogenic risk was well below the U.S. EPA acceptable range of 104 to 10.7 excess cancer risks. Table ES-6 presents the three roadway materials potential impact on the local aquatic ecology by comparing total water concentrations due to air-deposited and surface water runoff contaminant contributions to applicable water quality criteria. Again, the TAP containing paved source contributions are less than all applicable criteria. Food chain products grown or raised within 10 meters (less than 33 feet) from the road would not contain any of the metals of concern in concentration which exceed naturally occurring levels as shown in Tables 8-3 through 8-10 in Section 8.0. In summary, the two main conclusions of this study are: This study predicts no adverse health effects resulting from the use of TAP in this demonstration project, because the noncarcinogenic health effects are calculated to be below the U.S. EPA goal, and the potential carcinogenic risks are estimated to be well within or below the U.S. EPA acceptable range of 104 to 10.7 excess cancer risks. Ail three alternatives considered in this study are safe, based on the results of this study. ES-22 I I I I I I I TABLE ES-6 CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS IN SURFACE WATER (POND) DUE TO AIRBORNE DEPOSITION AND ROADWAY RUNOFF UNPAVED CONVENTIONALLY TAP PAVED MINNESOTA U.S. EPA SDWA ANALYTE ROAD PAVED ROAD ROAD GW PERF. STD.'7- AWQC MCL (ugH) (ugH) (ugH) (ugH) (ugH) (ugH) il) {17 fl? (2? (3) (4) ARSEN lC 0.0017686 0.00000009 0.000771 12.5 190 50 ~ARIUM 0.0271600 0.01957895 0.060175 375 NA 5000 CADMIUM 0.0000002 0.00000080 0.000014 1.25 10 5 CHROMIUM 0.0008212 0.00094738 0.001746 30 50 50 LEAD 0.0008212 0.00000001 0.000002 5 50 15 MERCURY 0.0000006 0.00000004 0.000011 0.75 10 2 SELENIUM 0.0006632 0.00012947 0.000129 11 10 10 SILVER 0.0000884 0.00002337 0.000093 NA 50 50 2,3,7,8-TCDD 1.84E-12 I I I I I I (1) Total -- 20 runoff events + 20 years of airborne contaminant deposition. (2) Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Solid Waste rules, Ground Water performance Standards, March 19,1991. (3) U.S. EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, "Quality Criteria for Water, 1986", EPA 440/5-86401, May 1, 1991. (4) U.S. EPA Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, Maximum Contaminant Levels, 1991 I I ES-23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FACTS ABOUT: MUNICIPAL SERVICES CORPORATION Municipal Services Corporation ('MSC') is a subsidiary of USPCI, Inc., a company that has provided safe, effective solutions to America~s toughest waste problems over the past two decades. USPCI is a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Corporation, a Fortune 100 transportation, energy and natural resource company established in I862. MSC was founded to develop comprehensive systems for the management of municipal solid waste ash (~MSW ash~) including processing, utilization, and disposal, as well as the management of other non-hazardous municipal, industrial and commercial waste streams. MSC is headquartered in Kennesaw, Georgia. Research and Development Using its own laboratory and pilot plant research and development facilities, MSC has developed technology to manufacture a synthetic, construction-grade aggregate from MSW ash. The aggregate passes stringent state and federal tests for environmental safety and physical strength, and is a valuable tool for p~eserving irreplaceable natural mineral resources, as well as landfill disposal capacity. The synthetic aggregate ·product will be suitable for a number of applications, primarily asphalt paving and road base. Echo Mountain Facility Development To augment the MSC program for MSW ash utilization, the company is developing an existing disposal facility located about 9 miles from Sawyer, North Dakota and re-named it Echo Mountain Facility. The MSC plan for development of the this disposal facility includes expansion of the site and an upgrading of the design to current state-of-the-art environmental technology. This includes leachate collection, groundwater monitoring and composite liner system construction. When complete, the first cell to .be. constructed by MSC will exceed state and federal standards for environmental safety in the disposal of non-hazardous wastes by a wide margin. Facility Operation Current plans contemplate that beginning in the second half of 1991, the MSC Echo Mountain Facility will begin accepting about 270 tons (12 loads) per day of MSW ash in enclosed rail containers. In addition to providing disposal capacity, .MSC. is planning to install equipment at the facility for the recovery of metals from MSW ash. The metals'will be"sold"to foundries and-'- steel mills for recycling into new products. The Echo'Mountain Facility will continue to accept non-hazardous commercial and industrial wastes that are currently disposed of at the site. The combination of experience, technical ability, nationwide resources, financial strength and operating reputation make MSC and its parent companies, USPCI, Inc. and Union Pacific Corporation, uniquely qualified to accept the responsibility of managing the Echo Mountain Facility using safe,, proven environmental management techniques. For Further Information Contact: Fred Gustin (404) 424-1900 (404) 499-9219 FAX FACTS ABOUT: USPCI, INC. USPCI, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Union Pacific Corporation. For two decades, USPCI has provided solutions to American industry's toughest problems. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, USPCI is committed to using today's most advanced technology to ensure safe, efficient and responsible waste treatment, recycling and disposal operations. This corporate philosophy has earned the company a national reputation for excellence in regulatory compliance and innovation in technical processes. It was this reputation that attracted the interest of the Union Pacific Corporation as it moved to diversify its business. A Fortune 100 transportation, energy and natural resource company, Union Pacific was established in 1862 by an Act of Congress authorizing the transcontinental railroad. After deciding to enter the environmental management industry in the mid- 1980's, Union Pacific conducted an exhaustive nationwide search, investigating nearly every major environmental company in the United States. The result was the selection and acquisition in 1987 of USPCI, precisely what Union Pacific set out to find the best, safest, and most technically advanced company in its field. Disposal, Incineration, Treatment, Recycling and Utilization USPCI currently operates two state-of-the-art regulated RCRA waste disposal facilities. The sites, chosen for their environmental safety, are believed to be the most advanced of their type. They are located at: - Grassy Mountain, located in Tooele County, Utah, about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. - Lone Mountain, located in Northwest Oklahoma, near the town of Woodward. Additionally, USPCI operates facilities in Utah for disposal of non-hazardous industrial and PCB m~ter'ials. An additional non-hazardous industrial waste disposal facility is in the development stages in Minnesota. USPCI is developing two incinerator facilities, and has acquired land in Utah, received a county permit and a state permit for the first incinerator in Utah. The Utah facility, designed to burn mainly solids, will accommodate up to 750 tons of' waste per day. The other planned USPCI incinerator project is in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma facility will burn between. 200 and 300 tons of hazardous waste daily, primarily solids. Both will incorporate state-of-the- art pollution control technology. For many years, USPCI has led the way nationally in treatment, recovery and recycling technologies. Six years ago, the company acquired PPM, Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia, the company that pioneered the treatment process by which PCB's are chemically destroyed. PPM, Inc. was awarded a national permit for its process to destroy ?CB's and has safely treated over 230 million gallons of contaminated oil and returned it to productive use. Facilities offering PPM's chemical treatment processes are located in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Utah and Canada. USPCI~s subsidiary, JTM Industries, Inc. of Kennesaw, Georgia, is an industry leader in the reuse and recycling of combustion by-products, including coal ash from electric utility companies and cement kiln dust. JTM operates disposal, service and marketing facilities in over fifteen states. Municipal Services Corporation, or MSC, was founded to develop comprehensive systems for management of municipal solid waste ash. MSC has developed technology to safely use municipal solid waste ash as synthetic construction aggregate. Use of this technology will help solve a pressing national problem relative to the management of municipal solid waste ash. USPCI also is the parent company of Hydrocarbon Recyclers, Inc., called HRI, an industry leader in the processing of contaminated oils and solvents. HRI facilities are located in Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas. Analytical Services Using the most advanced laboratory analysis technology, USPCI~s National Analytical Laboratory in Tulsa, Oklahoma provides a wide range of services including hazardous waste evaluation and water monitoring. Research and Engineering USPCI's research and engineering division is unrivaled in the industry and acts as a resource and support department for all USPCI operations while offering a variety of services to its customers. Responsible for developing efficient and cost-effective solutions to a wide range of problems, the research and engineering division also ensures strict adherence to quality and safety standards. Remediation Services USPCI's Special Services Division provides a full range of on-site waste management services for USPCI clients, from controlling the damages caused by hazardous waste emergencies to the clean-up of old dump sites that threaten groundwater supplies and the ecology in surrounding areas. Transportation In addition to having authority for interstate transportation of regulated waste materials, USPCI has access to the Union Pacific Corporation's rail transportation network. Access to this transportation network allows USPCI to compete nationally and gives its' customers 'the assurance-that wastes .are transported safely. The combination of experience, technical ability, nationwide resources, financial strength and operating reputation make USPCI and its parent company, Union Pacific Corporation, uniquely qualified to handle the responsibility of protecting the environment using safe, proper and thorough environmental management techniques. For Further Information Contact: Fred Gustin (404) 424-1900 (404) 499-9219 FAX United Slates EnvironmentAl Protectbn Agency Solicl Waste ~nd Emergent7 Response (OS-305) EPA 5,30-SW-90-029A M~rch 199_0 CHARACTERIZATION OF MUNICIPALWASTE COMBUSTION ASH, ASH EXTRACTS, AND LEACHATES COALITION ON RESOURCE RECOVERY AND THE ENVIRONMENT EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 90 CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-731 0 NU5 PROJECT NUMBER 9583 Dr. walter 5haub CORRE, Proje¢: Manager Dr. Doreen Stetting EPA, Project Manager SUBMITTED FOR NU5 GF, EGO RY' L-. 23 MM E~M, AN, p.E.. PROJECT ENGINEER TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 PAGE 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 ................................................. ES-1 INTRODUCTION 'l.'l eAc:<d~b'Oh'~ ............................... .............. 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF WOR~ ............. :: ............ ...............1-1 ...... . ................................... 1-2 FACILITY ZA FINDINGS · 2 1 FACILITY ZA b~'S~'F~I'P'T:I~ .................................. 2-1 · 2-1 2.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZA:F[&~ ~ ~,'S'~'] ] i i i ] i ] i ] i i i ] i i i i i i 2-3 2.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES.... .... . .... 2-3 2.4 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS .......... 2-4 FACILITY ZB FINDINGS 1 FAC UTY .................................. 3.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH .................... 3-3 3.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES ' 3-4 3.4 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS .......... 3-5 FACILITY ZC FINDINGS · 4.. 1 FACILITY ZC 6~'R'I~m:Ti~'~ ..................... : ............ 4-1' 4.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH .................... 4-2 4.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES ............. 4-3 4.4 CH EMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS .......... 4-4 FACILITY ZD FINDINGS 5-1 5.1 FACILITY ZD DESCRIPTION ' 5-1 5.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH ' 5-2 5.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES..... ........ 5-3 5.4. CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS .......... 5-5 FACILITY ZE FINDINGS ................................... '. .......... 6-1 6.1 FACILITY ZE DESCRIPTION 6-1 t5.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH .................... 6-2 6.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES ............. 6-3 6.4 CH EMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS ' 6-4 7.0 'SUMMARY OF RESULTS ............................................. 7-1 7.1 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH .................... 7-1 7.2 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF LEACHATES ............. 7-3 7.3 CHEMICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF ASH EXTRACTS .......... REFERENCES APPENDICES B C D FINAL WORK PLAN ASH RESULTS LEACHATE RESULTS ASH EXTRACT RESULTS TABLES NUMBE~ ES-2 ES-3 ES-4 1-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-9 2-10 2-11 2-12 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 4.-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4.-6 4-7 4-8 5-1 5-2 PAGE Fac,l~ues .............................. ES-4 Maior Features cf M~VC ; '" Major Features of MWC Ash Disposal FaciliTies .................. ES-6 As;'~ Oiaxin Results ............................................ ES-8 Comparison of Ash Extra~ Metal Analyses Results with ......... ES-12 Leachate Metal Analyses Results 1-4 SampleAn~lyses .............................................. ~estri~ed Was;es, Facility ZA ...................... : ....· ........ 2-6 Ash Semivalatile Results - Sample ZA-AH-003, Facility ZA .......... 2-7 Ash'lDioxin Results - Sample ZA-AH-003, Facility ZA ................ 2-8 2-9 Ash Metals Analyses, Facility ZA ................................. Ash Conventional Analyses, Facility ZA ......................... 2-10 Lent'note Se'mivolatile Analyses, Facility ZA ...................... 2-11 L~chate Meta{s Analyses, Facility ZA ........................... 2-12 Leac~te Conventional Analyses, Facility ZA ..................... 2-13 Leach~te Diax~n Analyses, Facility ZA ........................... 2-14 Comparison of ~sn Ex~ra~s Semivalatile Analyses with Leachate 2-15 Semivalatile Analyses, Ranges of Concenttatio.~, Facili~ Z~ Comparison of As~ E~tra~s Metals Analysasw~h Leachate ....... 2-16 Metals Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZA Comparison of Ash Exzra~s Conventional Analyses with .......... 2-17' Leachate Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concem*~=*i~n~ Facility ZA Ash Semivolatile Results - Sample ZB-AH-001, Facili~ ZB ........... 3-7 Ash Oioxin Results- Sample ZS-AH-O01, Facitity ZB ................ 3-8 Ash Metals Analyses, Facility Z3 ................................. 3-9 Ash Convent~nalAnalySes, FacilityZB .......................... 3-10 Le~chate Me!~ls Analyses, Facili~ ZB ............ ' .... 3-11 Leachate C~nvendonai Analyses, Facility ZB ..................... 3-12 Leak Oete~ien System Sample Metals Analyses, FacJti~ ZB ........ 3-13 Leak Deter[on SyslemSam~leConvend~nalAnaly~e~, . .......... 3-14 Facili:y ZB Comparison ef Ash E~tta~s Metals Analyses with Leachate' . ...... 3-15 Metals Analyses, Ranges of C~ncenttations, Facili~ ZB Comparison of Ash E~tra~s Conventional Analyses with ......... 3-1 Leachate Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZB Ash Semivolat[te Resul~ - Sam;le ZC-AH-003, Facili~ ZC ........... 4-6 Ash Oio~[n Resul~ - Sample ZC-AH-003, Facili~ ZC ................ 4-7 4-8 Ash ~letals Analyses, Facility ZC ................................. 4-9 Ash ~onventio~l Analy~es, Fac~Iity ZC ........................... 4-10 Leachate Met~lsAnalyses, FacilityZC . . ' ''' 4-12 Comparison ~f Ash E~tra~ Metals Analyses with Leachate ........ Metals Analyses, Ranees of Concentrations, Facility ZC Comparison of Ash E~ra~ C~nvendonal Analyses with Leachate ~-13 Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facili~ ZC Ash Semiv~lat~te Results - Sample ZD-AH-003,'Facili~ ZD ' ' '. .... Ash Oioxin Results - Sample ZD-AH-003, Facili~ZD ' 5'7.:. -.. 5'8 TABLES (Continued) NUMBER 5-3 5-4 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4. 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5 7-6 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-11 7-12 7-13 7-14, 7-15 7-16 PAGE Ash Metals Analyses, Fac[ ty ZD Ash Convent~onalAnalyses, FacilityZD ...................... iii' 5-10 Leachate Metals Analyses, Facility ZD 5-12 Comparison o? Ash E~tra~ 5emivolatile Results to Leachate ...... 5-13 Semivola~ile Results, Facility ZD Comparison of Ash Extra~s Metals Analyses with Leachate ....... '5-14 Metals Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZD Comparison of Ash Extracts Conventional Analyses with Leachate 5-15 Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZD Acceptable Waste, Facility ZE 6-5 Ash Oioxin Results - Sample ZE-AH-003, Facility ZE ................ 6'6 Ash Metals Analyses, Facility ZE ................................. ·6-7 Ash Conventional Analyses, Facility ZE ........................... 6-8 Leachate Semivclatile Analyses, Facility ZE ..................... 6-9 LeachateMetafsAnalyses, FacilityZE .......................... ~' 6-10 Leacha~e Conventiona! Analyses, Facility ZE ' 6-11 Comparison of Ash Extra~ Semivolatile Results to LeachCte ' . ..... 6-12 Semivoladle Re~,ul~, ~.an~es of Concentrations, Facility EE Comparison of Ash E~.ra~s Metals Analyses with Leach~te ' 6-13 Metals Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZE Comparison of Ash E~tra~4Convent~onalAnalyseswith Leachate . 6-14 Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations, Facility ZE Comparison of Ash Semivolatile Results 7-6 Ranges of Concentrations of Semivolatiles in Fly Ash, BoSom Ash, 7-7 and Combined Ash from Municipal Waste Incinerators Ash Oioxin Results 7-8 Ranges of Concentrations of PCDOs, PCDFs, and PCBs in Fly Ash .... 7-9 BoSom Ash, and Combined Ash From Municipal Waste Incinerators A~h Metals_Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations ................. 7-11 Rances of Concentrations of inorganic Constituents in Fly Ash .... 7-12 Combined Ash, and Bosom Ash f~om Municioal Waste Incinerators Ash Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations ........... 7-14 Leachate 5emivolatile Results, Ranges of Concentrations ......... 7-15 Concentrations of Organic Constituents in Leachate from ' 7-16 Municipal Waste Landfills, Ash Monofills, and Co-Disposal Sites Leachate Dioxin Results, Ranges of Concentrations .............. 7-18 Concentrations of PCDOs,'PCDFs in Leachates from Ash Monofills, 7-19 Ranges of Concentrations Leacna;e Metals Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations ............ .: 7-20 Ranges of Leachate Concentrations of Inorganic ............... '. 7-21 Constituents from Monofills " Leachate Conventional Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations ...... 7-23 Ranges of Ex~ra~ Concentrations of Organic Constituen~ From "-~ 7-24 Municipal Waste Incinerator Combined Fly Ash and Bosom A~h :" for Three Leaching Procedures Ash Extra~ Metals Analyses, Ranges of Concentrations ......... '. 7-25 Comparison of Literature Values wi~h Resul~ Obtained During CORRE Study NUMBEP,_. 5-1 PAGE WaC:er (~ualky L~,simeter In~allafion De~:ail .......... ' ............ 5-4 V ASTM AWQC CDC Co-Disposal CORRE EP EPA. g kg L M CL mg Monofill MSW MWC MVVE? ND PAHs PCBs PCDOs PCDFs ppb ppt QA/QC RCRA SMCL SW-924 TCLP TE TEF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS American Society for Testing and Materials Ambient Water Quality Criteria Centers for Disease Control Disposal together of municipal solid wastes and municipal solid waste combustion ashes Coalition on Resource Recovery and the Environment Procedure ~ronmental Protection Agency Electrostatic Precipitator grams kilograms liter Maximum Contaminant Level A landfill that contains only solid waste combustion,ashes and residues Municipal Solid Wastes Waste CombuStion Monofilled Was'~e.Extra~ion Procedure, also known as SW-92~ Not dete.~ed. Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons Polychiorinated 8iphenyfs Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins Polychlorinated dibenzofurans picogram pa~s per billion pa~s per trillion Quality Assurance/Quality Control Resource Conser~vation and Recovery Ac-f: Secondar/Maximum Contaminant Level Deionized Water Extra~Jon TeK Method Toxic Chara~eris'dcs Leaching Procedure Test Method Total Dissolved Solids Toxicity Equivalents Toxic Equivalency Factors Total Organic Carbon microsrams 'vi TCDO Tetrachlara Dibenza-p-EDiaxin PeCDO Pentachlara Oibenza-p-IDiaxin HxCDO Hexachiora IDibenza-l~-Diaxin HDCDD Hep~cachlara Oibenza-p-Dioxin OCDO Ocl:achlara Oibenzo-p-Oiaxin TCDF Tetrachloro Oibenzofuran PeCDF Pentachloro Oibenzafi~ran HxCDF Hexachloro Oibenzofuran HpCDF Heptachloro Dibenzofuran OCDF Oc-tachloro Dibenzofuran vii .This repo~ has undergone internal review by the United States Environmer Protection Agency and by the Coalition on Resource Recovery and the Environment and has been subjected to peer review as well. Peer Reviewers FrankJ. Roethel, Ph.D. Research Professor · Marine Sciences Research Center Waste Management Institute SUNY Stoneybrook, New York David S. Kosson,-Ph.D. Research Professor College of Engineering Department of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University Piscataway, New Jersey Tayior Eighmy Research Professor Depa~ment of Civil Engineering University of New Hampshire Durham, New Hampshire ~339911 'publication of this document shall not be construed as endorsement of the views expressed herein lay The United States Conference of Mayors, the Conference of ~ayorS Research and Education Foundal:ion, or any federal funding agency.' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report has been prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Coalition on Resource Recovery and the Environment (CORRE). EPA and CORRE have cosponsored this study, conducted by NUS Corporation, to enhance the data base on the characteristics of Municipal Waste Comb[Jsl:ion (MWC) ashes,-laboratory extracts of MWC ashes, and leachates from MWC ash disposal facilities. The Coalition on Resource Recoven/and the Environment (CORRE) was established to provide credible information about resource recovery and associated env[ronment'~'l, issue~'to the public and to public officials. In providing information, CORRE takes no position as to the appropriateness of one technology compared to others. COP, RE recognizes that successful waste management is an integrated utilization of many technologies which taken as a whole, are best selected by an informed public and informed public officials. Incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become an important wa. disposal alternative because it provides an effective means of reducing the volume of MSW as well as an impo~cant source of energyrecoven/. Currently, lO percent of MSWis incinerated. Based on the number of municipal waste combus~don (MWC) facilities being planned across the country, this percentage is expected to increase to roughly 16-25 percent by the year 2000. As incineration has grown in popularity, so has concern over the management of increasing volumes of ash. Ashes from MWC facilities have, on occasion, exhibited a hazardous waste characteristic as determined by the EP Toxicity Test. The debate regarding the regulatory ~atus of ash and the representativeness and validity of the EP test continues. Congress is considering several legislative initiatives that would give EPA clear authority to d~velop special management standards for ash under Subtitle D of RCRA. To conduc~ this ~udy, NUS collected combined bottom and fly ash samples fi-om five mass-burn MWC facilities and leachate samples from the companion ash disposal facilities. The facilities sampled were selected by CORRE to meet the follawincj criteria: · The facilities were to be state-of-t~e-art facilities equipped with a variety potludon control equipment. 'e The facilities were ta be located in different regions of the United States. · The companion ash dispasat facilities were to be equipped with leachate collection systems or same means of collecting leachate samples. The identities of the facilities are being held in confidence. The ash and leachate samples collected were analyzed far the Appendix IX semivOlatile compounds, palychtarinated d ibenza-p-dioxins/palychla rinated dibenzafurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), metals far which Federal primary and secondary drinking water standards exist, and several miscellaneous conventional compounds. in addition, the ash samples were analyzed for major componentS'in the form of oxides. The ash samples were also subjected ta six labara~:ary extr~.~ian procedures and the extrac*~s were then analyzed far the same compounds as the ash samples. The fallowing six extraction procedures were used during this study: · Acid Number 1 (EP-TOX)J · Acid Number 2 CTCLP Fluid No. 1). · Acid Number 3 ('i'CLP Fluid No. 2). · Deionized Water (Method SW-924),'also. known'as the Mandrill Waste Ex~rac~ian Procedure (MWEP). · CO:2 saturated deianized wa~er. · SimulaTed acid rain. These'extra--ion lzrocedures have been .used separately by a variety, af.reseatche'rs.........- :. _an MWC ashes but never have all six procedures been used.. On ~he-s.'ame MWC ashes. This ~udy was designed ~a compare the analytical results of the exzrac'~s from all si× procedures with each other and with leachate-collect, ed from the' ash disposal facilities used by the MWC facilities. R33~11 ES-2 All sampling, laboratory preparation, and laboratory analysis foilowe'd stringent EPA quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. The work was performed in accordance with the Work Plan (Appendix A) prepared by NUS for this project and with a QA/QC Plan prepared by NUS and approved by EPA. A detailed listing of the positive results is presented in a data base which 'is included in this Report: as Appendix B (Ash), Appendix C (Leachate), and Appendix D (Ash Extracts). The results in the data base are presented as 'reported by the laboratories, complete with the laboratory's qualifications. "Summaries of the results are presented in Sections 2.0 through 7.0..These summaries include the laboratory's qualifiers and also qualifiers placed on the data as a result of data validation. When the laboratories did not report: a positive value for a compound (i.e., the compound was not present above laboratory detection limits)', the compound was reported as not deteded (ND) in :the tables in the text. The laboratory detection limits are the method detection limits for each specific method,unless interferences were encountered during the analysis. When interferences occurred,'the laboratory · adjusted the method detection limits by an appropriate diluti'on factor. The analytical methods used in this study were selected so that the method detection limits were well below present le~/els of human, environmental, or regulatory concerns. The EPA publication "Interim Procedures for E~imating Risk Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDOs and CDFs)" was used to evaluate the dioxin data. These procedures use Toxicity Equivalency Factors CTEFs) to express the concentrations of the different isomers and homologs as an equivalent amount of '2;3,T;8-Tetrachloro Dibenzo-p-Dioxin (2 3,7,8-TCDO). The Toxicity Equivalents, as calculated' by using theTEFs, are then totaled and compared to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended Upper level 'of 2,3,7,8-TCDD TOxicity Equivalency of 1part per billion in residential soil (Kimb~ough, 1984). The major features of the five MWC facilities are provided in Table ES-l, and .the m,'ajor features of the MWC Ash Disposal Facilities are provided in Table ES-2. Pertinent information regarding the operating conditions of the MWC facilit, ies, as well as information about the air pollution control equipment used by the .facilities, is~ also Provided in Table ES-1. ' ':' E$-5 ES-6 The maior findings of the ash sampling and analyses during this study are described in the following paragraphs. Of the five ash samples (one from each facil!ty) analyzed for the Appendix IX semivolatile compounds, four samples contained bis(2-ethylhe×yl)phthalate, three contained dim-butyl phthalate, and one contained di-n-o~yl phthalate. Two PAHs, phenanthreneand fiuoranthene, were detected in only one of the five ash samples. These semi-volatile compounds were detected in the parts per billion (ppb) range. The results for the five ash samples (one from each facility) analyzed for ?CDDs,'PCDFs are presented in TableE5-3. This table also includes the calculated Toxicity Equivalents (TE) for each homoiog of PCDOtPCOF. These TEs were calculated using E?A's methodoloqy (EPA, March 1987) The data in this table indicate that ?CDOs/PCDFswere found at extremely Iow levels in each ash sample. The TotaITE for each ash sample was below the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended 2,3,7,8-TCDD Toxicity E~uivalency limit of l part per billion in residential sou (.Kimbroug h, 198z). Ail 25 of the ash samples (five daily composites from each facility) were analyzed for the metals on the primary and secondary drinking water standards lists as well as fo the oxides of five major ash components. Although, the resu[ts from these analyses indicate that the ash is heterogeneous, this heterogenici.ty appears to have been reduced by the care taken when compositing the ash samples during this study. Comparison of the results of this study with results reported in the literature (EPA, O~ober 1987) indicates that the variability of results for each compound appears to have been reduced in ~his ~udy. Metals showing the widest range of concentrations among samples collected at each facility included barium (ZB); cadmium (ZB)' chromium (ZD, ZE); copper (ZA, Zrt, ZC); lead (ZD); manganese (ZA, ZC); mercury (ZE); zinc (Za, ZD, ZE);.and silicon dioxide (zA). Metals showing the widest variation of concentrations between the facilities included barium (results far FaciiityZC are lower than the results for the other facilities); iron (results for 'each facility vary from all of the other facilities); [ead (results for Facility/ZD are higher than the results for the other facilitie.~); mercury (results for Facilities ZC and ZD are lower ~han the results for the other facilities); ES-7 ES-8 sodium (results for FacilitiesZO andZE are lower than the results for the other facilities); calcium oxide ~the results for Facilities ZA and ZB are higher than th~ results for the other facilities); and silicon dioxide Cthe results for FacilityZC are higher than the results for the other facilities). Some additional findings of the ash sampling and analyses are as follows- · The ashes are alkaline with the pH ranging from 10.36 to 11:85. · The ashes are rich in chlorides and sulfates. The total soluble solids in the ashes varied from 6,440 to 65,800 pPm.' The ashes contained unburnt total organic carbon 4,060 ppm ~0.4 percent) to 53,200 ppm ('5~32 percent). CI'OC) ranging from The ma]or findings of the leachate sampling and analysis during this study are. summarized in the following paragraphs. Only four Appendix IX semivolatile compounds were found in the leachates from the ash disposal facilities. Benzoic acid.was found in both leachate samples collected at one of the five ash disposal ~des. Phenol, 3-methylphenol, and4.methylphenol were found in some of the/eachate samples from one of the other facilities..All of these compounds were dete~ed at very Iow levels (2-73 ppb). PCDDs/PCDFs were only found in' the leachate'from one facility.' The homologs found are the more highly chlorinated'homologs. The data obtained during· this study appears to indicate that PCDOs/PCDFs do not readily leach out of the ash in the ash' dis. posal facilities. The Iow levels found in the leachates of the one facility probably originated from the solids found within the leachate samples because these samples were not filtered nor centrifuged prior to analysis. . . None of the leachate samples e'.xceeded the EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limits established for the eight metals in Sect~°n 2.61.24 of 40 CFR 261. In addition, the~'- . data from this study indicate, that although the leachates are not used fbr drinking:':' ".:' purposes: they are close to being acceptable for drinking''w~ter use, as f~r as the' metals are concerned. E$-9 other findincjs of the leachate sampiincj and ana[Tses are as fallows: · Sulfate values ranged from 14.4 mg/L to 5,080 rog/L, while Total Dissolved Solids (TOS) ranged from 924 mg/L to 41,000 mg/L. · The field pH values ranged from 5.2 to 7.4. · Ammonia (4.18-77.4rog/L) and nitrate (0.01-0.45rog/L) were present in almost all leachate samples. · Total Organic Carbon values ranged from 10.6 to 420 ppm. The majar findings from the summarized as follows: analysis of the.ash extract~ during this study are Of the five composite samples of the deionized water (SW-924) extrac~s analyzed for the Appendix IX semivolatile compounds (one from each facility), only one sample contained low levels of benzoic acfd (0.130 ppm). None of the extrac*~s contained PCDOsJPCDFs. These data confirm the findings of the actual field leachate samples that PCDOs/PCDFs are not readily leached from the ash. The data obtained during the metals analyses of the ash extracts indicate that, in general, the extracts from the EP Toxicity, the TCLP 1, and the TCLP2 extra.ion procedures have higher metals content than the extract~ from the deionized water (SW-924), the CO:2, and the Simulated Acid Rain (SAR) extra.ion procedures. The EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limi~ for lead and cadmium were frequently exceeded by the extrac*~ from the EP Toxicity, TCLP 1, and TCLP 2 extraction procedures. One of the extracts from the EP Toxicity extraction procedure also exceeded the EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limit for mercury. None of the extract~ from the de'ionized water (SW-924),the CO2, and the SimUlated Acid Rain (SAR) extract:ion procedures exceeded the EP Toxicity Maximum Allowable Limit~. In addition, the majority of the extrac'~ from these three extraction procedures also met the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards for metals. ES-10 Table ES-4 compares the range of concentrations of the metals analyses of the ash extrac-~s with the range of concentrations for leachate as reported in the literature (EPA, October 1987) and the range of concentrations for the leachates as determined in this study. For the facilities sampled during this study, the data in Table E$-4 indicate that the extracts from the deionized water (SW-924), the CO2, and the-SAR extraction procedures simulated the concentrations for lead and cadmium in-the field leachates better than the extracts from the other three extra.ion procedures. ES-11 ES-12 R3399~ I ES-13 December 27, 1991 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN. 55364 REC'O DEC C '; 91 Dear Mr Shukle: The Sharps and ! enjoyed your letter. While ! think you missed a couple of points, which ! will clarify, ! think we are finally arriving at understanding each others position. First, you will note that my letter of December 16, 1991 was written to the mayor and council c/o you so I fully expected if ! received the letter ! asked for in the spirit of compromise that the letter would emanate from the council and your city attorney. Second, the direct question you referred to regarding a building permit was not from me but from a member of the Planning Commission. Your tapes and the long pause of no response should verify this. Third, we all may hear what we like to hear, but since ! too have better things to occupy my time, ! am simply trying to get through your process with a favorable outcome to the Sharps. Prior Mound platting simply clouds the real issue, property rights. Fourth, ! did not say the city may not establish minimum lot sizes. ! said your code as it relates to lots of record is unconstitutional. By that ! mean requiring 10,000 square feet on a record lot. We still have not contacted an attorney and prefer not to do so. Nor, are we threatening litigation. We did say we are prepared to "retain" representation, but we would rather put the funds in the Sharp's pocket. You must admit we do not seem to be making any progress with the city by the tone of your letter. I am enclosing a copy of the Plymouth Zoning Code on record lots and believe it is similar to many other communities. You will note that there is neither a lot area requirement nor variance requirement to obtain a building permit. Nor would there be a council review of a building permit, (unless a setback variance were requested) and then the Board of Review, rather than the council would hear the appeal. My point continues to be: Except in Mound, a record lot to required setbacks means right to apply for a building permit without any variance and without any council review of a building permit application as a condition of acting on the variance. Clearly, you disagree. Our lot survey, submitted under your variance application, shows the setbacks to your Code (10'& 6') and we never asked for anything but what is in your Code. If we accede to your letter that our request is "not specific enough without the development plan", we have just turned a State administrative process, applying for a building permit, into local politics, given the neighborhood's position against our application. Un]ess we are in some newly discovered archeolgical site, Corp wetland, etc., we believe the Sharp's record lot is buildable because it is economically feasible for them, or a buyer, to build a single family home on the site. Twenty- eight feet of house by some depth is marketable. ! personally do not intend to write any more letters. ! had hoped that maybe the council might learn from my experience and see equity in this matter. While I am sure everyone believes their position is honorable, we will hold that the Mound Code is in error. We think we have met the variance application criteria with our survey and understand that the City will decide the matter on February 11, 1992. I fully expect that we will ask for approval of our variance application that 'eVening. If you deny, we will not be suprised given your stated position. Thank you for your time and attention. ~.incerely, Dennis Zylla TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL: 2/10/92 I REGRET THAT I AM UN~iBLE TO MAKE THE MEETING TItI$ EVENING BUT FIND THAT I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN AND FOI~ THIS REASON WOULD LIKE MY FOLLOWING CONCERNS READ INTO THE MINUTES. AS I HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU IN THE PAST ON THIS MATTER, SOME OF MY CONCERNS YOU WILL HAVE ALREADY HEARD, BUT AS AN ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER TO THE LOT IN QUESTION I PERHAPS HAVE MORE AT STAKE THAN MOST_ THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF MOUND SHOULD CONSIDER GRANTING THE SHARP'S A VARIANCE TO THE EXISTING 10,000 SQ. FT. ZONING CODE, TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD ON THIS LOT WHICH CARRIES ONLY 5,100 SQ. FT. (49% BELOW EXISTING REQUIRED SQ. FOOTAGE). MY OPPOSITION TO THIS REQUEST IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: THE BRIAN AND MARIA JOHNSON FAMILY (3 LOTS UP THE STREET) WERE DENIED A BUILDING REQUEST BECAUSE THEIR LOT WAS APPROX. 9,000 SQ. FT. OR 1,000 SQ. FT_ SHORT OF THE REQUIRED 10,000. THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED. THEM TO PURCHASE THE REQUIRED 1,OOO SQ. FT. FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS CRAIG AND CATHY KASPERZAK. THIS STRUGGLE TOOK 4 YEARS. THE CONTENTION THAT DUE TO THE SHARPS HAVING OWNED THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH TWO PCS. OF PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MINE, (NOW OWNED BY THE KASPERZACK'S) FOR 31 YEARS AND ARE NOW ELDERLY AND SHOULD BE GRANTED THE VARIANCE. AS YOU CAN WELL IMAGINE, THIS POSES A REAL INTERESTING SITUATION FOR ALL OF THE SIMILAR PCS. OF PROPERTY AROUND MOUND THAT FALL INTO A SIMILAR SITUATION. WHILE I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SHARP'S, I CAN ONLY SAY THAT NONE OF THE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS THAT I (AND I WOULD WAGER TO SAY THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL) PG.2 HAVE EVER VENTURED INTO, DID NOT COME WITH A GUARANTEE OF PROFIT AT THE TIME I DECIDED TO SELL, PARTICULARLY 3.! YEARS LATER! THE SHARP'S HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS UNDERSIZED AND DID NOT MEET CODE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING~ DESTRUCTION OF THE AREA'S AESTHETIC VALUE AND LOWERING IN PARTICULAR ADJOINING PROPERTY VALUES. THIS PROPERTY CURRENTLY PAYS $162.62 PER YEAR IN TAXES. WE ARE CURRENTLY I~EING TAXED ON OUR PROPERTY AT $3,600 PER YEAR. WE LIVE IN MOUND, DO OUR SHOPPING IN MOUND AND SUPPORT MOUND. THE SHARP'S LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND THIS PROPERTY IS THEIR ONLY INVESTMENT IN MOUND.. THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY IS SO STEEP THAT IT WOULD IN THE ESTIMATION OF MANY REQUIRE A RETAINING WALL OF IMMENSE PROPORTIONS TO ALLOW BUILDING INTO THE SIDE OF THE HILL. I KNOW IF I WERE JERRY TASA (THE AJOINING PROPERTY OWNER ON THE LOW SIDE OF THE LOT IN QUESTION) MUST BE WONDERING WHERE ANOTHER 9" RAINFALL SUCH AS WE HAD FOUR YEARS AGO WOULD RUN! THE ATTACHED COPY OF A PETITION ALREADY SUBMITTED, FROM ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ON GLEN ELYN REGISTERING THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE GRANTING OF ANY SUCH VARIANCE. PERHAPS THE MOST IMPORTANT CONCERN OF ALL IS THE COMMITTMENT MY WIFE AND I MADE TO BUY THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND BUILD A NEW HOME WAS BASED SOLY ON THE DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOUR YEARS AGO THAT THE PROPERTY WAS FAR TOO UNDERSIZED TO GRANT A VARIENCE. PG.3 NO STIPULATION WAS PUT FORTH AT THAT TIME THAT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSIDERATION OF A VARIENCE TO BE BROUGHT UP AT A LATER DATE OR WHENEVER THE SHARP'S DECIDED TO SELL THE PROPERTY. THERE IS ONLY ONE OPTION LEFT TO ME, OR INDEED TO ANY OF YOU, SHOULD YOU EVER BE PUT IN THE POSITION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS PUT US IN FOUR YEARS AFTER WHAT WAS CONSIDERED BY T,...MY WIFE AND THE F-~ISTING HOMEOWNERS ON GLEN ELYN TO BE A FIRM STATEMENT OF THE CI-I-Y'S POSITION ON THIS LOT. I ASK THAT THIS CITY COUNCIL STAND BY IT'S EARLIER DECISION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. REGARDS, WILLIAM AND DEANNA CARROW 4929 GLEN ELYN RD. GLEN ELYN RD. HOMEOW'NEI~$ PETITION TO MOUND ADVI$OI~Y PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO.91-057: DENNIS ZYLLA, 4925 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOT 22, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOODPOINT, PID#13-117-24 11 0097. WE THE UNDERSIGNED, GLEN ELYN RD. HOMEOWNERS, WISH TO REGISTER. OUR OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF OF ANY VARIANCE TO THE EXISTING CODES WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR BUILDING OF ANY SORT ON THE ABOVE EXTREMELY UNDERSIZED LOT. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT ANY BUILDING SQUEEZED INTO THIS LOT CAN ONLY SUCCEED IN DESTROYING CURRENT AESTHETIC VALUES IN THE AREA WHICH IN TURN WOULD SEVERLY LOWER EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES. GRANTING OF THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE CAN ONLY SUCCEED IN HARMING MANY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. PLYHOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE Section 10, Subdivision C 8. Garbage Disposal: All residential units, institutional facilities, industrial operations or commercial operations producing garbage (food wastes) must be equipped with an approved powered garbage disposal unit directly connected to the sanitary waste system. 9. Principal Use Buildings on Lots: Principal use buildings shall be located on lots and there shall be no more than one principal building on one lot, except as specifically permitted by this ordinance. 10. Consolidation of Land Parcels Multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent; and which are proposed to serve a single development use; and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel in accordance with the City Subdivision Code. 11. Substandard Lots and Parcels A lot or parcel which was of legal record with the County Auditor on January 1,. 1980 within the RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width or area, may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes; provided that all yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings in the applicable district are met. Such lots or parcels with a width of less than 60 feet may have minimum side yard dwelling setbacks of 10 feet. 12. Maximum Lot Coveraqe in I-1 District The lot coverage of an existing building in the I-1 (planned industrial) District may be increased up to five percent (54) for a maximum lot coverage of forty percent (404) when all of the following are met: a. The use is an allowable use in conformance with this ordinance. b. The use has been continuously operational on the site for at least five (5) years. c. The proposed expansion site plan complies with all Ordinance yard and parking requirements. 13. Calculation of Maximum Lot Coveraqe in B-l, B-2, B-3, and I-1 Districts. A developer may elect to have the maximum lot coverage in the B-l, B-2, B-3, and I-1 Districts calculated only for that land above the High Water Elevation established by the adopted City Storm Water Drainage Plan as verified by the City Engineer. The request to do this shall be in writing and shall accompany the application for plan approval. This will apply to the calculation of the lot coverage by approved structures and does not prohibit the use of land below the established High Water Elevation for parking or open space purposes which may be CITS' of N IOUND December 23, 1991 Mr. Dennis Zylla 3125 Holly Lane North Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Your Letter of December 16, 1991 Dear Mr. Zylla: Subsequent to receipt of your letter of December 16, 1991, I have reviewed in my own mind and with others present at the December 11 meeting some of your comments. It is unfortunate that frequently people hear what they want to hear rather than what was said or what was intended. It is my belief that you attended an academic lecture by the City Attorney on zoning and constitutional protection and have taken out of context various statements which you believe are contrary to your clients' financial interests. The meeting was called specifically to provide legal background to the Planning Commission and the City Council on their authority and responsibilities to zone and to plan the community. It is a given fact that our City is plagued with platting which took place 80 to 100 years ago. The City Attorney pointed out rather clearly that this Council and past Mound Councils have tried to work with and correct what is perceived to be a community problem. Lots designed for tents and week-end cottages are very much undersized by toady's standards. It is unfortunate that you have taken a Planning Commission/Council seminar and interpreted it as being directed at the Sharps. Your statement that the City is directing public policy at the expense of persons naive and without the financial resources of the City implies some public conspiracy to do something wrong. If the Planning Commission and the City Council do not have the authority or the responsibility to plan and regulate land development in the community, who then will assume that responsibility? Your comments would lead one to believe that there is no need for a Planning Commission or a City Council to attempt to up-grade housing and housing standards in the community. I have indicated to the City Attorney your allegation that he said, "The City can be arbitrary as hell because only one in fifty will challenge you in court." His recollection, as well as mine, is that from a very theoretical standpoint we all recognize that it is difficult for the individual property owner to match resources ~3 ~ ~ printed on re¢~,¢led p~l~er Mr. Dennis Zylla December 23, 1991 Page 2 with the government, be it the City, County, State or Federal. If you believe that he was telling the Council to act arbitrarily, you missed the point of the lecture. My understanding of what he said was that the Planning Commission and the Council had specific restrictions and restraints under the constitution and under case law and that whereas the Planning Commission might be more theoretical in its approach to the problems, the City Council had to balance all of the realities and legal restraints which applied and do their very best to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of everyone in the community. I have also discussed with him your statement that he indicated that you should be jawboned to sell your property to neighboring owners. I think that without a doubt the Planning Commission and the City Council for years have attempted to encourage or jawbone'neighbors to put their property together to meet existing zoning regulations. This is for their benefit as well as for the community's benefit. It is our belief that this is responsible government and not coercion. You further indicate that you are familiar with the political process and therefore you are not intimidated by people encouraging you to discuss with your neighbors the sale or combination of properties to bring parcels into conformance with current standards. I thought the City Attorney made it very clear that it is the responsibility of the city Council to treat all property owners equally under the constitution, and I do not personally understand how encouraging people to put their parcels together to meet existing standards is unfair treatment. It is understood to be a very long process but as the attorney said, "It is our goal that some day in the future there will be no longer be non-conforming uses in the City of Mound." You posed a direct question to the City Attorney about a building permit. He indicated that none of the matters he was discussing related to specific cases and that he could not and would not answer that question in the abstract. The Mayor further attempted on several occasions to indicate to you that the meeting was a general discussion and an educational seminar to assist both the Planning Commission and the City Council to better administer the laws of the City, keeping in mind the constitutional protections provided for all citizens. Did you not hear him advise the City Council that his answer to questions and his explanations had to include their (the Council's) understanding of the constitutional rights of private property owners, regardless of the number appearing before the Council? We try not to operate by a show of hands from the audience. It is my belief that your characterization is unfair and unfortunate since you have assumed that this general session was some kind of a review of the Sharp's application to the Council. It was not intended for that purpose. Mr. Dennis Zylla December 23, 1991 Page 3 I believe the City Attorney has responded to the questions you raise as to why the Council would need to have a specific request before it before granting a variance. There are specific findings set forth in the ordinance and the Council is required to meet those standards. It was further pointed out to you in great detail that a general characterization by the Council that a lot that barely exceeds 50% of a lot minimum in a zone should be declared buildable regardless of what proposal is being made is not the way we interpret or administer our laws. It was further pointed out to you that topographic conditions, soil conditions, and many other things that are beyond generalization could affect the City Council's decision and that your requested action would leave the City with little if any control over the development and how it would affect the neighborhood. · The second and third pages of your letter imply that you are threatening the City with litigation. It also reveals that you apparently have no desire or willingness to discuss with your neighbors the sale of the Sharp property to abutting property owners. The City Attorney has called to my attention that the general message that he was conveying to the Council and the Planning Commission was that they could not confiscate the property. It therefore appears to follow that if someone is willing to purchase the land at a fair market value, there is no confiscation or taking of the property. The attorney,s lecture further pointed out that a diminution in economic value was not a violation of the constitution and that the Courts had held that there was not a taking by the government because the value was lower under one zoning classification than under a different classification. At the end of your letter, you have stated that in your opinion the City zoning code is unconstitutional. You suggest that maybe someone should investigate how cities can establish minimum lot sizes. ! believe that you would find in almost every city there are minimum lot sizes and that parcels that are not in conformation with existing regulations are non-conforming. The lecture further pointed out that there are constraints on the City and responsibilities in reviewing these parcels and that from a theoretical standpoint, the Planning Commission and the City Council should consider how the owners can obtain some value. Your statement that all lots of record are buildable is a statement that neither the City Attorney nor I can agree with. There are many very small parcels and remnants which would not be buildable. The City Attorney is not aware of any case in the State of Minnesota which makes this a rule of law, and if you have such a citation, we would very much appreciate your informing us of that citation. Mr. Dennis Zylla December 23, 1991 Page 4 I believe the City Attorney quoted to you several cases where the Courts had required persons to divide or consolidate properties to comply with local regulations, if possible. You frequently state that you are not desirous of selling the lot to your neighbor unless you know you have a right to sell it to anyone. It is the City's position that if you apply for a specific variance with specific plan, the City will respond to that request with a review of the facts, a finding of reasons as to why the variance should or should not be granted, and an ultimate determination that could be reviewed by a Court. We're sorry that you seem to disagree with so many points of our zoning ordinance and object to how the ordinance is written. I can only say to you that the ordinance was put together with professional planning assistance in the early 1980's and after much community discussion and public hearings. It is very similar to most modern day zoning ordinances. I can further assure you that as City Manager, I do not have the authority to be writing letters declaring lots buildable or unbuildable, nor do I believe it would be proper for me to do so. Rather, that is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City Council, to process your request for a variance in accordance with the standards and regulations set forth in the City Code. You asked me to write letters which are directly contrary to the public policies of the City which has attempted to consolidate properties to meet the existing ordinance requirements. You state in your letter what I should state in my letter, that basically everything that you have stated should be the public policy of the city of Mound. With all due respect to you and your clients, don't think that the question is that simple or something that I as City Manager can decide. It is my understanding that your case and one other specific case will be before the City Council on February 11, 1992. I do believe that unless there is some specific request presented to the Council at that time, they will probably agree with the City Attorney's opinion given at the December 10 meeting that your request is not specific enough for the Council to act. I believe the Mayor stated at the meeting and other Councilmembers agreed that they would not consider granting a variance to the Sharps' property unless there was a specific development plan before the Council. You must also understand that in granting variances and permits and things of that nature, there is generally a one year limitation so if the approved development does not occur in the stated time, the matter must be returned to the City Council for further action or the action is null and void. In conclusion, I want to state one thing. The city of Mound has no desire to litigate matters with you or any other citizen. Frankly, the City Council feels that it has to take action which it Mr. Dennis Zylla December 23, 1991 Page 5 believes to be appropriate, and that once that action is taken, any property owner or applicant who disagrees with that action has the right to challenge the Council's decision. As a practical matter, I have a different chore every day to try to balance the revenues and the expenditures of the City of Mound. I would much prefer to spend the City's monies on repairs of our infrastructure or the purchasing of capital equipment, but I do not believe that the City Council will respond kindly to threats of litigation. The City of Mound is not trying to intimidate you or conspire against you or take any action which is not consistent with the constitution or the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City of Mound. I would respectfully request that you present a specific proposal to the City Council for their attention or for referral to the Planning Commission for their advice and recommendation. It would appear that if this-is not done, the Council will have difficulty in responding to your requests. I would hope that since you have experience in government, you will try to be understanding of the fact that our Council serves at very minimal salaries and donates their time to try to build a better community. I can personally assure you that there is no conspiracy, coercion, or effort by the City staff or the City Council to deprive you or your clients of any rights. J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager ES:Is cc: Mark Koegler, City Planner Curt Pearson, City Attorney December 16, 1991 Mayor and City Council c/o Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mayor and Council: I enjoyed your workshop meeting and apologize if I deviated to the Sharp case but ! can not help but feel the Sharps are caught between your public policy objective to eliminate small lots and my preserving their constitutional rights to market and sell their land. ! see the city directing public policy at the expense of persons naive and without the financial resources of the city. Comments by your attorney that the city "can be arbitrary as hell because only I in 50 will challenge you in court" causes me great personal concern as a taxpayer and a public official. His "jawboning" me to sell to neighboring property owners to achieve your public policy objectives is coercion, in my opinion. Persons unfamiliar with the political process are intimidated by it and just want to get through it. Do you not have an obligation to treat your peers fairly and impartially rather than use your power to jawbone? The city attorney refused to reply to a direct question on whether a building permit must be issued if the setbacks are met on a non conforming lot. I think we all know the answer based on his earlier explanation of constitutional rights. Instead the Sharps are to be left to apply for a building permit to test the city code and be jawboned to either additional expense or further unnecessary public reviews. We disagree that the building permit should determine whether the variance is granted. If we do not request a setback variance why should we have to go before the Council? Is the Council going to condition the variance on the size or style of the house? Are we to discuss whether the house may be rented? If you think there are constitutional problems now, wait until the line gets crossed on Fair Housing laws. My earlier plan was to seek out, by my choice not by city mandate, a quality architect or builder for the lot. As I said last Wednesday I will not run that financial risk if the city will not first declare the lot buildable. ! further am unable to represent the lot for sale as buildable. The ' value of the lot is therefore effected because it has a cloud on it's marketability due to the city's refusal to tell us that the lot would be granted a building permit if we meet the setback requirements. Instead we must incur additional expense for a permit to test whether we can obtain a permit. Does this make any sense unless you are trying to find ways to deny the Sharps their constitutional rights? Ask yourselves who wins by your refusal to admit that the ~Sharps have a right to a permit. The answer is only the attorneys that will litigate this issue. And we will ask the court for reimbursement of our legal fees, and may request further damages as a result of your attempt to coerce the Sharps to a position of "negotiate with the neighbors', (or else) jawboning remarks and your attorney,s opinion that a house would be shoe-horned onto the lot. If we meet the setback requirements of the code how could a house be shoe- horned? Your zoning code as it relates to lots of record is unconstitutional, in my opinion, and needs revision. How many cities require a lot area minimum for a record lot? Maybe someone should investigate. We will only discuss selling the lot to the neighbors when we know we have a right to sell to anyone. The neighbors must then pay the market price between a willing seller and buyer, not a price dictated by coercion. We also continue to object to the property designation as non-conforming use. However, I will avoid further explanation of this point. Simply stated, we believe it amounts to a deed restriction and further problems for a buyer with the city in the event of an act of god. We came to the city with a very simple request. We want to know we can market the lot. While we saw the variance application as unconstitutional to the Sharp's lot we agreed to the process. We are now unable to do what we planned. While we believe your code presents an easy challenge, it was never our objective to become case law. We propose the following solution. That the city manager submit a letter to us that the city will issue a building permit for the lot so long as the setback requirements of the code are met. We will then attempt to market the lot for sale and avoid applying for a building permit now to test your Zoning Code. The city manager's letter would also state that while the lot is non-conforming, a single family house is a permitted use in the R-1 district and a property owner would have a constitutional right to rebuild within the setbacks of the Mound Code, the same as applies to the same class of properties. If we receive this letter by December 31, 1991, we would then ask you to table our variance until we have a buyer and a building plan. Our variance would be reconsidered at that time in light of the city manager's letter and the Sharp's property rights. If this does not appear acceptable, please advise. The Sharps have authorized me to retain legal counsel when choose to do so. Thank you. irely' Dennis Zylla Reply to: 3125 Holly Lane N. Plymouth, MN. 55447 332-22]2 (W) HINUTBS - HOOND CITY COUNCIL - DECF3(BER 10t1991 1.5 CASE #91-0571 DENNIS EYLLAo 4925 GLEN BLYN ROAD, LOT 22 ~I,OCK 24, SHAD~fOOD POINT, PID #13-~17-24 0097. VARIANCE TO CRBRTB A BUXLDABLB The City Planner explained that the applicant la seeking variance to create a buildable lot vith a total area of 5,120 square feet. The lot is located in the R-1 zone vhich requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet. & lot vidth variance vould also Be required. There is no property adjacent to this lot that is available to add square footage to the lot. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Hayor Johnson suqgested tabling this item until further information ts available and until sometime after December 11, 1991, vhen there rill Be a Joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss undersized lots, lots of record and develop a plan to deal vith these lots. The follovIng persons vere present speaking against the parcel being a buildable lot: 1. Bill Carrov, 4929 Glen Elyn Road 2. Dick DeGuise, 4932 Glen Elyn Road 3. Brian Johnson, 4945 Glen Elyn Road 4. A letter from Catherine Kasprzak, 4939 Glen ~lyn Road, vas presented By Bill Carrov. 5. The folloving petition vas-received from the Glen Elyn Homeo~mers, signed By 10 persons: NWe the undersigned, Glen Elyn Rd. Homeov~ers, vish to register our objection to the granting of any variance to the existing codes vhich vould alloy for Building of any sort on the above extremely undersized lot. It is our opinion that any Building squeezed into this lot can only succeed In destroying current aesl~hetic values in the area vhich In turn vould severely lover existing property values. Granting of this requested variance can only succeed harming many for the Benefit of a fey.m Hr. Dennis Zylla, representing the Sharps (ovners of the property), stated the Sharps have ovned the property for 31 years and nov vould like to sell the property. The property Is a lot of record and he feels this entitles the ovners to a building permit if they can meet setback requirements. The City Attorney informed Hr. Zylla that the Council cannot declare the lot BuildaBle vhen no actual plans for a Building have been presented. There are other factors that must be considered vhen considering granting a building permit, i.e. drainage, elevations, etc. HOTXOM made b~ Johnson, seconded B7 ~ensen to table this Item to the first meeting tn Februar~ (2-iX-g2). This give the Council time to assess the impact on the and the implications and alternatives. The vote vas unan~mousl7 in favor. Hotion carried. MINUTEs OF A MEETING OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COPINISSION November 18, 1991 Case No. 91-057: per~11s z¥11a. 4925 Glen Elyn Road~ Lot Block 24, Shadyw~ P~lnt, PlO #!3-117-24 I1 0097. VARIANCE. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the City Planner's report. The applicant is seeking a variance to create a buil- dable lot with a total area of 5,120 square feet tn the R-I zone resulting in a 4,880 square Foot variance. The applicant has stated that it is possible to place a structure on the lot which complies with all other setback provisions. A variance request For this property was denied in 1987 due to lack of hardship. The Zoning Code identifies 1or size as Part of the criteria for granting variances. The size of this lot has not changed since 1987, therefore, this lot is likely to remain as a nonconforming lot of record in perpetuity. The City Attorney has stressed that owners of all lots of record must be allowed reasonable use of their property. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variances for the property located at 4925 Glen Elyn R~d. This variance is recon~nended to afford the owner reasonable use of the property since it is not feasible to acquire additional land to make the parcel conforming with the 1or area and width provisions of the R-! zone. In approving this request, the Planning Commission finds that the variance is in compliance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the property shall remain as a nonconforming use subject to all applicable provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. Michael commented that even tf this area is rezoned, this property will still be undersized as it is less than 6,000 square Feet. Mueller commented that reasonable use does not always mean the highest and best use, to allow a house to be construction on this property would be more than reasonable, it is highest and best. Courts have upheld that reasonable use does not have to be highest and best. Mueller disagrees with the City Planner. Mueller would like the City Attorney to explain why he believes reasonable use For this property would entertain the Fact that it has to be a dwelling. Dennis Zylla, representing the owners (the Sharps) of the subject property, spoke in Favor oF the variance. The Sharps have owned the property for 31 years, and now are cleaning up their estate and would like to sell the property. This property is a lot of record which entitles the owners to a building permit if they can meet the setback requirements. Mr. Zylla does not agree with the Planner's report that the use will always be nonconforming, he does agree that the lot will be nonconforming, but not the use. What if the dwelling burned, would it be allowed to be rebuilt? What a~ut insurance? Mr. Zylla suggested that the City Attorney review this Interpretation. The Building OfFicial confirmed that there is sewer on Lot but not water. Hr. William Carrow who resides west of the subject property presented a petition to co~nission which states, "We the under- signed, Glen Elyn Road homeowners, wish to register our objection to the granting of any variance to the existing codes which would allow For butldtng of any sort on the above extremely undersized lot. it is our opinion that any building squeezed into this lot can only succeed in destroying current aesthetic values in the area which in turn would severely lower existing property values. Granting of thts requested variance can only succeed in harming many for the benefit of a Few. The petition is signed by 16 per- sons, owners of !0 properties. Carrow added, a Few years ago, he had made an offer of $3,000 to purchase the subject property, however, it was not accepted. Catherine Kasprzak stated that she purchased her property From the Sharp's and the property was misrepresented as she was required to get a variance before she could build. Jerry Tasa spoke in opposition of the variance. Brian Johnson stated that he had to purchase a portion of the neighboring property to Increase his lot area in order For him to construct an addition olato his dwelling, why should this property be different? Bud Stannard believes that the City should stick to policy and follow the zoning code and deny the request. Rosemary OeGuise commented that the subject property has always been a great place For kids to play, it is wooded and has lots of animals, wildlife, and beautiful maple trees. 5he is concerned about drainage problems if a house is constructed due to the steep hill. 5he would Itke the property to remain as is, however, the tires should be removed. The commission questioned, what constitutes reasonable use? Does it mean a dwelling? What about the use of green space? Michael commented that nothing has changed since 1987, and it was denied then. I'lOTlOt~l made by Hlchael, seconded by Hanus to deny the variance as requested. Mueller suggested that the other reasonable uses be specified. Voss recalled the Phlllippi case in which the City Council ap- proved the variance, and therefore he ts in favor of staff's recommendation. Jansen clarified that the Phillippi case was not a matter of reasonable use, rather a matter of the value of house versus the cost of the repairs. MOTION carried 6 to !. Those In favor were Johnson, ltanus, Jansen, Neyer, Nueller and Michael. Voss was op- posed. At the request of the applicant, this case will be heard by the City Council on December 10, 1991. VanDoren Hazard Stallings, Inc. Archi~;ec~;e · En~ineere · Plannerl~ PIANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 6, 1991 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Dennis Zylla (James & Josephine Sharp) CASE NUMBER: 91-057 VHS FILE NUMBER: 91-310-A15-ZO LOCATION: 4925 Glen Elyn Road EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to create a buildable lot with a total area of 5,120 square feet. The lot is located in the R-1 zone which requires a minimum of 10,000 square feet of lot area resulting in a 4,880 square foot variance. In addition to the lot area variance, the parcel also will require the issuance of a lot width variance due to the fact that the 50 foot lot width is 10 feet under the 60 foot requirement in the R-1 zone. The applicant has stated that it is possible to place a structure on the lot which complies with all other setback provisions. COMMENT: This lot was the subject of a variance request in 1987 that was subsequently denied. When variance requests for undersized lots are received, the first item investigated is whether or not it is possible for the owner to acquire property from an abutting owner(s) to create a conforming parcel. The characteristics of the adjacent properties are as follows: Parcel 96 (Lots 20 & 21) - Approximate Area - 11,200 square feet Parcel 132 (Lots 1 & 2) - Approximate Area - 12,750 square feet Total Area - 23,950 Minus Minimum Required Area -20,000 Total Area Above Minimum Requirements - 3,950 square feet If the abutting property owners were willing sellers and all property in excess of minimum requirement could be acquired, the area of the lot would total 9,070 square feet which would still require a lot area variance. In all likelihood, it is unrealistic to assume that land can be acquired from both abutting owners. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950 Zylla Planning Report November 6, 1991 Page Two When this case was reviewed in 1987, it was denied due to a finding of lack of hardship. The Mound Zoning Code identifies lot size as part of the criteria for granting variances. The size of this lot which is outside of the control of the lot owner has not changed due to the enactment of the current Zoning Code in 1982, nor has it changed since 1987 when the original proposal was denied. Additionally, it does not seem feasible to enlarge the lot through the acquisition of property from the adjacent owners. Therefore, this lot is likely to remain as a non-conforming lot of record in perpetuity. In recent cases, the City Attorney has stressed that owners of all lots of record must be allowed reasonable use of their property. Construction of a new residential unit on this property that meets all front, rear and side setbacks seems to constitute a reasonable use. ~ECO~MENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variances for property located at 4925 Glen Elyn Road. This variance is recommended to afford the owner reasonable use of the property since it is not feasible to acquire additional land to make the parcel conforming with the lot area and width provisions of the R-1 zone. In approvin~ this request, the Planning Commission finds that the variance Ks in compliance with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances and that the property shall remain as a non-conforming use subject to all applicable provisions of the Mound Zoning Code. Z ILLVA.q. P52 GLEN ELYN RD. HOMEOWNERS PETITION TO MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO.91-057' DENNIS ZYLLA, 4925 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOT 22, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-24 11 0097. WE THE UNDERSIGNED, GLEN ELYN RD. HOMEOWNERS, WISH TO REGISTER.OUR OBJECTION TO THE GRANTING OF OF ANY VARIANCE TO THE EXISTING CODES WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR BUILDING OF ANY SORT ON THE ABOVE EXTREMELY UNDERSIZED LOT. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT ANY BUILDING SQUEEZED INTO THIS LOT CAN ONLY SUCCEED IN DESTROYING CURRENT AESTHETIC VALUES IN THE AREA WHICH IN TURN WOULD SEVERLY LOWER EXISTING PROPERTY VALUES. GRANTING OF THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE CAN ONLY SUCCEED IN HARMING MANY FOR THE BENEFIT OF A FEW. CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 472-1155 Fee $50.00 Case No. VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the Following InFormation.) Address oF Subject Property see legal description Owner's Name James & Josephine Sharp Day Phone 213-255-3528 Owner's Address. 1200 North Avenue 54 Los Anqeles, CA. 90042 Applicant's Name (iF other than owner) DeNnis Zylla Address 3125 Holly Lane N. Plymouth 55447 Lot 22 Addition Shadywood Point Existing Use of Property: vacant Day Phone332-2212 Block 24 PID No. 13-117-24-11-0097 Zoning District R-1 Has an application ever been made For zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure For thts property? yes ( x ), no ( ). If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (copies of previous resolutions must accompany this app]tcatton). Case 87-625:PC 4/13/87:Council 4/28/87 Do not have resolutions. VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR: direction Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Lot Size: ( ) Principal Building setback requested setback required ( ) Accessory Butldtng Ft. ft. ft. ft. Ft. ~lZO sq ft .10,000 Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. sq Ft VARIANCE REQUESTED 4,880 ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. Ft. sq ft IANCE APPLICATION Page Z Reason for request The Sharps have been fee owners since lg60.They wish to sell the lot as a building site. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations For the zoning distric~f~ln which it is located? Yes ix), No (). if no, specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district a~a~hich ts located? Yes ix), 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 II too small II drainage II soil sub-surface too shallow shape ( ) other: specify None· The lot can conform to all setbacks and will allow a house 28 feet in width, or greater, at the front setback line. 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 Was the hardship created bF any other man-made change, relocation of a road? Yes ), No ix). If yes, explain such as the e Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance pecul~?r only to the property described tn this petition? Yes ( ), NO (x !f no, iist some other properties, whi.ch ar Swi~%~arly affected? Any lots platted prior to the curren5 zoning co~e are denied building permits due to the lot square footage minimum. 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 ac- curate. 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 inspectin~Q or of~>sting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required law. ~\ icant's Slgnature~ Date 10/19/91 I I hereb~ cextify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 22, Block 24, As surveyed b~ me this 10th day o~ Registered Land Survd~6r Minnesota License No. 7725 RECEIVED 0CT 2 2 199t October 19, 1991 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Planning Commissioners and Council: Enclosed is the variance application for The Sharps for your November agenda. A survey and a check for $50.00 are also enclosed. The Sharps reside in California but have owned this property for 31 years. While your process suggests the crucial test in review of this application is to prove hardship, we believe that the real issue is reasonable use of one's property. If there is a hardship it is paying taxes on a platted lot for 31 years and being denied the right to build. It is our position that since we meet the setback requirements that a right exists to build, in this case, without the variance application. We are however seeking to comply with your code. The 1987 application was by a real estate agent and should have been granted at that time. The staff recommendation for denial for lack of hardship was immaterial to the facts of the application. The Planning Commission minutes suggest that the denial was based on neighborhood opposition. The lot is clearly a buildable site. For the Commission to find otherwise is to deny The Sharps reasonable use of their land. Thank you. MINUTES OF A ~OINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MOUND ~t~DVISORY PI.~,NNING COI, fl4IB~ION DECF, MBER ll~ L99L Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Ken Smith, Andrea Ahrens, and Phyllis Jessen, Planning Commission Chair Bill Meyer, Vice Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, and Mark Hanus, city Manager Ed Shukle, city Attorney cUrt Pearson, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Brian Johnson and Frank Weiland. The following persons were also in attendance: Reich, and Dennis Zylla. Ken Reich, Mary UNDERSIZED LOTS: The city Attorney, Curt Pearson, reviewed the history of undersized lots in the City of Mound, lots of record, the reason for their existence, and how they are affected by the City's zoning ordinance. Cities are children of the State, the State Legislature tells the city what it can and cannot do. The legislature gives the cities authority, and the United States and Minnesota Constitutions control the legislature and the City Council. There are two Minnesota constitutional provisions which apply, 1) The Minnesota State Constitution indicates in two places, the first being Article One, "A person cannot be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law." Due process means that the public is given the opportunity to be heard, and 2) Section 13 indicates that "private property shall not be taken, destroyed, or damaged for public use without just compensation." Section 13 ties into the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which indicates that people cannot lose their property without due process of law, nor should private property be taken for public use without just compensation. Most of Mound was platted before, or just after the turn of the century. We have to take into consideration the people who put Mound together 100 years ago and how they lived, modern conditions are very different from those of our founding fathers. Zoning is something which is relatively new to the United States. The City of Minneapolis was the first city in the state to adopt a zoning ordinance in 1924. In 1925 property owners in Minneapolis contested the ordinance and the Minnesota Supreme Court approved the constitutionality of the City's ordinance. These laws were intended to improve the quality of life. Basically, the constitution protects everyone with the following rules: 1) You cannot take peoples property, and 2) You have to treat everybody equally. Minutes of a Joint Meeting Undersized Lots December 11, 1991 Planning Commissioners need to be aware they are balancing the need for governmental regulations against the rights of their fellow citizens to do things that they believe they have the right to do. People have to understand and care about democracy and the rules under which we must operate. In the State of Minnesota, the Legislature has adopted the Municipal Planning Act which essentially outlines what you can do, how you can do it, and what the purpose is for zoning, it defines the comprehensive plan, it defines mapping, it defines subdivisions, it defines things a Planning Commission will work with in administering planning and zoning questions. City Councilmembers wear three different hats: 1) Administrative, 2) Legislative, and 3) Quasi judicial. Planning Commissioner,s may approach the problems more from a theoretical standpoint; they give their best advice. He stressed that Planning Commissioner,s have to be consistent. Be consistent in the way they approach things and make recommendations to the Council, if you are not consistent, rational decisions cannot be made or logically explained. Nonconforming uses are covered by the ordinance, they are conditions that existed before and nothing can be done about them, so those nonconforming uses are allowed to continue to exist. The City's zoning ordinance provides for continuing the use until they can come into conformance. Hopefully, one hundred years from now, we will have a better community where most people are in conformance with the laws and regulations then in existence. In the period of time that Mr. Pearson has been working with the City of Mound, somewhere between 650 and 750 structures and properties have gone out of existence, the 1965 tornado helped, making Mound a better place and bringing many properties into conformance. Consistency is very important. The constitution provides for equal protection. If a variance or other zoning request is denied, we are required to put in writing the reasons why they are being denied the right to do something. These reasons are referred to as findings and give the court something to review. Regarding recommendations, the Commissioner,s have to remember that if the City has to go into litigation, the City's witnesses are basically through professional advisors, and if they state that the application should be approved and the reasons are listed, they cannot go on the stand and testify that the application should be denied because of what the Planning Commission and City Council voted. They have already made their statements. If you ask staff M£nutee of a Joint Meeting Undereized Lote December 11, 1991 to make recommendations, you better be ready to live with that recommendation if the case goes into litigation, or find other evidence that can be presented to the court. Municipalities have an advantage over the individual property owner. The city has the resources of 9700 people to fight A or B or C. The City Attorney guessed that 90% of the time spent on planning in Mound is spent on variance problems, and only about 10% of the time is spent actually planning. Jerome L. Kaufman, Assistant Director of the American Society of Planning Officials, states, "Most people appointed to a Planning Commission or City Council are well meaning, dedicated, sometimes influential, but they are amateurs in both planning and government, not really qualified to plan or counsel on planning matters." How do we remedy this kind of a problem? The first thing you have.to do is try to use staff and your engineering people and any other people in the community who has expertise to help you and to provide input. Try to get background information and work the problem through from beginning to end. Curt Pearson referred to a letter which he wrote dated November 22, 1991, this letter relates back to early zoning regulations. The lots of record, as created in the beginning, obtained certain legal rights and have been a problem for this community for many years, and will be for many more years. It has been the goal of the City to put properties together and create more liveable units. He didn't think anyone in today's society can conscientiously argue that a 3,200 square foot lot makes sense, but if you put two of them together you get 6,400 square feet which is where Mound got its minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. The standard of the people who Put the zoning ordinance together required a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet to force people as much as possible to put neighboring lots together to try and create a better community. General Discussion Planning Commission Chair, Bill Meyer, expressed some questions and comments. What gives the Planning Commission the 'right to judge,' the 'expertise?' Meyer views the volunteer Planning Commission as a group of neighbors who get together to look at things and to use their best common sense. No two requests are alike. Pearson commented that the Planning Commission cannot set arbitrary standards. What rights does a person have to use an undersized piece of property? Pearson commented that there is not a solid answer, and 3 Minutes of a Joint Meeting Undersized Lots Decen~er 11, 1991 there is no black and white. There is a constitutional protection to the property owner. How do we handle this? Pearson stated that we handle it by trying to encourage people to put parcels together and the economics of the market helps, most people do not Want to live on very small properties. Michael asked the attorney, "What good is it for us to review a variance request to build on a 3200 square foot lot if we cannot stop them from building?. Pearson commented that the City has a policy goal to have minimum lot sizes, and the city may have to establish a program to balance the property owners rights and the public's goals. The City Council and Planning Commission should know specifically what improvement is proposed for a site or they cannot evaluate how it will affect the neighborhood. There are going to be situations where the City is not going to get what it wants, what we are going to try to do is get the best result we can and at the same time not get the City in the position of having to buy undersized properties. Pearson referred to an area in Mound where over 50% of the lots are nonconforming due to lot size. The City should try to minimize the number of nonconforming uses, you do not try to maximize them. When the last revisions to the zoning code were made, the Council decided to set higher standards. Mueller asked about undersized lots with existing structures, what should happen if there is a fire, they may not be allowed to re- build. Can these properties be insured? Will mortgages be granted? Are we in a situation because of our undersized lots that we are making Mound less desirable? PearSon commented that great progress has been made to reduce the number of nonconforming lots in the last 20 years, and in the future the problems and variances will be less and less, but these are individual problems that can be evaluated only on all the facts. Mueller questioned if we are not causing problems by restricting uses because people will not be able to insure their properties? Pearson stated that this is what the city wants to happen, i.e. you have a 3200 square foot lot, the house burns, the bank will not loan you money to rebuild the house, you cannot not insure the property, nobody wants to move into a nonconforming status, so the property does not become all that marketable. Mueller inquired, by allowing people to build on a nonconforming lot, and now they cannot rebuild, have we, in effect, taken the property from them and are we going to be buying up a lot of 4 Minutes of a Joint Meeting Undersized Lots December 11, 1991 nonconforming lots? Skip commented that the banks and insurance companies are making that property less desirable, not the city. Ken Smith commented that it is probable the insurance company will insure the dwelling, but they will not insure the lot. Hanus questioned if people with existing dwellings on nonconforming lots should be allowed to fix and repair their dwellings? Johnson commented that generally what is already there, works. However, new construction should meet the 10,000 square foot lot area minimum. Meyer suggested that everyone take another look at the Shadywood Point area, he believes that only the inner lots should be rezoned to R-2 (6,000 square foot lots), but the lakeshore lots should remain at R-1 (10,000 square foot lots). Mayor Johnson asked if there were any other questions relating to lots of record? City Planner, Mark Koegler, constructed a scenario, as follows: "I own two lots of record 5,000 square feet each in the R-1 zone, I come in and I want a building permit on lot 1 and I want to do something in the future with lot 2. At that point does the city have the ability to enforce the combination of those lots which are side by side and owned by the same party?" Pearson replied that he would take the position that if the two lots are in common ownership they should be combined. Mueller questioned, with regards to lots of record, can we state in our zoning code, that from this date forward, if a property is transferred and is nonconforming it will not be buildable? Pearson said no, this would be considered as taking peoples properties and in turn is adverse condemnation. Mueller questioned if any lot of record is allowed to be built on. Skip stated that if the lot of record is undersized, you have to keep in mind that it needs a variance, therefore a workable plan is also required, every case is different. Mueller suggested having a separate Board of Appeals and a Planning Commission. Meyer commented that the experience gained through Board of Appeals is almost necessary to become a better planner, one advantage is that you see what the problems are. Dennis Zylla noted his 20 years of government experience and commented that during this time he never saw a lot of record require a variance unless a variance was required for a setback. He suggested that Mound's requirements for an existing lot of record be amended by deleting "and minimum lot area requirements." He referred back to the Sharp case and expressed his frustrations 5 Minutes of a Joint Meeting Undersized Lots December 11, 1991 about not knowing if he will be granted a building permit or not. The Mayor commented that this meeting was not intended to discuss the Sharp's case. Pearson asked Mr. Zylla, what if the abutting neighbor to Sharp's lot came and offered a fair price for the lot, everyone will gain by it, would this not be a reasonable position for the council to take? Zylla stated, "As soon as I know I have a right to build there, I'll go to the neighbors and offer them to buy." The Mayor terminated discussion relating to the Sharp's case. Mueller questioned if the Uniform Building Code supersedes the Zoning and City Codes (i.e. maximum garage or dwelling size). The Building Official commented that he would like the City Attorney to research this questign. He explained that he has been advised by a consultant from the Minnesota State Building Code Division that we cannot specifically restrict a garage size to less than the building code requirement by using a specific number, but it can be restricted by lot coverage percentage. Statute 16B states that the State Building Code shall supersede the Building Code of any municipality. Ken Smith commented that the insurance laws allows for insurance companies to improve on state laws, but we cannot go below their minimum standards. The meeting dispersed at 10:05 p.m. 6 1200 De~ ]ire l~eye will be t oew~ lutartl asseosuent a~re~d thio yoa~ with · hearing oouetXme in leto June oF early July, ~hi8 will Met likell be ~ ~ ~oat f~t~i~, ~eu will reooive · ~ ~ ~l ~8e~ ~ ~ dab' ~ ~e heeri~ il d~tnl~ly Oete Tours ve~7 truly, 66 April 28, 1987 -CASE ~87-625: JAMES & JOSEPHINE SHARP, 4925 GLEN ELYN ROAD, LOll: 0097, LOT AREA VARIANCF - - The Building Official explained the request. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommended denial. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the request for a lot area variance because it is not a hardship. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ' CASE #87-626:. J. THOMAS LEPISTO, 5325 WATERBURY RD., WEST 1/2 0 I - _ REAR YARD VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. The Staff and Planning Commission have recommended approval. Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-82 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR WEST 1/2 OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID d25-117-24 21 0154, CASE t87- 626 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. _CASE ~87-627: MIKE &. JUDY GARDNER, 1599 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOT 18 ~ ]9, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND. POINT, PID ~13-117-24 12 0128, REAR & SIDEYARD VARIANCES The Building recommended denial due to lack Planning Commission tie 'voted. Official explained the request. The 'Staff of actual hardship and the The Council discussed this item at length. Barbara Messerlch, 1593 Bluebird expressed concern about drainage onto her property from the 2nd story addition. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-83 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS RE(3UESTED INSERTING THE THREE ITEMS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, CASE ~87- 627, LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT Cou~cilmember Jessen stated that she did not like intensifying this nonconforming use and expressed concern for the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmembers Abel, Jensen and Johnson agreed. 3030 H~rbor L~ne North, Suite 104 Mlnn~l;)oll$, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning (km~issia~ and St~ff~ ~= ~ark Ko~ler, City Plam~er DATE: April 8, 198~ SOB3= Lot Area Variance Request APPLI~: ,/ams 3. and 3osel~[ne Shar~ CASE NO: 87-625 VSS FILE ~ 87-610-A19-ZO Z/XIkTION.- Glen Flyn Road EXISTING Z0NIN~: Single Family Residential (I~ PLAN: Residential (R-l) ~eet the area r~quirements. in 1960. Zoning of the lot at that time xs ~ cespxce_a _revxew. _o~, records and investigation by Orono city staff, (The Shadywooa the fact that the history is ~known, Lot zz is ciassx£xe?_a~..a .~u~. u~ .~-~j_~: Under Sec~iin 23.403 of the Code, "a Lot of Record in a residential oevelopment may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the ar~a thereof meets all setback and minimum lot area requirements." Lot 22 does not the R-1 zone. Lot 22 contains approximate-y 51zu square teen aha ~e¢c~o, 23.604.5 of the Mound Zoaing Oode requires 10,000 square feet of lot area. analyzed in September_of .1985 a.s .a. pa.r~ of the __z~,__m?_,~..v~,ew. m~,u~,~ ~aUrceX~s Point area. As the encloses map lnaxcates,.app.roxxma_~..e~ .~?~_ It,_~_~ Siii~. within the Three Points area are non-con£orm~ng. Atter a~.scuss~a, u,~ ,.. ~.~ Oouncil decided t~ review variances within this area o~ a case by cas~ basis. Based ui~n strict application of the zoning ordinance, staff ,this .request pcesents a legitimate case -- ,----,., ..... does not feel that zs not granted, the ,. -.,__.,_, _ fo._ ~.-.,.~,~ ? varzanca. If a variance .~. _.. _ - . onlz t~J~=-~.ta, use og the lot is existing homes or are _~.~_~_~_s_ . .ur~uunmn? parce,z.s eithe, r presently contain immediately south ot~ Lot~"'d~.sZ~t ~_uc.u~re_L,_~_m_e _.oon:s. ~.ion,. Lot 5, which is undersized, The caubination of Lo~==~-'-~-y--c°nrai-n-a sr.~u_ ct~_ re and is also would satisfy the lot ~,~, ,~.,,-----~-~ ~ ."."~ ~-z .woul~ ?suit in a parcel which ,.-.,,,. ,.~,~ ~uu ecc _.~:u .na~)e criteria for the iss 3_ request _ci~es not meet the ~xannln ¢ommissi uance of var_iances, staf..f_recamends denial. T g on ma want he Y tO again~ address [:X:~Slble of alleviating this and simihr _ . _ .compre~ive measu~s variance requests in the l:uture. P LANN I NG COI~ I SS I ON I~1NUTE$ April 13, 1987 Case. No. 87-625 Lot size va. rlance..for q. 925 Glen 'Elyn Road Lot 22, Block 2~; Shadywood .Polnt; PID No.. 13-117-2q 11 0097 .. Paul Larson:'Herrlll Lynch Realty, was present for Hr. ~, Hrs. Sharp' Hark'Koegl'er reviewed hls.'*~eport on this request for a lot size-- ~arlance;..Lot 22 contains approxlmately 5120 square feet or. about $1~; of the lot area ~equlre- ment. C!ty Code allo~s lots of.record to be used for slngle family d~e11Ing pur- poses providing, area meets all setback and minimum lot area requirements? In · 1985, Counc11 Studied non-conforming: ~arcels-wi.thin Three Polnts and declded to review var.lances On a case by case basls.. Staff is recon~nendlng denlal of the -. variance. . The following persons who~are-mmers of abUttlng properties ~vere opposed to "shoehorning a house Into that 'lot~: .B111 Carrow, Gerald Tasa, .Ernle Strong and Richard DeGulse. Ti~e Con~nlsslon'dlscussed and had varlous questions on setbacks, etc. The. Plan- ner had Commented that Lot $ might be avallable to be comblned with Lot 22 to meet the area requlrement. Hr. Strong stated that the same person o~ed Lots 5 and 6 and If. Lot ~; went with Lot 22, than Lot 6 would be underslzed. Smlth moved and Sohns seconded a motion mo~lng the staff recommendatlon for denial. The vote vras unanlmously, in favor. It's not a hardship as has no home. Thls will be on the Councll agenda of April 28, .1987. ' Ii cim OF MOUND. APPLICATION TO pLANNING I ZONING COM,qlSSION (P)ease type the roll,lng informtlon) q~25 Glen'E)yn ~d I. Street Address of Property. ~a~-~. Mound, ~ 2. Legal Descriptlon of Property: Lot_ ~2~ ~oo~ ~; Addltion 8~OOD ?OZ~~pID No. 3. ~ner~s Nam Address__ 1200 No~th Avenue Appl leant (if other'than ovmer): Name - - Address · =~ Case alock~ ~ 13-117-2]~ 11 0097 an~~e A. 8hLwp Day Phone ,oJ~213) ~x~. ~)88' 1e8, c it.. 900 -- Day Phone No. Zone Type of Request: (X) Variance { ) Condltlonal Use Permit ( ) Zonlng Interp~etatlon & Revlew (.) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify:... ( ) Amendmeni · ( ) Sign Permlt ~ )*Other &, .Present Zoning 01strict R-I (T]~--u the gz'apevine, w · he~ that - · '~U~~ L~) Neve~ ~d ~ offtc~ 7. ~Istlng Us, Cs) of rroperty 7 ~ Not~ce 8. ,as an application ever been ~d~~~,_e~ ~oq~t~.D~ ~ul~ · ,am ~a~anGe~ or conditional use ~er~it or - .other zoning procedure for this property7 NO If ~o, }{s~ date{s) list dale(s) of'application, act[on taken-and provlde Resolhtlon No.(s) Copies o accompany pre~ent request. I certify that a11 of the. above statements and the statements contained ~n 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 thls application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Appl icant Date~/19/8? Planning Commission R Council Action: Date q-13-87 .Resolution No. Date /~=~s ~. Sk4x~, Pro?. · ~s4/~//s~ ]~]9 1200 N. Av;~u]~ ~4 · Los A.G~Lr~, C.2u~. 90042 · CL~ ~.~28 (3.m'ro~ ~.6088 March 19, 3.987 City of Mound 5~ Maywood Road Mound, Minn. 553~-1687 AttentiOn: Jan Bertrand ~uilding Official Dear Ms Bertrand: RE: Lot 22, Block Shadywood Poin.t; PID ~13-117-2~ 11 0097 Cit~ of Mound, Minn. i Thank you for your enclosures of 2/~/87 and we now attach completed and si~ned APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, together with our checkfor $50.00, the required fee for a Zone Variance. Please keep us informed and for your information, we expect to be in Minneapolis on April 6 and 7th, and if necdssary we can arrange an appointment' with your Department. ]gout s truly, 3/,3 ' ! I · Three Points- Area 2 Total Parcels - 110 Conforming Parcels - 62 - 56% ~=Non-conforming Parcels - 48 - 44% Mlnne$oto Deportment of Ac ricultur¢ ACRONOHY SERVICES 90 ~[ST PLATO BOUL[VARD TELEPHONE ~ (61~) 296-612~ NOTICE OF APPOIN~ENT OF ASS%STANT ~ED %NSPECTOR [NSTRUCTION5 GREGORY SENST Agricultural Insoector 2 I SE~O: OeDanment of Public Works 320 Washington Ave. SOUth ~oo~ms. MN 55343 8l FIEST COPY TO VOUE COUNTY AGR)CULTURAL )~SPECTOR. C) S~CON~ COPY TO YOU~ LOCAL CLERK. NAHE 0r PERSON APPOXNTED ADDRESS CIT~ OR T0WNSH~P NAHE 534[ Ha~ood ~oad C~7 o~ Hound C~T~, STATE, ZIP CODE 'COU~tTY ' Hound, ~. 55364 ~ennep~n 1ELEPHOIIE ~0, [~CLUDE AREA CC3E) DAlE 0F APP0[~THENT ,,, 612-472-0600 ~eb~ua~7 [[, [992 IN ACEORDAI~CE ~TH H~NNESOTA STATUTES ~8.2~ PARAGRAPHS 2 AND ~, PERTA[I~NC TO ASSISTANT ~EED [NSPECTORS, THE ABOVE-NAHED PERSON ES HEREBY APP0~IITED T0 BE ASSISTANT ~EED INSPECTOR FROH 1~[ DATE INDICATED UNTIL SUCH TINE AS THE HAYOR OR TOWN BOARD a[SHES TO TERH[NATE THE APPO[NTHENT. THIS APP0~NTHENT CONFERS ON THE APP0[NTEE ALL THE DUTIES, AUTHOR[TY, AND PRIVILEGES 0F ANY LOC~L aEED [NSPECTOR AS 0UTL[NED BY LA~. SIGNATURE [MAV0R 0R CHAIR 0F TO~NSfl~P ~0ARDJ 1[TLE DAlE SIREET ADD~ESS C[1Y Arid STA~E ZIP CODE 534[ Ha~ood Eoad Hound, ~. 5536~ Clerk's Notice to Post and Publish -- HC 1163 ASSESSMENT NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board of Review of the MOUND in HENNEPIN will meet at the office of the CITY Clerk, in said CITY at 7:00 o'clock .. P. M., on CITy of _County, Minn., TUESDAY , the_ X2 h day 0[ mY , 1992, for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said CITy for the year 1993. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notified to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until 'the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. - Dated this 27thday of April , 1992 Clerk of the City of_ Mound SF_CTION 00030 ADVHH{TIS~4ENT FOR BIDS 1992 LIFT STATION IMPROVF~ PROJECT Mound, Minnesota Sealed proposals will be received by the City Clerk until 11:00 A.M. on March 6, 1992, at the Mound City Hall, at which time they will be publicly opened and read aloud, for the furnishing of all labor and materials and all else necessar~ for the 1992 Lift Station Improvement Project. The work includes remodeling five dry well lift stations using submersible pumps in a dry condition for Lift Station A-2 and wet condition for Lift Stations B-l, C-5, D-3 and R-1. The work includes new submersible pumps, electrical controls, interior piping, minor exterior piping and all incidentals connected therewith. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on March 11, 1992, at 7:30 P.M. All proposals shall be addressed to: Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341Ma~ood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 And shall be securely sealed and endorsed on the outside with the statement "1992 LIFt STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT" and shall be on the Proposal Form included in the plans and specifications for the project. Copies of the Plans and specifications and other proposed contract documents are on file at the office of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55Q47. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the offices of the Engineer upon payment of $25.00 per set, which is NON-REFUNDABLE. Individual sheets of the plans and sections of the specifications may be purchased at the rate of four dollars ($4.00) per sheet of plans and twenty-five cents ($0.25) per page of specifications, WHICH IS-NON-REFUNDABLE. Each bidder shall file with his bid a cashier's check, certified check or bid bond in an amount of not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60} days after the bids are opened. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Skip Johnson, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk END OF SECTION 00030 ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS ooo30 MFRA #9868 February 6, 1992 LICENSE RENEWAL - Expire 2/29/92. New License Period 3/1/92 to 2/28/93. &pproval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Garbaqe Disposal Blackowiak & Son Nitti Disposal, Inc. Randy's Sanitation Westonka Sanitation Woodlake Sanitary Service, Inc. Clqarette A1 & Alma's American Legion Post #398 Ben Franklin Brickley's Market Jubilee Foods Meyer's Service Mound Municipal Liquor PDQ Food Store #0292 R & R Bait Shop SuperAmerica #4194 Thrifty White Drug #704 VFW Post #5113 Public Dance Permit Westonka Senior Class Parents Fund raising dance for the Senior Class Party at the VFW to be held March 14, 1992 from 8:00 P.M. to 12:00 P.M. THEY HAVE ASKED THAT THE FEE OF $25.00 BE WAIVED. PremL~es Permit AppUcation - Part 1 of 2 CHECK INITIALS DATE (check one) [] A ($400) Pull-tabs, tipboards, paddlewheels, rames, bingo [] B ($250) PuB-tabs, tipboards, paddlewheels, raffles [] c (s2o0) ~ [] D ($150) Raffles only Name of Organizalim kmertcan Le~ion Post ~398 ~ss A~s ~ ~~ - ~ ~ P. O ~x (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d yo~ g~b~ ~g~ 2333 Wilshire Blvd. I Daytime p;-,ooe number Mound HN. 55364 Hennewln (612) 472-9582 _ Name of chief executive officer (cam~ be your gamb~ng marmger) T~lte ' I Oay~T~ pt~ numbe, JAMES ELLIS COPHER Commnnder I (612)472-1428 Bingo Occulon~ ff applying for a class A or C permit, fill in days and beginning & ending hours of bingo occasions: No more than seven bingo occasions may be conducted by your_t2ff,/~l~ per week i~ B~J~J/~lng Houm Day 13eg~/Ending Horn's /92~*'ginning/~dtng~k~u~ 11/7/92 If bingo will not be conducted, check here Name of eslabl~hmenl where gambrmg will be conducted S~I Address (do not use a post off"ce box numbeO Minnetonka Post ~398 2333 Wilshire Blvd. Mound. MN. 55364 Is the premises located within city ~mits? [:][3 Yes r---I No If no, is Iownship r---I o~anized I-"l unoroanized ['"3 u~incorporated City and County where gambrmg premises is located OR Township a~d County where gambling premises is located if outside ol city Emits I Name and address d legal own~ d pmmbes Cily State Zip Code American Lesion Post i398 2333 Wilshire Blvd. Mound~ MN. 55364 · · copy o~ Ihe lease (form LG202) with lerrns tot at least o~e yea'. · · copy of a skech of Ihe Iloor I~an with c~me~sio~s, showing wha~ ponion is being leased. A lease ~xl skak::h m',e not required for Class D ~tions. 2333 Wilshire Blvd. Mound. MN. 55364 _ L fu/OamMln0 Premise Permit Application - Part 2 of 2 Bank Account Number Marquette Bank 091908603 002846 2220 Commerce Blvd. Mound MN. 55364 Name Address T~e Jethro Philbrook 6064 As~en Lane Mound. ~N. 55364 John Taffe 6435 Lamberton Road Mound. MN. 55364 Gambling Man~ger Karen Latterner 27950 Smithtown Road Shorewood. MN, 55331 G.M. Design~ I hereby consent that local law enlorcoment o~em, the board or agents of the board, or the commissioner of revenue or public safely, or agents of the commissioners, may enter the premis~ to enforce the law. Bank Record~ Information The board is authorized to in~ the bank records of the gambling t,c.;oun~ whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law. I declare that: 4 have mad this Koplic~ion and all information submitted to the board is true, accurate and complete; · nil other required Information h~ been fully disclosed; ~~;~'~::-&~-~:' '"x--:->'.'~.. ~~.:'~ ~:-..-.~-~:~.~-.~~::.~...>--.c-.--..x-'.c.c.:c~ ~---~ ~--;--~.x.~..¢..-c:::,..-.~-.:~c----'-~:+ k~:c~ :-.....~c.->--.-..:-.-.-.~.::: .: .......... ............................................................. ~:~,.~,~:,:~::::.,. ~:~::~:::::~:~:.~:~:.. ~,~..:~ ....... ~:.::~ ....... ,..>;:~, .:~:::::::~.:>.~.,!~::f~:::::~::?::::::..::.:.: :.~.~. Onmhlin~ Site ~o~-~flon .I ~ the ~ief ex~e offi~r of ~e organEatbn; · I ~me full r~nsibili~ f~ the fair and la~ul o~ra- ~n ~ ~1 ~es ~ ~ ~u~; · I will f~g~ze my~ w~ the laws of Minnesota governing lawful gambling and rules of the board and agree, il licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, Including amendments to them; · any changes in application information will be submitted to the board and local unit of government within 10 days of the change; and · l understand that failure to provide required information or providing false or misleading information may result in the denial or revocation of the license. Date 1. The city 'must sign this application if the gambling prem- ises is located within city limits. 2. The county "AND township** must sign this appr~,ation the gambling premises is located within a township. 3. The local unit government (city or county) must pass a resolution specifically approving or denying this application. 4. A cooy of the local unit of aovernmenrs resolution ao orovina this aoolication must be attached to this aoolicatioll~ 5. If this application is denied by the local unit of government, should not be submitted to the Gambling Control Board. Township: By signature below, the township acknowledges that the organization is applying for a premises permit within township limits. City* or County'* Township** City or County Name Township Name l' ou. J 0 sis/L~alure o~ person receiving applicaliona ~ignatu~e of person reoeiving applicatio~ Tee ~ -//-?~,.., I Date Received He~ U 1 s for required ~chment~. BILLS' FEBRUARY 11, 1992 BATCH BATCH 2013 2014 TOTAL BILLS $162,404.82 110,563.02 $272,967.84 " ~ ° 0 o o 0 0 0 o I I I I I I I I , U.I n' UJ Z 0 .j _j o o ,, ooo~ 000 Oo ! ! O0 ! I e,,.t l k- _J ~d -..Ji ,,,,/-..i ~ z x 2: ~z z z: ;z u. lz t~ :z ~., Q:: ::::) r~ Or'' L~Q~ UJQ:: Q. ~ CL ol z ;I I o Z Z ", Z O..Z o 0 o o CD' 0 ~ LU Z 0 Z 0 3:: *::3 I III :CC 0 Z L~J I]1 I III I O0 r~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-1155 FAX (6123 472-0620 February 5, 1992 TO: FROM: RE: HAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY blANAGER · OHN NORN~,.N, FINial'CE DIRECTOR~l''~l'J JANUARY FINANCE DEPART/4ENT REPORT INVESTMENTS: Balance: January 1, 1992 Bought: CP 3.83 Dain CP 4.10 Shearson Matured: CP 5.26 CP 6.20 CP 5.14 CP 6.38 CP 6.40 Balance: Marquette Marquette Shearson Shearson Marquette January 31, 1992 Due 4-3-92 Due 5-15-92 $6,656,913 148,670 179,210 (98,579) (150,280) (309,932) (174,144) (188,867) $6,062,991 COMPUTER The new IBM computer was installed in January. This has made for a very hectic month for us in the Finance department. It is usually busy with year end duties in normal years. We are also dealing with new procedures, printers, etc. There have also been the expected amount of "bugs" during the transition of data to the new system. The finance staff has worked hard to make the transition as smooth as possible. The good news is the speed of the new computer. It is probably 5 times as fast as our old system. With one less staff person in our department, the extra speed will be a welcome addition to our operation. printed on recycled paper LEAGUE DMDEND For the past six years, we have purchased insurance from the League of Minnesota cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). A vast majority of the cities in Minnesota have purchased insurance through LMCIT. The total premium for all insurance, excluding worker's compensation, paid to LMCIT during 1991 policy year was $99,652. For the fifth consecutive year, we have received a dividend back from the LMCIT. The following compares the dividends: 1991 $36,447 1990 $20,643 1989 $24,267 1988 $16,621 1987 $7,324 If LMCIT charges more than what is needed to maintain adequate reserves, the only place the extra money can go is back to the member cities. JN:ls CITY of MOUND February 5, 1992 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (6:2, 472-1155 FAX 512) 472-0620 CITY MANAGER FI~OM: CITY CLERK BUBJECT~ JANUARY MONTHLY REPORT There were two regular Council Meetings in January. The first was an organizational meeting, i.e. appointment of acting Mayor, acting City Manager, official newspaper, designation of official depositories, etc. There was agenda preparation, minutes, 17 resolutions and clean-up items from the two meetings. I imputed all items into the Clerk's Index program from January, 1992. I calculated the Fire & Rescue hours for 1991 and incorporated them into the first part of the formula for the 1993 Fire Contract. These figures were sent to the contracting cities. I chaired the IIMC Region VI Meeting in Dubuque, Iowa. This Regional VI meeting was the first that had have chaired with the other IIMC Director from Wisconsin. It was a good meeting and went very smoothly. License renewals for the licenses expiring the last day of February were prepared and sent out. I helped the Police Department get their computers up and running. They inherited City Hall's Texas Instrument PC's and printers. The Community Energy Program was completed in December and all reports have been sent to the State for the final grant payment. There were the usual calls from citizens regarding various subjects. fc $1o printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND February 5, 1992 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364-1687 ,6~2, ,472-1155 FAX (612 472-0620 TO; Ed Shukle City Manager FROM; Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT; January's Recycling For the year of 1991 795.04 tons of recyclables were picked up curbside. We had an average participation rate of 61%. In 1990 616.85 tons of material was picked up curbside with a participation rate of 48%. The Recycling Coordinators met with Knutson Services in January, Mark from Knuston explain that markets are down in all areas of recyclables. At the ARM (Association for Recycling Managers) meeting in January Nancy Healy from Supercycle was there, she stated that all recycling companies will be having some trouble for the next 6 to 12 months. I hope that Knutson will just ride it out. My next project will be the Special Recycling Day we talked about in the fall last year. I think some time April would be Good, this would give me enough time to get a brochure out and get thing set up. printed on recycled paper LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-0621 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Len Harrell Monthly Report for January, 1992 STATISTICS The police department resp6nded to 565 calls for service during the month ~ of January. There were 21 Part I offenses reported. ~T~Ose offenses included 3 criminal sexual conduct, ~ ~ggravated assault 14 larCenies, and 3 vehicle t~t~. " ' There were 44 Part II ?offenses reported. Those offenses included 4 child abWse/neglect, 1 narcotics, 3 damage to property, 4 DUI's, 5 simple assaults, 8 domestics (5 with assaults), 9 harassments, 2 juvenile status offenses, and 8 other offenses. The patrol division issued 61 adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 72 tickets. Warnings were issued to 47 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 3 adults and 2 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 9 adults and 6 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 16 warrant arrests. · The department assisted in 13 Ve~cular accidents; 3 with injuries. There were 20 medical emergencies and 70 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 4 occasions in January. Property valued at $15,994 was stolen and $8,700 was recovered in January. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - JANUARY, 1992 II. III. IV. V® INVESTIGATION The investigators worked on 6 child protection cases and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases that involved over 50 hours of investigative time in January. Other cases investigated were thefts, assault, fraud, tax evasion, NSF check, burglary, domestic assault, snowmobile theft, and runaway child. Formal complaints were issued for vehicle theft, 2nd degree assault, criminal sexual conduct, DWI, theft, and dog at large. personnel/Staffing The department used approximately 106 hours of overtime during the month of January. Officers used 55 hours of comp-time, 23 hours of vacation, 163 hours of sick time, and 9 holidays. Officers earned 41 hours of comp-time in January. Training The department held two in-service trainings for employees in the use of the PR-24 baton and one involving the CAD (computer aided dispatch) system. Officers attended courses at the Wilson Learning Center and Officer Truax attended advanced CPR training to become an instructor. Inv. Grand attended the 3 day Juvenile Officers Institute. police Reserves Report not available. 3?3 OFFENSES REPORTED '4 CLEARED UNFOUNDED · T~XRY · EXCEPT. CLEARED Z99~. CLEARED BY ARREST ARRESTED ADULT JUVEMILE IlamJcJde 0 0 0 0 Crfmjrmt Sexuet Conduct 3 0 0 1 Ra~bery 0 0 0 0 ~ggravated As~aut t 1 0 0 1 Burglary 0 0 0 0 Larceny 14 0 1 2 vehJcte Theft 3 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 21 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 PART X l C~mES Chitd N~use/Negt ect 4 1 1 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 Criminat Dmage to Property 3 0 0 0 0 geapens 0 0 0 0 0 I~rcot ! cs 1 0 0 1 1 Liquor Le~s 0 0 0 0 0 D~I 4 0 0 4 3 $i~pte Asseu[ t 5 0 0 2 0 Damest lc Assautt 5 1 3 1 1 ~stic (go A~tt) 3 0 0 0 0 ~t 9 0 2 0 0 ~ite Stat~ ~fe~ 2 0 0 2 0 ~l lc P~ 2 0 0 2 2 Tr~i~ 1 0 0 0 0 AH ~her ~f~ 5 0 0 3 2 TOTAL 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1 PART Ill & PART IV Property Damage Accidents 10 Personat Injury Accidents 3 Fete[ Accidents 0 Iqedicats 20 Animt Ccmpteints ?0 Ilutuat Aid 4 Other Oeneret Investigations 391 TOTAL 498 Nemepin County Chitd Protection 4 C~IPS 0 TOTAL 565 19 12 CITATIONS DWI More than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates Illegal Passing Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos Seat Belt MV/ATV Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JANUARYt 1992 ADULT 3 0 1 2 0 24 0 0 22 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 72 1 2 0 1 0 133 .JUV 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT JANUARY, 1992 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL ARRESTS Felony Warrant Misdemeanor Warrants /%DULT JUV 17 1 3 4 13 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 40 ? 0 0 15 1 MOUND POLICE DEP~RTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY, 1992 GENERAL ~CTIVITY SUMMARY THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE Hazardous Citations 35 Non-Hazardous Citations 24 Hazardous Warnings 4 Non-Hazardous Warnings 35 Verbal Warnings 59 Parking Citations 72 DWI 4 Over .10 1 Property Damage Accidents 10 Personal Injury Accidents 3 Fatal Accidents 0 Adult Felony Arrests 3 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 21 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 3 Juvenile Felony Arrests 2 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 4 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 3 Part I Offenses 21 Part II Offenses 44 Medicals 20 Animmal Complaints 70 Other Public Contacts 391 35 24 4 35 59 72 4 1 10 3 0 3 21 3 2 4 3 21 44 20 70 391 LAST YEAR TO DATE 41 12 1 21 94 90 9 7 9 3 0 1 35 5 2 10 1 21 49 19 48 351 TOTAL 829 Assists 45 Follow-Ups 8 Nenn. County Child Protection 4 Mutual Aid Given 4 Mutual Aid Requested 0 829 45 8 4 4 0 829 38 7 3 4 0 PReP PROP TYPE DESC INCIDENT SEQ TYPE NUNSER NO NO A1~O/11~ 91000075 I 1 NJTO/TK 91000079 I 1 CC~St~ 9100011& I 1 SIlO/AW SNOld40 91000016 I 1 SNO/ATY SNCXa40 910000~3 1 1 Sll0/AW ~ 910000~8 1 1 JEUEI..RY 9100014? I 2 P.N)[O 910OOO58 I 1 SPT EQP 910000O8 1 1 SPT L::QP 91000104. I 1 SPT E(ZP 91000131 1 1 SPT E(IP 91000132 I 1 SPT E(ZP 910001~T I 1 SPT L:QP 910001~ I 1 SPT EQP 91000140 1 1 SPT E(IP 91000147 I 1 CtNUt~' 91000114 I 2 14V PRTS 91000090 1 1 NV PitTS 91000115 1 1 ALL OTIt 91000~7 1 1 ALL OTit 92000019 I I INSTALLATION NAHE -° NOUND POLICE DEPARTNENT ENFORS PROPERTY - STOLEN/RECOVERED 01/01/91 THRU 01/25/91 DATE STOLEN DATE RECOVERED STOLEN VALUE RECOVERED VALUE 01/18/91 S&,000 02/25/91 01/18/91 $2,000 01/19/91 01/24/91 $16 01/07/91 $1,000 05/09/91 01/10/91 $300 01/04/91 $4,000 01/25/91 $150 01/07/91 $320 01/07../91 $525 01/22./91 $279 01/21/91 $2 01/21/91 ~ 01/21/91 $115 01/21/91 S194 01/Z2/91 $144 01/25/91 $228 01/24/91 $3 01/19/91 $500 01/24/91 S~O0 01/06/91 $56 01/04~192 Sl, 700 01/07/91 S~,000 $2,000 $1,000 S1,700 PAGE TOT&L$: $15,994 CFS03 iSN~$ ONLY? ACTIVITY COOES: I10 ALL ACT COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 09000 S~EEDING 0~006 TEST REFUSAL 09011 J-BAC OVER .10 0~014 STOP SIGN 0~018 EQUIPHENT VIOLATION 09020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 0~023 J-EXHIBITION DRIVING 09030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 090~0 MO SEATBELT OTHER 091&0 MO PARKING/gI#TER HOURS 09200 DAS/DAR/DAC 09210 PLATES/NO-I#PRCN:'ER-EXPIRED 09312 FOUMD ANIIqALS/INPOUNDS 09313 F(XJND PROPERTY 09314 F(3IJNO VEHICLES/IHPOUNDED 09430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS O9450 O9451 O9452 OgS~ (~710 PROPERTY DAHAGE ACCIDENTS H/R PROPERTY DNqAGE ACC. H & R ACCIDENTS W/TICKET ANIIqAL ENFORCEHENT TICKETS ATTEHPTED SUICIDE 09T50 NED I CALS INSTALLATION ~ "' MOULD POt. ICE I)EPAP, TIEgT ENFORS CALLS FO~ SERVICE ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 ........... PATROL AREAS ........... 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 8 5 3 1 1 1 11 7 5 3 2 10 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTAL 24 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 61 2 7 2 1 3 8 1 ' 2 16 Rt~: ~8-JAN-9~ CFS03 PRINARY ISN'S ONLY? NO ACTIVITY COOES: ALL INSTALLATION NAHE -- NOUNO POLICE DEPAR'rNENT 'ENFORS CALLS FOR SERVICE ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA 01/01/92 THRU 01/~5/92 ACT COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION 0973?. CRISIS INT.-HEDICALS 09800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 09801 DONESTIC/NO ASSAULT 09~)0 ALL HCCP CASES 09930 HANDGUN APPLICATION 099~ UNUANTED GUEST 09945 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 09~0 INTELLIGENCE 09980 WARRANTS O~ NISC, VIOLATIONS O~ MUTUAL AID/8100 (~ MUTUAL AID/6500 09994, MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER AZ341 ASLT 2-INFLICTS ~DiLY HARN-OTH ~EAP-ADLT-FAN AZ342 ASLT Z-INFLICTS BODILY HARN-OTH WEAP-AOLT-ACQ A5351 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTENPTS HRH-HANDS-ADLT-FAN A5352 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTE#PTS HRN-HANDS-ADLT-ACQ A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTENPTS HPJq'HANDS-CHLD-FAM A5355 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTENPTS HRN-HANOS-CHLD-ACO A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HAR#-UNK ~AP-ADLT-ACG D3550 DRUGS-SCH 2 NARCOTIC-POSSESS-COCAIN-OTH CHAR 13060 CRIN AGNST FAN-NS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD JZTO0 TRAF-ACCID-GI4-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION ........... PATROL AREAS ........... 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 5 3 6 1 1 1 PAGE 2 TOTAL 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 16 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 2 1 1 2 CFS03 IS~'S ONLY? ACTIVITY COOES: INSTALLATION N~E -- HOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT NO ENFORS ALL CALLS FOR SERVICE ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 ACT COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ........... PATROL AREAS ........... 10 ZO 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 J3300 ACCIDENT-NS-FAlL STOP-DRVR CAUSED J]500 TRAF-ACCID-#S-DRIVE UNOER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR K43~2 KDNAP-NO HRM-SAF PLAC-TERROR-OTNR ~EA-ADLT-ACQ L51T~ CSC 3-NO FRC-ACQUAINT-13-15-F L5377 C$C 3-FRC OR COERCN-ACQUAINT-18 OLDER-F L?051 C$C 4-UNK ACT-POS AUTH-UNOER 13-F N5313 JLNENILE-CURFEV M5350 RUNAVAY N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-D1SOROERLY CONOUCT PEACE-NS-CONCEALING IDENTITY N3190 DISTURB PEACE-HS-HARRAS$1NG CC~I~IUNZCATIONS 03882 OBSENITY-#S-ONSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT P2130 PROP DAI4AGE-GM-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3110 PIU3P DAHAGE-NS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT P3310 TRESPASS-NS-PRIVATE-LINK INTENT Q1221 $TLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-VEHICLE-OVER 2500 T0021 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM BUILDING-HONEY T2021 TNEFT-$251-$2500-FE-FRH BUILDING-HONEY T2029 TNEFT-$Z51-$2500-FE-FRH BUILOING-OTH PROP T4021 T#EFT-$250 LESS-MS-FRM BUILOING-MONEY T4059 TNEFT-$250 LESS-MS-FRN YAROS-OT# PROP T~159 THEFT-SI50 LESS-MSoFRN MOTOR VEHZCLE-OTH PROP T4189 TNEFT-$250 LESS-MS-FRM FISHHOUSE-OTH PROP PAGE TOTAL 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 PRINART !~#'$ ONLY? ACTIVITY CODES: #0 ALI. INSTALLATION NA~E -- NOUNO POLI~E DEPARTNENT ENFORS CALLS FOR SERVICE ACTIVITY ANALYSIS BY PATROL AREA 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 ACT COOE ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ........... PATROL AREAS ........... 10 20 30 /~0 50 60 70 80 90 U1513 U3288 V1021 V1025 V2024 X3080 THEFT-FE-OTHR VEH-NO NOTOR-501-2500 THEFT-#IS-SHOPLXFT[NG - S200 OR LESS VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO VEH THEFT-FE-OVER 2500-ATV VEH THEFT-FE-251-2500oS~ILE CRIH AGNST ADNN JUST-HS-OOST LEGAL PROCESS PAGE TOTAL REPORT TOTALS: 51 34 60 ~. 78 1 2 1 1 272 INSTALLATION NAHE " NCUI) POLI~ DEPARTHENT PAGE 1 OFF01 ZSN'SOflLY? NO E N F 0 R S CODES: ALL ACTIVITY COl)ES: ALL OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION GRID: ALL 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 / ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. / ACTIVITY COOE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL .... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL PERCENT DESCRIPTION REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED A2341 1 ASLT 2-INFLICTS BOOILY HARH-OTH gEAP-ADLT-FAH 1 ASLT 2-1NFLZCTS BOOILY HARH-OTH UEAP-ADLT-ACQ A5351 5 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTENPTS HRN-HANDS-ADLT-FAN A5352 1 ASLT S-INFLICTS ATTEHPTS HRH-HANDS-ADLT-ACG A5354 2 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEHPTS HRN-HANDS-CHLD'FAg A5355 2 S-INFLICTS ATTEHPTS NRH-HANDS-C#LD-ACG 1 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARH-UHK gEAP-ADLT-ACG D3550 1 DRUGS-SCH 2 RARCOTIC-POSSESS-COCAIN-OT# CHAR 13060 CRIN AGNST FAg-NS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 0 I 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 I 4 0 I 0 3 4 100.0 0 I 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 1 I 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 .0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 I 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 S0.0 J2700 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 TRAF-ACC I D- ON-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION J3300 I 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 ACCIDENT-NS-FAIL $TOP-DRVR CAUSED J3500 3 TRAF-ACCID-NS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIOUOR K4342 1 KDNAP-NO HRN-SAF PLAC-TERROR-OTHR UEA-ADLT-ACG 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 .0 L5173 I 0 I 0 0 I 0 1 100.0 CSC 3-NO FRC-ACQUAINT-13-1S-F L5377 1 CSC 3-FRC OR COERCN-ACGUAINT-18 OLDER-F 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 RUN: OFF01 PRIK~RY ISN'S ONLY7 DISPOSITION C~OES: ACTIVITY CODES: GRID: NO ALL ALL ALL INSTALLATION NAIE -- 140UND POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORS OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 PAGE 2 / ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. / ACTIVITY CODE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL .... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL DESCR I PT I ON PERCENT REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED L?051 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 CSC 4-UNK ACT-POS AUTH-UNDER 13-F N5313 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 JUVEN I LE- CUR FEI/ N5350 I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 RUNAWAY 100.0 #3O3O DISTURB PEACE-NS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 0 I 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 N3060 DISTURB PEACE-NS-CONCEALING IDENTITY I 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 N3190 8 DISTURB PEACE-NS-HARRASSING COH~JNICATIONS 0 8 6 0 0 2 2 2~.0 06SENITY-NS-OGSCENE PHONE CALL-ADULT 1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 .0 P21~0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 PROP DAHAGE-GN-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT P3110 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 PROP DANAGE-NS-PRIVATE-UNK'INTENT 0 .0 P3310 I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 TRESPASS-#S-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 01221 1 STLN PRO~-FE-POSSESS-VEHICLE-OVER 2500 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0 T0021 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRN BUILDING-HONEY 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 .0 T2021 1 THEFT'$251-S2500- FE- FRM BUILDING-MONEY 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 .0 T2029 3 THEFT-S251-S2500-FE-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 0 3 1 1 0 1 2 66.6 T~021 THEFT-$2SO LESS-MS-FR# BUILDING-HONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 RUN: ~-JAN-~2 INSTALLATION NAHE -- 140UNO POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OFF01 ISN~S ONLY? NO E N F 0 R S (200ES: ALL ACTIVITY CODES: ALL OFFENSE ACTIVITY BY DISPOSITION GRID: ALL 01/01/92 THRU 01/25/92 / ................ OFFENSES CLEARED ................. / ACTIVITY CODE/ OFFENSES ACTUAL .... BY ARREST .... BY TOTAL PERCENT DESCRIPTION REPORTED UNFOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ADULT JUVENILE EXCEPTION CLEARED CLEARED T~059 THEFT-$250 LESS-14S-FPJ4 YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 T~159 1 THEFT-$250 LESS-#S'FRM NOTOR VEHZCLE-OTH PROP T4189 3 THEFT-$250 LESS-#S-FRH FISHHOUSE-OTH PROP 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 .0 U1513 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 THEFT-FE-OTHR VEH-NO NOTGR-501-2500 U3288 THEFT-MIS-SHOPLIFTING - $200 OR LESS I 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 V1021 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 VEN THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO VEH TNEFT-FE-OVER 2SO0-ATV I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 .0 V2024 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 VE# THEFT- FE-251-2500-S~1LE X3080 1 CRI# AGNST ADNN JUST-#S-O6ST LEGAL P~OCESS .0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 REPORT TOTALS - 61 2 59 33 14 5 7 26 44.0 NOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTNEN! NOUND, MINNESOTA FOR HONTH OF JA~UUtYI~2 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & HAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 2 ~n~ ~ x Z 2 19.~ 3 26 6.~ 156.~ 3 .~ ~R X X 2 lq.~ 0 25 6.~ 1~.~ 4 ~Vm ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 19 6.~ 11~.~ 5 ~ ~ X .X 2 19,~ 0 36 6.~ 2~.~ 6 ~ ~ X E 1 9.50 b 22 6.~ .132.~ 7 ~ ~ x x 2 19.~ 2 21 6.~ 126.~ 8 j~ ~ x E I 9.50 2 31 6.~ 186.~ 9 ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 23 6.~ 138.~ ~ ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 21 6.~ 126.~ !1 ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 29 6.~ 17~.~ 12 ~b ~ X X 2 19.~ 2 26 6.~ 156,~ 13 ~ ~S X X 2 19.~ 2 27 6.~ 162.~ 14 ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 3 35 6.~ 210.~ 1~ ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 3 16 6.~ 96.~ 16 ~G ~ X X 2 19.~ 3 ~ 6.~ 2~.~ 17 P~ ~Y X X 2 19.~ 8 25 6.~ 1~.~ 18 ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 7 26 6.~ 156.~ 21 d~ ~ x x 2 lq.~ 1~ 21 R ~ 19R ~ ~ ~ ~ X X 2 lq.~ 2 37 ~-~ ~ ~ ~.~.. OP~ ~ 1/6~ ~ I 6.~ ~_~ 25 ~ P~ X X 2 19.~ 2 ~ 6.~ ~6.~ 27 T~ P~ X X. 2 19.~ 2 27 6.~ ]62.~ ~ ~ m~ x x 2 19.~ 2 8 6.~ 48.~ ~ w~ ~v4~ x x 2 19.~ 10~ 22 6.~ 132.~ 31 ~ SYPRRJ, X X 2 19.~ 2 )9 6.~ 1,14.~ ~ ~ ~ X X 2 19.~ 13 23 6.~ 138.~ 33 ~ ~ X E 1 9.50 2 19 6.~ 114.~ ~ ~ ~ E X 1 9.50 1 16 6.~ 96.~ ~ ~ V~ X X 2 19.~ 2 ~ 6.~ 1~.~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ X 2 19.~ ~ ~ 6.~ 1~.~ 37 T~ ~ ~ X 2 19.~ 6 19 6.~ 1~.~ 35 33 ~ 87~ 82~ 170 ~6.~ 11~ 961 ~ 5671.~ 170 ~ ~6.~ 11~ ~ 1167,~ m. c%, cma ~2 ~6 ~2 2~ lrlBE 7 7 7 3 ldOUN1) 20 12 20 9 I(INNETONICA B~.ACH 'lr~R i ,¥~ 2 0 2 Lq. ~ca~'Y O ~ O 1 PIRE ~} 4 3 1 #XIOI~TRX STA ~ 2 2 2 ORONO ~ o Q O 0 S~ORE~D ~ o 0 ~ o SPRING PARE ~ 0 3 0 0 ~TUAL AID ~ 0 0 0 0 ~O~A~ ~XRE CAL~S X5 22 ~5 9 TOTAL EHERGEHCY CALLS 27 24 27 x5 ~~ 2 0 2 0 B~T~ 5 9 5 5 ~_~ 1 0 1 1 ., ~ O I 0 2 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 2~ 79 ~ 615 ~37 615 F{~ ~ 0 ~ 0 - ~ BEACH ~ O 17 O 8 FTnE 117 107 117 - N' TRISTA ~ 93 ~ 93 ~ 210 1 ~ 210 105 ~ 33 ~ 33 - ORONO ~ O ~3 Q 21 ~ 73 87 ~3 99 [~ o o 0 o - SHORE~OOO ~ O 0 0 ,0 ~ o o o o ~x~ 9 tX9 ~ 38 - SP. PARK ~ ~ ~. ~ 36 ~ 63 ~1 63 F~ O 3~ 0 0 _ ~ m ~ O 0 0 0 ~ O 3~ 0 0 TOTAL DRILL HOURS 170 1~ ~ TOTAL FIRE HOURS ~7 7R1 ~7 TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 5~ 6~ 5~ ~q ~ F~E & ~ ~ ~l 1261 9A1 ~7~ ~TUAL AID RECEIVED ~ 0 1 MUTUAL AID GIVEN O 3 O ~OUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Discipline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Hours Training Paid : ~ Excused DRILL REPORT Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance X Unexecused O Present / Not Paid Miscellaneous : ,¥J.Andersen ~_~G.Anderson ~_J.Babb _~_~D.Boyd ~!=D.Bryce ~S.Bryce ~D.Carlson _/~J.Casey _~z~S.Collins ~_~R.Englehart ~7~S.Erickson ~P.Fisk PERSONNEL J.Garvais D.Grady ~_~_K.Grady ~_~_C.Henderson ~_~"' ~P.Henry ~ .B.Landsman o~ ~R.Marschke o~, ~J.Nafus ,J.Nelson ~M.Nelson _B.Niccum ~_~ ~G.Palm i M · Pa I m T.Palm · Pederson .Rassmusen M.Savage K. Sippre 1 l ·Stal lman · Swenson ~ ' ~W. Swenson ~]=E. Vanecek ~ ~R.Wil liams T.Williams DRILL REPORT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Date~ . pline and Teamwork Critique of fires Pre-plan and Inspections Tools and Apparatus Identify Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective Clothing Films First aid and Rescue Operation Use of Self-Contained Masks Pumper Operation Fire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings Natural/Propane Gas demos. Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzles & Hose Appliance Hours Training Paid : ~) Excused X Unexecused O Present / Not Paid {cellaneous : PERSONNEL LJ.Andersen G.Anderson ~J.Babb ~D.Boyd ,D.Bryce ~S.Bryce kD.Carlson ~J.Casey { S.Collins 2) R. Englehart '~S. Erickson P.Fisk / J.Garvais ,D.Grady ~K.Grady C.Henderson LP.Henry B. Landsman R. Ma r schke J .Nafus J. Ne 1 son M.Nelson B. Niccum G.Palm M.Palm T.Palm ~G.Pederson ~T.Rassmusen ~M.Savage ~K.Sipprell .R.Stallman T.Swenson [W.Swenson ~E.Vanecek ~R.Williams ~T.Williams MOUND FlEE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH O?____~.~__~ ~.~. __~'~ J. ANDERSEN _~.~_ G. ANDERSON __~_____ J. B&BB __,2 D. ~O~D .... 0_._ v. ~R~CE .... .'/_._ S. ~RYCE __~__ v. CARLSON ~ J. CASEY .... ~S. COLLINS ~.~ R. ENGELHART ~ S. ERICKSON P. FISK J. GARVAIS v. ¢~ADY r. GRADY C. HENDERSON P. HENRY __ ?___ B. LANDSMAN MEN ON DUTY ____ O._ R. MARSCHKE - ~ J. NAFUS ~J. NELSON ___~..~M. NELSON _ ~ B. NICCUM __ ~) A. OPITZ ~- G. PALM .~ M. PALM _..2. T. PALM ~ G. PEDERSON __ ~T. RASMUSSEN H. SAVAGE _ _,~__ K. $IPPRELL R. STAI,LMAN T. SWENSON __ / ~. SWENSON' __ ~ T. WILLIAMS TO,AU ,ON ,,Ly CITY of MOUND 53.:." MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND ?~NNESO~rA 553E-' PzI2~472-1~55 FAX 612, 4720620 February 6, 1992 TO; Ed Shukle City Manager FROM; Greg Skinner Water & Sewer S~lpt. SUBJECT; January's Activity Report WATER DEPARTMENT In January we pumped 23,794,000 gallons of water. We had one watermain break. Evaluations are completed and the annual report was started. Meters and readers were worked on along with pumphouse maintenance. Snow was plowed. SEWER DEPARTMENT Lift station maintenance was done with'them helping with the pumphouse maintenance. Myself and Damon attended a 3 day Sewer Operators school. All in all a pretty nice month. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROA2 MOUND MINNESOTA 553E.: ~687 612i 472-1155 FAX t612 4:2 062C DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 6, 1992 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Sutherland, Building Official ~~~. Jon J2B~UARY ~992 NONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY In January, 7 building permits were issued for a total valuation of $16,950, this is a much slower start than 1991 when the month of January had a $91,900 valuation. There were 15 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits issued for a total of 22 permits this month. PLANNING & ZONING Along with the normal planning and zoning requests, the Planning Commission finalized their review of the proposed zoning code modifications and set a public hearing date for February 10. The proposed rental licensing and regulations went to the Committee of the Whole meeting for their initial review. The Planning Commission and some members of the Council had an interesting question and answer session with four officials from other communities that are involved with point of sale truth in housing regulations. TRAINING & MEETINGS I attended one day of the three day Annual School for Building Officials at the University of Minnesota Earl Brown Institute. JS:pj printed on recycled paper C I TY OF NOUND 5341 Naywood ROad Nound, MN 55364 mUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT ~ JANUARY Pv 1992 INEW RESIOENTIA~ ~ ~ ' · ' ~'--"',~,, I ! I "~="~ I I , I To,,,;,~ ~, I I I NEW RESIDENTIAL (Gro~; & Tmmiien~ [TNI No~Flmlly N~ NO~RESIOE~ I~mercilVl~ TMII NO4~ P41J(~ ntll jRE,~IDENTIAL ADDmON~ AND ALTERATION~ s o.-Mtsc Remodel Ree~denll~l NON*RESIDENTIAL AOOL TIONS & ALTERATIONS TOTAL MONTH AND Y~A~ TO OAT[ ~NVERS~Na 14,950 14,950 14,950 YW e OM! 2,000 2,000 16,950 YW TO OMO 2,000 16,950 Total DEMOLITIONS To(al D~mo~kmo PERMITS, INSPECTIONS, :OLL ECT~ONS Fences/walls TOTAL CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 5536z '687 (612, 472-1!55 FAX (6?2,472-0620' February 3, 1992 TO: CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE: JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER JANUARY MONTHLY REPORT We're out of the gate! What an exciting start to a new year. Believe it or not, we are up 26% over January of last year. That translates into an extra $17,561 in sales and 1,124 more customers. Gross receipts for this month were $85,137.00 Our annual inventory taking went off without a hitch. After a grueling 12 hours of intense concentration, Julie and I had it completed and were satisfied that it was accurate. The extending of the inventory is also finished and I should be able to supply you with a profit analysis in next month's report. All preliminaries point to an outstanding year. For my own information and curiosity (and perhaps for yours) I put the pen to the paper and came up with some very interesting data. In the 7.5 years since I have been here, I have increased gross sales from $743,627 in 1983 to $1,242,673 in 1992. That is an increase of 67%, or to put it in a different light, an average of 8.9% per year. All in the midst of ever increasing excise taxes and negative publicity aimed at our industry, all in the midst of more competition in the area and all in the midst of the current recession. Thought you might like to know. JK:ls printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND ~24' L~AYWOOD RCAD 6~2 472-!~55 z~X,E~2,472 062S February 3, 1992 TO: Ed Shukl e City Manager FROM; Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT January's Activity Report We started to take down the Christmas decorations the 6th, but couldn't finish until the 21st because of other work that had priority. We were out 5 times this month plowing and sanding. Most of the time it was a trace of snow or just slippery roads. On the 25th we got about 5" to 6" of snow, we started at 3:00 A.M. and finished at 11:00 A.M. It took us a little longer this time because of some equipment break downs. One of the 2 1/2 tons truck that works the Island had some wing problems about halfway through his route so some of the residents didn't get plowed out as soon as usual. We also had a 4 X 4 go down with alternator problems. We didn't get any complaints from the residents so everything worked out OK. After the snow that we got on the 25th we spent a couple of days cleaning and hauling snow from the sidewalks. The 29th we started cutting brush on the street and sidewalks right- of-way. We plan on continuing with the right-of-way work as long as we have mild weather. STREET SIGN WORK 2 - stop, 2 No Parking, 2 - street sign names. CEMETERY Layed out 4 graves. printed on recycled paper CITY of MOUND PARKS DEPARTMENT JANUARY 1992 MONTIH,Y REPORT 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-16.¢- i612 472-1155 FAX ~6"2~ -:72 ~,620 PARKS In January, the Parks Department received two of its capital outlay items for 1992. The new John Deere 72" front mower and a trailer to transport it. I purchased the John Deere because it is basically the same mower we purchased a few years ago. This will allow me to utilize the two stage blower and broom attachment purchased with the first mower on the 1992 unit. Also, it will allow me to only keep one set of repair parts in our inventory for repairs. The trailer was designed to not only carry the new mower, but is adaptable for other uses. It was constructed locally and strong enough to last for many years. ,,ICE RINKS The weather again this year is not cooperating, after the warm weather around Christmas we received a short cold spell and were able to put down some ice. Currently we are back into a warm spell and hope not to loose too much. We will be back flooding as the weather is suppose to change. We generally let the rinks go after the first week in March. Again, the hardest thing about our small outdoor rinks is that the weather effects them harshly. TREE REMOVAL There were no trees marked for removal in January. The large brush pile at Lost Lake is scheduled for this month, we have had a problem with the burn site not being open. CEMETERY The past winter we have had a number of burials. The problem has been with the large snow fall at Halloween, the frost has not set hard in the ground. So as we open the site for a burial we have done damage to the sod. This will take time in the spring to make the area presentable for Memorial Day. ~1~ ~ printed on recycled paper FEB 5 1992 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT g00 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160WAYZATA, MINNESOTA .~91 TELEPHONE 6121473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochr~, Chair Greenwood AJbert O. Fo~te~. Vice Chair ~h~ Jan ~n~l, ~a~ Minn~ ~ch J~ L~n. T~ Minn~r~a ~s E. ~k J~ N. GraVel J~ L V~a ~ Madin~ Wayza~ ~ K. Pill~ Minn~ ~d R~ Th~s W. R~ ~E.~ W~la~ TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1992 FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: JANUARY REPORT - LMCD 1.0 GENERAL INTEREST ITEMS. 1.1 Eurasion Watermilfoil Task Force. Thc Task Force will now be chaired by Tom Penn, thc new representative from Tonka Bay. Hc is a competant manager who should do well with the program. I will attempt to continue to attend the meetings while Tom gets acquainted. I have spent several hours with him already getting him familiar with what has gone before. The Traub bill has beca broadened to include the authorization for the County Board to contribute to all kinds of assistance items, including all exotics, all lakes, and the assistance that they are presently supporting, ie. Water patrol, navigation bouys, etc. Passage of this bill and the continuing fmancial support of the County in amount of approximately $73,000 when coupled with our other reliable sources of funding, should allow our Milfoil control program to continue indefinitely. The DNR is taking an increasingly more assertive position in the control of exotics, which certainly is their proper role. I doubt if the commitment from all levels of state government will be such as to recognize and adequately fund this need. 1.2 Management Plan The committees of the LMCD have been re-aligned along the lines of the implementation requirements of the Plan. Key is the new Access Committee chaired by Jim Grathwol of Excelsior. The old Lake Use committee is now the Recreation Committee, and will deal with all manner of how the lake is used. This committee will be chaired by Bert Foster of Deephaven. The "Dock" Committee's role has been defmed more closely as dealing with Water Structure items principally. It will be chaired by Doug Babcock of Spring Park. The Environmental Committee has been split off from Water Structures (where it never belonged), and will be chaired by Jo Ellen Hurr of Orono. 1.3 Other General Interest Items. The moratorium on new multiple docks was extended for another year. An exception for revisions to existing multiple docks was included in the extension. This issue is all tied into the access item and is a complex water/land issue that needs to involve the cities. 2.0 CITy SPECIFIC ITEMS - MOUND 2.1 There is a large cruiser frozen into the ice in Priest's Bay. They have commenced an unauthorized de-icing operation which until it can be brought into compliance with the code constitutes a potential safety hazzard to snowmobilers. This is a Minnetrista/LMCD item, but the safety implications can affect Mound residents. 2.2 I note that the Parks Dept light on the north side of Priest's Bay still is being used. I feel that this is a violation of the spirit of the new planed ordinance on lighting, and Mound's own stated position. It clearly ut on the lake. .- epresentative Lake Minnetonka Conservation District cc Gene Strommen 2 BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, Chak Greenwood Tom Reese, Vice Chak Mound Douglas E. Babcock, Secreta~/ Spring Park J. P. Boswinkal. Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetfista Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Gralhwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurr Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C. Owe~ Victoda Tom Penn Tonka Bay Robert Rascop Shorewond Robert E. Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR e ruar z,, lV Z I J2'13 FEB To the Editor Sun-Sailor Newspaper 464 Second Street Excelsior MN 55331 Dear Editor= A conflict-of-interest policy was adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District January 22, 1992. It represents the outcome of inquiries, review of ethics source materials, and draft reviews by a committee. The LHCD board did indeed adopt this policy to expressly hold itself accountable for doing what is best for Lake Minnetonka. The text of the policy statement follows: Each person appointed to the LMCD Board of Directors or its committees is recognized as having experience regarding the Lake, connection to a neighborhood or municipality, interest in Lake uses, and prior views relating to Lake policies or procedures. Citizens are usually asked to serve because of their involvement in Lake matters. It is important to recognize the difference between having an interest in a broad public issue and having a conflict of interest in a specific issue. Matters of broad policy having general public concern are considered a matter of interest, not a conflict of interest. Citizens serving the LMCD in any capacity--Board, committee, task force or the like, should refrain from voting or other action on matters that would result in a direct or indirect personal financial benefit: 1) to the member; 2) from a business with which the member is associated; 3) from an organization of which they are a part. Members should identify their intent to refrain from voting on an issue regarded as a conflict of interest at the begin- ning of consideration of that issue. (continued) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT To the Sun-Sailor Editor February 4~ 1992 Pase 2 This policy further recommends that all LHCD public officials and staff refer to the NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES STANDARDS OF CONDUCT & GUIDELINES FOR GOVERNHENT DECISION HAKERS as a reference on more specific matters relating to ethics and conflict of interest. Its 14 member cities were asked as to conflict-of-interest policies they may have. Four cities replied. The Cities of Excelsior, Shorewood and Victoria look to the League of Hinnesota Cities (LHC) for guidance; the City of Wayzata relies on Roberts Rules of Order. The other cities do not indicate they have con- flict of interest policies. A Business Ethics Policy recently adopted by the City of Brooklyn Center was also used as a resource. The National League of Cities Standards of Conduct & Guidelines was adopted as applicable as a further reference. The committee included a current member and a former member of the state legislature. $incerely~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Chairman c= LHCD Hayors LHCD Administrators LNCD Directors LA£E'N~NNETONKA CONSERVATION D~STRXCT CONFLICT~OF INTERESTs'pOLIcY STATEMENT Each person appointed to the LMCD Board of Directors or its committees is recognized as having experience regarding the Lake, connection to a neighborhood or municipality interest An Lake uses. and prior views relating to Lake policies or 'prOcedures. Citizens are usually asked to serve because of thelr involvement in Lake matters. It is important to recognize the difference between having an interest in a broad public issue and having a conflict of interest in a specific issue. Matters of broad policy having general public concern are considered a matter of interest, not a conflict of interest. Citizens serving the LMCD in any capacity -B~ard, "cOmmittee, task force or the like, should refrain from voting or other action on matters that would result in direct or indirect personal financial benefit: 1) to the member; 2) from a business with which the memb~r~is 'a~s°cla['ed: 3) from an organization of:which they sre::'a' part. Members should identify their intent to refrain from voting on an issue regarded as a conflict of interest at the beginning of consideratiol~ of that issue. This policy further recommends that all LMCD public officials and staff refer to the National League of Cities Standards of Conduct & Guidelines for Government Decision ~akers as a reference on more specific matters relating to ethics and conflict of interest. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this 22 day of January, 1992. /s/ David H. Cochran David Il. Cochran, Chair Attest: /s/ Eugene R. Strommen ' ' R. Strommen ExeCutive irector Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 473-7O33 L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE February 1992 Saturday 8 Water Structures Committee 7:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Monday 17 Presidents Day Holiday, LMCD office closed Wednesday 19 LMCD Annual Save the Lake Recognition Banquet 6:15 pm Cash Bar 7:30 pm Dinner, Lord Fletchers, Spring Park Friday Monday 21 24 Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Lake Use and Recreation Committee 4:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata Wednesday 26 Public Hearings on dock licenses 7:00 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting 7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall Thursday 27 Technical Review Committee 8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Building, Wayzata 1-31-92 LAKE. MINNF_TONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 FEB EVENTS SCHEDULE February 1992 Saturday 1 finish 9 pm Westonka Snoblazers Arnie Zachman Fun Run A1 & Alma's, Cooks Bay Mack's Bar, Seton Lake Mist, Spring Park Bay Haskells Bar, Excelsior Bay Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay Club Mirabelli, Excelsior Bay Saturday Sunday 1 9 am to 2 4:30 pm Northwest Tonka Lions Club Winter Sports Fest, Spring Park Bay Sunday 2 Noon to 3 pm Lafayette Club's Family Fishing Derby and Kite Fly, Lafayette Club, Crystal Bay .Saturday Sunday 8 8am-5pm 9 lpm-4pm Wayzata Chilly Open (golfing) " " " (fishing) Wayzata Bay 1-31-92 REC'D FEB 3 ;;g2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE AGENDA 7:30 AM Saturday, february 8, 1992 Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Bird, Rm 135 (Elevator access for handicapped, use west entrance, Wayzata Blvd) Discuss Purpose, Goal and Objectives for Water Structures committee for prloritization, adoption as presented from the Management Plan Bupp dock length variance, Carsons Bay; review public hearing report and agreement between Strot and Bupp for a property easement on the strip of land over which dock extends Excelsior Park Tavern, Excelsior Bay; amenity presentation by applicant to qualify for new dock license Multiple dock licenses: A. Staff recommends approval of: 1) Renewal Applications 2) District Mooring Area renewal applications 3) Non-renewing licenses (paid $25 administrative fee) B. Presentation of site plans for approval of minor modifications; staff report C. New dock license applications for changes that do not increase slip size, number of BSU or WSU Proposed Ordinance to license previously unlicensed docks on sites from which artificial lights are directed at the Lake; summary of comments from Lake cities; staff recommends referring to the Technical Review Committee Draft of ordinance relating to storage of lake maintenance equipment on Lake Minnetonka, amending Code Section 2.03, Subd.8. Review of Policies and Procedures Subcommittee recommendations, with additional staff recommendations Deicing licenses: A. New application: Leno Mikenas, St. Albans Bay, Greenwood B. Deposit Refund of $100; Excelsior Park Iavern, Excelsior Bay, Excelsior (decided not to deice) C. Inspection report DNR restoration order to Gayle's Marina Corp. for the unauthorized excavation, filling and placement of structures below the OHW 10. Additional business recommended by the committee JAN ! 199! LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 FAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, S~ 1~ WA~T~ ~TA ~I ~ 612/4~ E~ENE R. ST~MMEN. E~CUTI~ OIRECT~ BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran. Chair Greenwood Albert O. Foster. Vice Chair Deephaven Jan Bo~inkel, Secreta~, Minneionka I~,a ch John Lewrrmn, Treasurer Min~etris~* Douglas E. Babcock Spring Pan~ Marvin ~oriin Tonka Bay James N. Grathwol Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hurr John G. Malinka Victona Thomas Martinson Wayzata Robert K. RIIsbu~y Minne~onka Robert Rascop Thomas W. Reese Mound Robert E. SIocum Woodland 0anuary 30, 1991 Fran Clark, CMC City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Clark: In response to your letter of 1/23/91, we are sending you some information regarding the Lakewinds Association. Our files show that Lakewinds Condominium Association purchased their property from Baypoint Associates in 1983. The survey we have on file for Baypoint, copy enclosed, indicates the property where the transient docks are located is included in the real estate description. A copy of the lease agreement between Donnies Restaurant and Lakewinds details how the restaurant leased the dock area from Lakewinds. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter from Garsten Management Corporation dated 3/8/90, which explains their position on the transient docks. If you need more information or additional clarification for the City Council, please let us know. Sincerely, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Administrative Technician Encl. 1983 survey, 5/8/87 lease aggreement, 3/8/90 letter P.S. We have not sent Minnetonka Boat Rental (now Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Inc.)for your review yet. ~~ Howard W. Rogers, Minnesota Registered gurvoyor No. 10945, hereby certifies to Gene:'~ Electric Crndit Corporation and Title Insurance Company of Minnesota that the foregoi:. is a true and correct representation of the boundaries and area of the following des- cribed real estate~ ~ar l. Lot 74 in The First Rea rramq~ment of Phelps' Island Park First Division according to the plat thereof on ~ile or of record in th~ office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, Also the following tract of land in Section 19, Township 117, North Range 23 West cribed as fol]owg :.o-wit: Commencing at the extreme ~asterly corner of LOt 74 in thc plat of The First Rearrangement of Phe]p's Island Park First Division according to plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for County; thence westmrly along the southerly line of said Iot, 99.6 feet to thc Count'.' road as laid out and traveled;thence southwesterly along ~he southerly side of said road to the oxtreme northerly corner of l~t l, Auditor's Subdivision Number 136; thence southeasterly along the no:rheas:cfi? l(n- of said Lot I to the westerly side of the alley in the plat of Phelps' Island park First Division: thence northeasterly along the westerly side of said alley to the place of beginning. Par 2: Auditor's ~ubdivision Number 136, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Registrar of T~tles in and for said County. par 3: Lots 5 to 13 inclusive and all of the adjoining private street lying between the extensions southeasterly to the shore of Lake Minnetonka of the northeasterly of Lot 5 and the southwesterly line of [~t 13, all in "Phelps' Island Park, First Division." That part of the private alley in "Phelps' Island Par%, First Division" lying betwm~n the extension northwesterly of the southwesterly line of Lot 13, "Phelps' Island Palk, First Division" and the extmnsion southeasterly of the southwesterly lin~ of Lot "The First Re-arrangement of Phelps' I~.land Park, First Division. Lot 7? and that r~rt of Lot ~ lying southwesterly of the extension southeasterly el northeasterly line of Lot 77, all in "The First Re-arran~nment oi Phelps' Island First Division". - -- All Of the alley in "The First Ri;~rrang~m~nt of n~]ps'Island ua:k, F}rst Division, ]y]ng b~tw. Pn the .xt~n~ion sou'~''r~Y o' th- nor+b~ter]y line of Lot 77, "'th<. First Re-arrangement of Phelps' l~land Dark, First Division and the nxt~nsion ~outh- .asterly of the southwesterly !i~e o~ TO+ ~, "The Firot ~.--arrangement of Phelps' Island Park, First Division," according to the recorded plats thereof. All situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. and of the location of all buildings an~ other improvements situated thereon: and name of all pub]lc street~ or alleys located thereon or adjacent thereto: locat~ 3q dimensions and recording data of all easements of record as shown in the co~nitmcnt Title insurance, application number 494284, dated October 19, 1981: all parcels are contiguous to each other and that Parcels 2 and 3 abut the shore of l~ke Minnetonka: and location of all encroachmnntg onto or from said lands. The undersigned further certifies that this survny was made under his diYect supervision and that he is a Minnesota Registerer1 Surveyor. ,- ' Minne~ota~ R~g~zt,?r.q ~ur'/oYor NO. Iu945 LEA$~. ~GR£EMENT Thi.~ a..]feement dated the 8 day of May , 1987_ between LakeWinds Condo,,,[nium A.cso6'iation,- thereafter' called "LakeWinds'') and Donnies The Lake, Inc., (hereafter referred to as "Donnies") hereby agree as lows: Donnies shall be entitled to locate and uso 16 transient docks as shown on the attached "Exhibit A." Donaies agrees to-construct, install, ~emove, and maintain all of its docks at its own expense and conform to all city and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District codes and conditions. 2. The te~m of the Lease shall be for 5 men tbs. Starting date of Lease . 05/i0/87 Ending date of Lease' 10/]0'/87 As consideration for the use of said premises, Donnies promises to pay the annual rental sum of $ 475.00 . Said payment to be made in monthly installments of $ 95.00 , or payable in total, beginning on the 10 day of b~a¥ , ]~87. During the term of this Lea-".·, Donnles customers shall be entitled to walk o~] a[.~proximately twenty-five (25) feet of LakoWinds property at the base of t}~e lake and extending from Donnies docks due south to the pathway in the ravine through the woods. Donnios customers will start up the ravine on approximately forty or rift; (40 or 50) feet of L~keWinds property, at which point, the pathway will be on city property from that point up to Tuxedo Avenue. This pathway extends from LakeWinds property line on Tuxedo Avenue res fifty (50} feet due south and is approximately three hundred and twenty-two feet (322) long, at which point, it extends approximately twenty-five (25) feet from LakeWinds property due south down ~o the shore line of Lake Minnetonka. The location of the pathway is shown o~ attached "Exhibit At the time Donnies signs this Lease, Donnies promises to maintain tile premises in as good condition as when occupied, and to properly remove and store the dock sections at the end of the Lease te~n. Prior to erection of docks in the spring, Donnies agrees to issue to LakeWinds through th·if insurance carrier, a certificate of issu~ance holding LakeWinds harmless from any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses that ,nay arise out of this agreement. Limits of Liability shall be a minim~n of: ..$500,000 combined sins]e ltmtc bodily Injury or property d.an,a/,~e TELEPHONE (612) 646-1515 GARSTEN MANAGEMENT CORPORATION COURT INTERNATIONAL, 8UIT~ 110 2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE ~EST ST. PAUL/MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5511~1052 FAX (612) 646-894'7 March 8, 1990 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 402 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Attn: Eugene R. Stommen Thank you very much for your letter of March 2, 1990 which included a Temporary Low Water Variance Application for our multiple docks. Last year, the Lakewinds Condominiums asked for and received a 48 foot low water variance. Enclosed is a reapplication for an additional 50 feet, bringing us to a total of 98 foot, temporary extension. This would mean that our docks would extend from the shoreline a total of 198 feet. Please also note that the Lakewinds Association is renewing the portion of its license, which applies to the 16 transient slips that were used formally by Donnie's Restaurant. Donnie's Restaurant has gone bankrupt and the condominium association does not know at what point in the future these slips may be installed. However, in order to preserve these slips for possible future use and as a result of their seasonal nature, they are not being installed until such time as a future tenant enters into an agreement acceptable to the Lakewinds Condominium Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District for their use. I hope that the statement above adequately responds to your request regarding the 16 transient docks. If I can be of further assistance or provide further information on the low water variance or 16 transient slips, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Michael A. Koch Property Manager MAK:rjf lw/240 Enclosure I'/I ,R 9 1990 !..M.C.r~ January 23, 1991 CITY of N lOk Nl) Ms. Rachel Thibault Administrative Technician L.M.C.D. 900 East Wayzata Blvd. Suite 160 Wayzata, MN. 55391 Dear Ms. Thibault: At the January 22, 1991, Mound City Council Meeting the Multiple Dock and Mooring Area licenses were reviewed. following were approved as submitted: A1 & Alma's Chapman Place Association Driftwood Shores Minnetonka Boat Rentals/Edgewater Marina William Niccum Seahorse Condominium Association Seton Townhouses. The Lakewinds Association has noted "Transient dockage subject to agreement with restaurant owners. No overnite boat storage allowed". The City Council questioned this because that particular restaurant has not been in business for several years and there is some question as to whether the property that these docks abut belongs to Lakewinds. We would appreciate a clarification on the transient dockage and an answer to the ownership question. The Council had no problem with the regular docks at Lakewinds. Sincerely, Fran Clark, CMC City Clerk fc MINUTES OF A MEETINg OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 1992 Those present were: Bill Meyer, Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Peggy James. Jerry Clapsaddle was Absent. The following were also in attendance: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmember Phyllis Jessen, Brett Cook, Tom Anderson, Pat Grahm, and Don Thompson. MINUTES The January 13, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes were presented for changes and/or additions. Hanus noted a change on page 5, 3rd paragraph: "Hanus" noted the typo, not "Weiland." Mueller referred to page 1 of the minutes, Case No. 92-001, and questioned if requests to build a house on a lot prior to the removal of an existing house should not come before the Planning Commission and City Council for a variance review. The City Planner stated that it has been a policy of staff to handle these requests administratively and to allow as long as the proper guarantee was submitted. It was determined this subject would be added to the end of the agenda for discussion. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, the January 13, 1992 Planning Commission amended. Motion carried unanimously. to approve Minutes as TRUTH IN HOUSING - GUEST SPEAKERS= Building Official, Jon Sutherland briefly reviewed for the guest speakers where the City of Mound sits with proposing a Truth in Housing ordinance. Each of the guest speakers was then introduced: Brett Cook is a licensed evaluator for the City of St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, and Saint Paul. Tom Anderson is the Building Official for the City of Hopkins and they are currently in the process of adopting a Truth in Housing Ordinance which is "right to know" and compliance on hazardous items only. pat Grahm is a Housing Inspector at the City of Hopkins and will be administering the Hopkins Truth in Housing ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1992 Don Thompson is the Truth in Housing Director for the City of Minneapolis. Chair Meyer reviewed some of the concerns of the Planning Commission, such as how to deal with hazardous and life threatening situations. He also briefly explained Mound's unique zoning problems. Johnson questioned Tom Anderson what hazardous items Hopkins is proposing to require compliance for and how they plan to handle the compliance. Anderson replied that the City of Hopkins proposes to use outside evaluators for all inspections, and they have patterned their ordinance after Minneapolis'. There proposed ordinance will require certain hazardous items to be repaired prior to occupancy, such as: a) c) e) Egress windows; they will only require that the window is big enough to get out of. Water Heaters with no pressure relief valves. Furnaces: check combustible air and/or ensure not carbon dioxide is not being released. Gas piping and other equipment with no safety controls. Proper smoke detectors. Anderson explained that these items are not very expensive items. Hopkins held several public meetings with citizens and realtors. The Realtors suggested that a buyer be allowed to fix the hazardous items, so they are proposing that occupancy not be granted until the items are fixed or a time is given when the items will be fixed· Don Thompson of Minneapolis explained that Minneapolis' ordinance is information only, only a disclosure report, nothing is enforced. He commented that the only problem with requiring compliance is the time spent on follow-up and ensuring the corrections are made. Thompson confirmed that Minneapolis uses private evaluators and they are regulated by the Board. The Board also makes changes to the disclosure form when necessary. Thompson works under the Coordinators Office, not under the Building Official's Office to help remove any liability to the City. They have not had any claims since the program started in 1975. Weiland questioned Anderson how you make someone comply, and he commented that it would become a legal issue if not complied with. Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1992 VOSS questioned why was Truth in Housing started in Minneapolis? What is the public's reaction to Truth in Housing? What is the cost to the City? Thompson commented that the citizens prompted Truth in Housing which they preferred over mandatory compliance. Anderson commented that a Truth in Housing ordinance in Hopkins was prompted by citizen complaints relating to zoning issues and houses which were purchased and a person was issued a HRA grant to fix up a dwelling which ended up being irreparable. Hopkins has scheduled a first reading of their ordinance on February 14. Thompson stated that there is a space to check on the disclosure report if the property is conforming or nonconforming, this is determined if a single family dwelling is in the proper zoning district for a single family dwelling, if it is nonconforming a zoning sheet is required to be obtained from the City. Meyer asked if a house appears to be on the property line, is it then checked as nonconforming? Thompson answered that if the dwelling is existing and the setbacks are not met, it is still conforming because it is existing. Most of their lots are 5,000 square feet, most lots of record are 32' x 125', if a house on a nonconforming lot burns, they cannot rebuild, and most of these dwellings are not insured. Minneapolis has approximately 7,000 evaluations submitted per year at a cost of $10 per evaluation. The evaluators pay $50 per year for their license and they pay $25 annually to take the test. The program is not a money maker, but the City is not loosing any money. Hopkins have not established their fees yet but they are proposed to be similar to Minneapolis'. Brett Cook, an independent evaluator, stated that he charges anywhere from $100 to $125 for an inspection, and other inspectors charge anywhere from $65 to $175. The City of Minneapolis has about 75 licensed evaluators. The educational requirements for the evaluators was reviewed. Brett commented that he is a member of the Minnesota Society of Housing Inspectors which is a local trade organization. Don Thompson reviewed some of Minneapolis' procedures: 1) A copy of the Disclosure Report must be available to persons while they are looking at the house; 2) at the time the purchase agreement is signed a copy of the Disclosure Report should be given to the buyer; 3) the Disclosure Report is valid for one year or for one owner, i.e. if two owners within one year, each is required to have their own report; 4) The City can give out copies of the Disclosure Reports only to the realtor, the owner, or the owner's legal representative. Anyone else can view the report and they may contact the evaluator. 5) There are no flags to the Inspection Planning Co~lss£on Minutes January 27, 1992 Department regarding items which need correction, or to ensure that corrections have been done properly and with a permit. Mueller created a scenario: A dwelling in St. Louis Park has been inspected and the Disclosure Report notes a hazardous item that needs correction. After the item has been corrected a City Building Inspector inspects the item for compliance. What would happen if he noted another hazardous item at this re-inspection which was not noted on the original Report? Brett commented that the inspector would only re-inspect the items as noted by the original evaluator. It is a gray area, does the Building Official have a duty to require compliance of an additional hazard noted on his inspection? Tom Anderson commented that if during a re-inspection by a City Inspector, it will not be their policy for this inspector to wander around the house looking for additional items, however, if a specific item was noticed that is a distinct hazard, their attorney,s would probably advise them to address it. It is difficult when the Building Inspection Department is linked with Truth in Housing compliance. Don Thompson reviewed the prerequisites to be a licensed evaluator: 1) 100 question test, 2) 18 hours per year of continuing education is required, 3) 2 hour test annually, and 4) evaluators must be insured. Brett confirmed that relating to zoning, the evaluators are only concerned that the property is zoned correctly for the use, i.e. a single family dwelling is in a residential zone, or an apartment is in a multiple family zone, etc. Hopkins will require a Zoning Disclosure Report, it is envisioned that the form will be distributed to the evaluators from the Planner which lists the required lot area and setbacks for that zone. Hopkins projects to have approximately 100 sales per year. Johnson confirmed with Tom Anderson that if a furnace is declared hazardous, it will not be required to bring the furnace up-to-code, however the hazard must be corrected so, for example, no more carbon dioxide is being emitted. Brett suggested that the name of the ordinance be changed because "Truth in Housing" presents a fallacy that the whole truth and nothing but the truth will be told. He suggested that the ordinance be called "Minnesota Housing Maintenance Standards Comparison." Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1992 Koegler questioned what the impact of Truth in Housing has been on the housing stock. Thompson stated that it has brought the price of houses down so people can afford to make repairs, and it ha~ prompted more condemnations as some houses are not able to sell. Michael questioned what has been accomplished if items are not required to be fixed? Sutherland commented that every City that has a Truth in Housing ordinance also has a minimum maintenance code. Hopkins will use their City Council as the Board for Truth in Housing. Tom Anderson explained they will be licensing the evaluators, however, they will not do the testing, they will require proof of certification in Minneapolis or St. Paul. Minneapolis or St. Paul will not deal with Hopkin's problems with the evaluators, however it is not foreseen that this will be a major problem. 8HORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE REVIEW Mark Koegler reviewed the process of preparing and adopting a shoreland management ordinance. Shoreland regulations must be adopted by December 10, 1992. In September a draft must be available for the "Technical Review Committee" which includes representatives from the DNR, adjacent cities, and lake area cities. Koegler gave an overview of the Statewide Standards for "Management of ShorelandAreas," and emphasized some of the changes to the standards since the last review by the Planning Commission. There are now special provisions relating to bluffs, depending on the slope percentage. Obtaining elevation maps for the entire city would be cost prohibitive for Mound, other cities that do purchase maps can recoup the cost by selling them to developers, unfortunately, Mound does not have enough area that could be developed. "Classes" were reviewed, the three classes of public waters are: 1) natural environment lakes (NE), 2) recreational development lakes (RD), and 3) general development lakes (GD). There are more classes for rivers, but we do not need to be concerned about these. The classes as they apply to areas in Mound are: Lost Lake Area NE Saunders Lake NE Langdon Lake RD Dutch Lake RD Lake Minnetonka GD 5 Plann£ng Commission Minutee January 27, 1992 The class of natural environment lakes is the most restrictive which may cause problems with a potential development for the Lost Lake Area. Required lot areas by class was reviewed. Maximum building height as required by the state is 25 feet. Koegler commented that some of the language will have to be tailored through the conditional use permit process trying to appease some concerns that the DNR might have with review. One big issue is the position of flexibility by the DNR, they may let us have smaller lots, etc., but on the other hand they may require Mound create a storm water management plan, how will Mound guarantee that the run off from these smaller and higher density lots are not going to have a negative impact on the lake? It is not easy when a city is 96 percent developed to create more retention ponds and use wetlands more effectively. Koegler informed the Commission that concurrent to the Shoreland Ordinance he will also be bringing a Flood Plain Ordinance to them for review. It is required by the state that our Flood Plain Ordinance be updated. CITy COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Liz Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of January 11, 1992. The Council has started to look at the Rental Housing Maintenance ordinance at their COW meetings, they have raised some issues and the City Attorney is preparing responses to bring back. The agenda of the January 28th meeting was briefly reviewed. VARIANCE BE REQUIRED FOR TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT? If an owner is willing to submit the proper guarantee to ensure removal of an existing dwelling while a new dwelling on the same lot is constructed, should a variance be required? The City Planner deemed that this could be handled administratively. Mueller commented that these applications should be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure proper drainage at the time both houses are on the lot. A poll was taken as follows: In favor of variance review: Johnson. Mueller, Weiland, and Handle administratively: Hanus, Jensen, Voss, Meyer, and Michael. 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 1992 Koegler stated that policies should be approved by the City Council. It was determined that Liz Jensen present this issue to the Council. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: February 2, 1992 To whom it may concern: ! would like to apply for the opening on the Park and Open Space Advisory Co~mis~ian. I recently moved to Mound and have been very impressed with the community in general. want to learn more about our co~n:unity's plans for recreation and open space management. I have been involved in many sports and activities in my present occupation as a teacher and coach at Lester Prairie High School. I am firmly ,Do~nltted to the idea that we need to retain and encourage as many outdoor opportunities as we can for ourselves an~ our children. I would appreciate your consider~tion of my ap])!ication. I am willing to learn and look forward to workinE for my community. Enclosed is my resu~ne. I hope to hear from you. Thank you in advance, Enclosure Pobert Kuehl 1981-1986 1979-1981 ROBERT A. KUEHL 2521 Setters Cirle Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-5194 Winona State University, Winona, MN. B.S. Degree, 1986. Majors: Social Science and Physical Education. Certificate: Coaching South St. Paul High School, South St. Paul, MN. WORK EXPERIENCE: 1986-Present Summers 1989-1991 Summers 1988-1989, 1991 Springs 1985-1986 Lester Prairie Public School, Lester Prairie, MN. Jr. and Sr. High Social Studies Teacher; Elementary and Secondary Physical Education Teacher. Varsity Volleyball and Baseball Coach; Junior High Girls' Basketball Coach. Director of Lester Prairie Little League Association Lester Prairie Summer Recreation Director. Resonsible for scheduling and supervising recreational activities for over 100 youngsters, ages 5-14. Winona Cotter High School, Winona, MN. Varsity Baseball Coach. Coached and supervised boys' varsity baseball team. Fall and Spring 1983 and 1984 Winona Senior High School, Winona, MN. Coached and supervised junior high boys' football and baseball teams. ORGANIZATION: Nov. 1986-Present 1986-Present' 1985-Present 1988-Present SKILLS/ABILITES: EXTRACURRICULAR AG_T_LVJ_TJES: College: High School: REFERENCES: Lester Prairie Lions Club. Offices held: Secretary (1987-1988). Board of Directors (1990-1991) Chairman: Adopt a Highway Program Lester Prairie Education Association. Minnesota State Baseball Coaches Association. Minnesota State High School Coaches Association for Girls Sports. Extensive experience Working with children and young adults, good communication skills, experience in adapted physical education, coaching, experience and involvement in community activities. Orientation Team Leader and Chairperson; Intramural Sports; SMEA; Minnesota State Baseball Coaches Association; 7th Grade Football Coach at St. Charles, MN. Football; Basketball; Baseball; Adapted Swimming Instructor; Intra-City Basketball and Baseball Coach; Umpire. Available at Winona State Placement Office, Gildemeister Hall, Winona State University, Winona, MN. Others available upon request. 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 160 · WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR February 3, 1992 BOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran, C~air Greenwood TO ,' Tom Reese, Vice Chak Mound Douglas E. Babcock Secretary Spring Park J. P. Boswinkel, Treasurer Minnetonka Beach Scott Carlson Minnetfista Albert (Bert) Foster Deephaven James N. Grathwo~ Excelsior JoEIlen L. Hun' Orono William A. Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus FROM; Wayzata George C. Owen vlc~o.a Sub J, Tom Penn Tonk~ Bay Robert Rascop Shorewood Robert E. Slocum Woodland Mayors, Lake Minnetonka Municipalities Commissioner, MN Department of Natural Resources Chair, Board of Managers, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Chair, Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Chair, Metropolitan Council Commissioner, MN Department of Trade and Economic Development Commissioner, Hennepin County President, Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association President, Minnesota Sportfishing Congress President, Fishermen Advocating Intelligent Regulation Marina Representative= Minnetonka Boat Works LMCD Lake Access Task Force Chair Jim Grathwol Lake Access Task Force Meeting on Wednesday, March 11, 1992 at 7 p.m. in the City of Minnetonka's Community Room, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard This meeting is called by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to discuss the organization of the Task Force to provide public access to Lake Mtnnetonka with 700 car-trailer parking spaces. The purpose of the Task Force is to establish appropriate public access and parking places in a manner which is consistent with the Lake Management Plan and any and all local ordinances which may' apply. This is not an easy task, but with good will and community spirit we think we can work towards a plan which would provide the desired Lake access with sensitivity to local needs. Come help us work it out. Please send a name/names of your representative by February 15 so that we may send an information packet to that person. We welcome participation of all, especially elected officials, on the Task Force. Either call or write Joan Mansk at the LMCD, 473-7033, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Suite 160, Wayzata, MN 55391. I am looking forward to meeting with you on Ma'rch 11. questions, please call me, Jim Grathwol, at 474-2955. If you have JNG=jlm City administrators Agency department heads Sun-Sailor, Weekly News, Laker newspapers City of Mound DOCK PROGRAM COMMONS PUBLIC SHORELAND ATTENTION: REALTORS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES You are invited to an informal meeting with the City of Mound City Staff, Park Commission, and City Council to learn about the dock program and public lands. Your comments and suggestions are welcome! Dock Application Procedure What are Commons? Classifications of Public Shoreland Where does CiU Own Shoreland ? Services Available at CiU Thursday, February 27, 1992 Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon (9:30 Coffee and Social) RSVP: Peggy or Linda 472-0600