1978-02-07 CC Agenda PacketV
CITY OF r;oUnll l.[f
rlound, Minnesota All-
REVISED
AGENDA
Mound City Council
February 7,^ 1978
City Hall
7:30 P.M.
C13 78 -32 11. Dock Inspector - Park keeper
and 78 -35 12. Liquor Checks Pg. 341 -342
13. Payment of Bills
14. Information Memorandums /Misc.
15. Committee Reports
Pg. 343 -344
Pg. 325 -340
Items below will probably be listed on Agenda:
,,16M 78 -42 Tuxedo Easement -- Pg. 438 -440
v,Chl 78 -38 Bids -- Police Equipment - Pg. 429 -432
,,- CAI 78 -40 Wychwood Bridge - Pg. 426 -428
413
1.
Minutes
2.
Public Hearings
'M
78 -37 &
43
A. Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling Apartments Pg. 403 -412
�M
78--39
B. Rezoning - Lot 54, Whipple Shores ' Pg. 433 -437
"1.
78 -36
C. Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 401 -402
�ml
78-28
3.
Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 375 -400
4.
Tax Forfeit Land
�m
7:1 -27
A. Lot 23, Block 26, Wychwood Pg. 371 -374
�1'78
-30
B. Lot 8, Block, 2, A. Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park
Pg. 368 -370
:i3
78 -33
5.
Parking Variance Pg. 366 -367
6.
Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute
Limit)
:!m
78 -24
7.
Metro Planning Grant Pg. 354 -365
::m
78 -34
8.
Funding - West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
Pg. 351 -353
C_•I
78 -31
.9.
F.B.I. Academy Pg. 349 -350
cm
78 -29
10.
Black Lake Bridge Pg. 345 -348
C13 78 -32 11. Dock Inspector - Park keeper
and 78 -35 12. Liquor Checks Pg. 341 -342
13. Payment of Bills
14. Information Memorandums /Misc.
15. Committee Reports
Pg. 343 -344
Pg. 325 -340
Items below will probably be listed on Agenda:
,,16M 78 -42 Tuxedo Easement -- Pg. 438 -440
v,Chl 78 -38 Bids -- Police Equipment - Pg. 429 -432
,,- CAI 78 -40 Wychwood Bridge - Pg. 426 -428
413
•
r
0 0
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 7, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -43
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Beachside Public Hearing
As of 4:30 P.M. Monday, February 6, 1978, we find the Beachside Apartment
Plans do not conform to the ordinance in the following respects: Also
attached is a letter from the Engineer.
1. No boundary survey has been provided.
2. Topographic map - two received; one dated Jan. 17, 1978 does not agree
with an unsigned undated plan delivered Feb. 6, 1978 to Mayor Lovaasen.
3. Building plans are not as complete as the Building Inspector would like
to have them. There are no fire safety protection devices shown on the
plans.
4. No off - street loading areas shown on the plan.
5. Drainage plan can't be checked because of variance in topographic maps.
6. Proposed floor plan does not match topographic map delivered 2/6/78.
7. The lighting plan does not show details as to size of bulbs, direction
of light or type of fixture. No determination can be made if glare
will effect neighboring property.
8. Landscape Plan - No plan with a detailed schedule of plantings are in
the office at this writing.
9. Front yard setback - shown as 30 feet. Should be 1� times 27 feet -
the height of the building from the lowest elevation.
10. Lot area as to buildings not determined. No boundary survey or detailed
topographic survey.
11. Section 23.06 - Paragraph 6 (a) states there shall be a statement from
the Architect that he has personally viewed the site, and that he has
designed the building to be harmonious with the neighboring buildings,
topography and natural surroundings ............. the Engineer shall
further certify that he has been retained to provide field architectural
services and that he will be available to carry this project through to
completion. No such statement has been received.
0 0
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -43
SUBJECT: Beachside Public Hearing
February 7, 1978 - Page 2
12. Parking shows 58 garages and 85 spaces. Beachside said they were
providing 58 garages, 58 spaces and 29 future spaces. Requirements
are for 58 garages and 87 spaces now.
13. Storm Drainage - Grading plan is not complete.
14. Garages should have same construction and appearance of the main
buildings. The main buildings are masonite and stucco - garages
are plywood.
15. Landscaping - Buffer plantings are required between residential
zonings - no buffer plantings are shown.
16. Platting - Buildings should be placed so, if sold separately at a
future date, the separate buildings will meet the ordinance. No such
possible divisions are shown on the plan.
17. No screening shown on trash areas.
A. Trash area shown next to a garage. Possibly okay, but no
mention of what trash area is to be.
B. Design of refuse area not shown.
18. Elevators required on a 3 story building - none is shown.
19. Air - conditioning - None provided. However, sleeves for future air -
conditioning are shown. Plans do not show projection of sleeves.
Air - conditioning cannot project more than 4 inches.
20. Bond required for landscaping - No figure available.
21. Curbs shown on parking area do not show design or material to be used.
Leonard L. Kopp
McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ■ LAND SURVEYORS IN SITE PLANNERS
February 6, 1978
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject: Beachside Apartments
Dear Mr. Kopp:
After reviewing the plans for the Beachside Apartments,
and particularly the contour map of the site, which we
received last Friday, we cannot recommend approval of the plans
as submitted, for the following reasons.
A portion of the north end of the porposed street lies
below the high water level of Lake Minnetonka. Construction of
this street would require a variance from Mound ordinances as
well as Department of Natural Resources, Watershed District,
and Corps of Engineer approval. In addition to the approvals
needed for this construction, the street would require five feet
of fill to provide cover for the sanitary sewer. This filling
would require additional fill to be placed in the wetlands and
would also require filling of the City property adjacent to the
road for slope purposes. It is also possible that the soils in
this area are unstable enough to greatly increase the cost of the
sewer, water, and street construction.
The contours on the latest map do not correspond with
the contours shown on the grading plan previously submitted. In
some areas, there is as much as a ten foot vertical discrepancy.
If the latest map is accurate, the grading plan as proposed would
have to be revised, which would alter the drainage pattern, slopes,
and erosion control plans, as well as the amount of land alteration
on the site. We believe these changes are of a major significance
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559 -3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 897 -8029
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532 -5820
Mr. Leonard Kopp
February 6, 1978
Page Two
and, therefore, we cannot adequately review the plan until
these problems are resolved.
If you have any questions on this, please advise.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
�7
Lyl, Swanson, P.E.
LS:ts
-7-C J-
v v
X-4
Z-� • qf
j
m m
0 0
2 -14 -78
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 6, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -41
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance
Attached hereto is a copy of a letter from the Attorney and a proposed
amendment to Chapter 22 of the Subdivision Ordinance which would require
dedication of park land or cash in lieu of dedication.
This amendment can be adopted without a public hearing and will be listed
for consideration on the February 14th agenda.
e nard L. Kopp
• •
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON; O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Amendment of Subdivision Ordinance
Dear Len:
TELEPHONE
(612) 333 -0543
At the council meeting on January 31, 1978, the Council
considered the proposed PDA ordinance. One of the questions
which came up related to park dedication of open space. I
indicated to the Council that our existing subdivision ordinance
did not have a park dedication provision other than 22.37 which
is not all that specific.
The Council determined that they wanted to adopt a park land
ordinance first and then in adopting a PDA ordinance, they would
make reference to the subdivision ordinance requiring park
dedication. I am enclosing herewith a proposed amendment to
Sec. 22.37 which I believe accomplishes the purposes as requested
by the Council. I think that upon adoption of this ordinance,
the Council can then move forward with the PDA ordinance.
The sections of the PDA ordinance which should be amended
based on the public hearing of January 31 are as follows:
1. In paragraph 5, delete the words "the required lot area
or ".
2. Paragraph 7 should be revised to read as follows:
"7. Open space and park land dedication or cash in lieu
thereof pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 22.37 of the
City Code shall be required. The land which is to be set
aside as open space shall be clearly indicated on the plan.
Provisions for recreational area and for continual maintenance
of that area not dedicated and accepted by the City shall be
required."
1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE
HERBERT P. LEFLER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
CURTIS A. PEARSON
J. DENNIS O'BRIEN
February 3, 1978
JOHN E. DRAWZ
DAVID J. KENNEDY
JOHN B. DEAN
GLENN E. PURDUE
JAMES D. LARSON
CHARLES L. LEFEVERE
HERBERT P. LEFLER III
JEFFREY J. STRAND
JAMES P. O'MEARA
Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Amendment of Subdivision Ordinance
Dear Len:
TELEPHONE
(612) 333 -0543
At the council meeting on January 31, 1978, the Council
considered the proposed PDA ordinance. One of the questions
which came up related to park dedication of open space. I
indicated to the Council that our existing subdivision ordinance
did not have a park dedication provision other than 22.37 which
is not all that specific.
The Council determined that they wanted to adopt a park land
ordinance first and then in adopting a PDA ordinance, they would
make reference to the subdivision ordinance requiring park
dedication. I am enclosing herewith a proposed amendment to
Sec. 22.37 which I believe accomplishes the purposes as requested
by the Council. I think that upon adoption of this ordinance,
the Council can then move forward with the PDA ordinance.
The sections of the PDA ordinance which should be amended
based on the public hearing of January 31 are as follows:
1. In paragraph 5, delete the words "the required lot area
or ".
2. Paragraph 7 should be revised to read as follows:
"7. Open space and park land dedication or cash in lieu
thereof pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 22.37 of the
City Code shall be required. The land which is to be set
aside as open space shall be clearly indicated on the plan.
Provisions for recreational area and for continual maintenance
of that area not dedicated and accepted by the City shall be
required."
•
LAW OFFICES
LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN & DRAWZ
Page 2
Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager
February 3, 1973
3. Paragraph 10 should be changed in that the
reference to Section 26 should be changed to Section 22 which
is the subdivision code.
I believe with these changes the Council may reconsider
the ordinances, and if everything meets with their satisfaction,
they can move ahead to adopt the two ordinances.
A public hearing is not required to amend the subdivision
ordinance. Under Minnesota Statutes Sec. 462.358, subdivision
regulations have to be adopted by ordinance and under Subd. 3
the law states, "After a municipality adopts subdivision
regulations, copies of the regulations shall be filed with the
County Recorder as provided in Sec. 465.321 to 465.324 ". It is
therefore imperative that a copy of our subdivision regulations
be recorded with the County Recorder to make them effective.
Very truly your ,
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
CAP :lh
Enclosure
•
ORDINANCE
•
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22.37 OF THE
CITY CODE, ESTABLISHING DESIGN STANDARDS AND
REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO PUBLIC SITES, OPEN
SPACE AND PARK LAND DEDICATION IN THE SUBDI-
VISION OF LAND
The City of D1.ound does ordain:
Section 22.37 of the City Code is ar-;ended to read as
follows:.
Seetien- 22:34-- Publie- epen- Spaees -- Where -a- small -park -elf
eth reereatienal -open- spaee- she�an- en -an -e ieia� -map
or- en- a -p4an- made - and - adopted -by- the- Eemreissi on- is- -Ieeated -in -whOle
or- in- part -in- the- applieant1s- subdivision;- the- Ee�,�ission -t-Mav
reeve. ire -the - de(4ieatian -er- reservat ion- el -saeh - open- spaee - within -the
subdivis ion - €or- park7- player round -or- other- reereatienal- purpose; - -in
these- eases -- in- �hieh- the- Eex��issien- deers- suer- regairement -to -be
reasonable.
Section 22.37. Design Standards, Public Sites and Open
Space and Park Land Dedication.
Subd. 1. Public Sites and Open Spaces. Where a proposed
park, playground, or other public site shown on an
adopted Comprehensive Plan or official map is embraced
in part or in whole by a boundary of a proposed subdivision,
and such public sites are not dedicated to the Citv, such
public around shall be shown as reserved land on the pre-
liminary plat to allow the City the opportunity to consider
and take action toward acauisi_ti_on of such public ground
or park by purchase or other means prior to approval of
e final plat.
Subd. 2. Park Land Dedication. In every plat, replat, or
subdivision of land allowing development for residential,
commercial, industrial or other uses or combination thereof,
or in a Planned Development Area, or where a waiver is
granted, a reasonable portion of such land, but not less
than 10% if the property is to be used for residential,
multiple family residential, commercial business or industrial
purposes, shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner
or owners to the general public as open space for park and
playground purposes, public open space, or storm water
holding areas or Ponds. Said land shall be suitable for
Attest:
aforedescribed purposes and the City shall not be required
to accept land which will not be usable for parks and
playgrounds or which would require extensive expenditures
on the part of the public to make_ them usable. The City
shall have the option to require cash contribution in lieu
of setting_ aside of dedicated land or in requiring a part
of the land and the balance of the land value in cash. It
is hereby determined that where a cash contribution is
required or given by the developer, the maximum fair market
value shall be $20,000 per acre. Any money so paid to the
City shall be placed in a special fund and used only for
the acquisition of land for parks and playgrounds, public
open space and storm water holding areas or ponds, or the
development of existing park and playground sites or debt
retirement in connection with land previously acquired for
parks and playgrounds.
Any lands which obtain a waiver of the subdivision require-
ments shall be subject to these regulations. Any cash
contribution in lieu of land shall be based on loo for resi-
dential, multiple family residential, commercial or industrial
uses of the total fair market value of the land being subdi-
vided. In calculating the fair market value, it is
determined that said value shall not exceed $20,000 per acre.
For purposes of this ordinance, "fair market land value" is
defined as the market value of the land within such plat,
replat, or subdivision as of the date the plat, re plat, or
subdivision is presented to the City Council for preliminary
approval, or if no preliminary approval be given or required
as of the date so presented for final approval as determined
by the City Assessor in the same manner as he determines
the market value of land for tax purposes, excluding, in
determining such value, all value added to such land by
improvements other than utilities, streets, and other public
improvements serving such land, but including in such deter-
mination the highest and best use to which the land can be
put under the zoning districts then established br..proposed_
This provision shall not apply to the division of platted
lots which are being combined with other existing lots to
increase lot sizes to conform to the larger sized lots
required by the Zoning Ordinance. This exception is in
recognition of the need to put undersized lots together to
bring them into conformance with zoning_ requirements
adopted after the original subdivision of properties, many__
of which predate any zoning regulations of this City.
City Cler
Playor
413
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
AGENDA
Mound
City Council
February
7, 1978
City
Hall
7:30
P.M.
1.
Minutes
2.
Public Hearings
CM
78 -37
A. Conditional Use Permit - Multiple Dwelling Apartments pg. 403 -412
B. Rezoning - Lot 54, Whipple Shores
CM
78 -36
C. Delinquent Utility Bills Pg. 401 -402
CM
78 -28
3.
Planning Commission Minutes Pg. 375 -400
4.
Tax Forfeit Land
CM
78 -27
A. Lot 23, Block 26, Wychwood Pg. 371 -374
CM
78 -30
B. Lot 8, Block 2, A. Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park
Pg. 368 -370
CM
78 -33
5.
Parking Variance Pg. 366 -367
6.
Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute
Limit)
CM
78 -24
7.
Metro Planning Grant Pg. 354 -365
CM
78 -34
8.
Funding - West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
Pg. 351 -353
CM
78 -31
9.
F.B.I. Academy Pg. 349 -350
CM
78 -29
10.
Black Lake Bridge Pg. 345 -348
CM
78 -32
11.
Dock Inspector - Park Keeper Pg. 343 -344
CM
78 -35
12.
Liquor Checks Pg. 341 -342
13.
Payment of Bills
14.
Information Memorandums /Misc. Pg. 325 -340
15.
Committee Reports
413
• •
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 3, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -37
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Beachside Hearing
Attached is some material from the Engineer that is relevant
to the Beachside hearing.
1. Bond for utilities, street, etc. is established
at $113,250.
2. Sewer & Water Capacity - The Engineer believes
there to be no problem with water and sewer
capacity if the sewer goes to Maywood.
eo and L. Ko /
PP
��02.
M • •
I COMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS 16 LAND SURVEYORS W, SITE PLANNERS
February 2, 1978
Mr. Leonard Kopp
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject: Bond Amount - Beachside Apartments
Dear Mr. Kopp:
As requested, we have calculated the bond amount for
the street, sewer, and water construction for the Beachside
Apartments.
We estimate the cost of construction for each of the
items as follows:
Street -
$ 35,300
Sewer -
31,700
Water -
23,600
Total Estimated
Construction Cost $ 90,600
The ordinance requires a bond of 14 times this amount
or $113,250.
The ordinance also requires a bond for landscaping and
screening, however, I do not have the plans as yet on this
so I cannot estimate this item.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS- KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lyle Swanson, P.E.
LS:sw
Enclosure
#2113
12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559 -3700
22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 897 -8029 y1 1
SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532 -5820 `
0
ESTIMATED COST
Beachside Apartments
is
Total
$ 2,775.00
$ 13,440.00
$ 6,150.00
$ 9,862.00
$ 3,073.00
$ 35,300.00
Total
$ 18,970.00
$ 1,750.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 1,225.00
$ 280.00
$ 800.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 2,875.00
$ 31,700.00
1// d
Streets
Item
Quantity
Unit
Price
Excavation
1850 C.Y.
$
1.50 /Cy
Bit. Base Course
960 TONS
$
14.00 /TN
Bit. Wear Course
410 TONS
$
15.00 /TN
Curb & Gutter
2630 L.F.
$
3.75/LF
Contingencies
$
7.00 /LF
Wyes
Total Estimated
Construction
Cost
Street Restoration
is
Total
$ 2,775.00
$ 13,440.00
$ 6,150.00
$ 9,862.00
$ 3,073.00
$ 35,300.00
Total
$ 18,970.00
$ 1,750.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 1,225.00
$ 280.00
$ 800.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 2,875.00
$ 31,700.00
1// d
Sewer
Item
Quantity
Unit Price
8" Sewer
1355 L.F.
$
14.00 /LF
Crushed Rock
Bedding
250 TONS
$
7.00 /TN
Manholes
8 EACH
$
600.00 /EA
Sewer Services
175 L.F.
$
7.00 /LF
Wyes
7 EACH
$
40.00 /EA
Street Restoration
LUMP SUM
Extra Depth Manholes
20 L.F.
$
50.00 /LF
Contingencies
Total Estimated
Construction
Cost
is
Total
$ 2,775.00
$ 13,440.00
$ 6,150.00
$ 9,862.00
$ 3,073.00
$ 35,300.00
Total
$ 18,970.00
$ 1,750.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 1,225.00
$ 280.00
$ 800.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 2,875.00
$ 31,700.00
1// d
i
Water
Item
Quantity
Cut into Existing Mains
LUMP
SUM
6" Watermain
1460
L.F.
Fittings
1200
LBS.
6" Gate Valve
6
EACH
2" Services
120
L.F.
1" Services
40
L.F.
1" Service Groups
4
EACH
2" Gate Valves
3
EACH
Hydrants
3
EACH
County Road Restoration
LUMP SUM
Contingencies
Unit Price
$ 9.00 /LF
$ 0.75 /LB
$ 250.00 /EA
$ 8.00 /LF
$ 4.00 /LF
$ 60.00 /EA
$ 125.00 /EA
$ 600.00 /EA
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Total
$ 1,200.00
$ 13,140.00
$ 900.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 960.00
$ 160.00 .
$ 240.00
$ 375.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 1,200.00
$ 2,125.00
$ 23,600.00
yo y I
•
SEWER AND WATER CAPACITY
Lost Lake Area
City of Mound, Minnesota
Prepared by McCombs - Knutson Associates, Inc.
February, 1975
i/o 07
• •
GENERAL: The City Council has requested this study of the
sewer and water capacity in the Lost Lake Area to determine
if there is sufficient capacity available for a proposed 58
unit multiple development of the Southeast corner of Lost
Lake.
SEWER: The attached map shows the sewers in the Lost Lake
Area. The proposed 58 unit development would generate
approximately 11,000 gallons per day of sewage flow with a
peak flow of 30.5 GPM. The sewage would flow through an 8"
pipe laid at a minimum grade of 0.4% thence North to the 24"
pipe at .1% on Lynwood Avenue. The 24" pipe flows into the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Lift Station D -5,
which is located on County Road 15 and Belmont. The lift
station pumps the sewage to the Metropolitan Interceptor at
the former treatment plant site through a 10" and 16" force -
main. The following is a breakdown of the capacities of
each of these pipes or lift station.
8" Pipe at 0.4% Grade
This pipe has a capacity of 360 GPM or 518,400 GPD. Using a
peak flow factor of 4 and a sewage flow of 100 gal per
capita per day with 3.5 people per unit gives a figure of
370 units, which could be served by this pipe. The area
served by this line is shown on the map and consists of the
property on the East shore of Lost Lake and the properties
fronting on Maywood West of Wilshire and on Cypress between
Maywood and Country Road 15. It is obvious that with the
present zoning this area could not support 370 units. An X/O
-1-
•
•
8" pipe is the smallest sewer main the state authorities
will allow and often has far more capacity than the area
served requires.
24" Pipe at .10%
This pipe has a capacity of 3100 GPM or 4,464,000 gallons
per day. Using a peak flow factor of 3.2 (the peak flow
factor goes down as the area served becomes larger) and a
sewage flow of 100 gal per capita per day with 3.5 people
per unit gives a capacity of 3985 units, which can be served
by this line. This line basically serves all of Mound West
of County Road 110 except for the Three Points Area. It
also serves Spring Park. Comparing the capacity of this
line with the total flow from Mound, Spring Park, and
Minnetrista gives the following results.
Capacity of pipe = 1,395,000 gal per day.
Typical daily flow from all of Mound, Spring Park, and
Minnetrista = 1,170,000 GPD.
Lift Station D -5
Capacity: 3000 GPM or 4,320,000 GPD.
The capacity of the lift station is very nearly the same as
the capacity of the 24" pipe flowing into it.
Working backwards from the lift station capacity to peak
flow capacity, the lift station can actually handle 1,350,000
gallons per day.
-2-
yo,
0 0
We were unable to determine the flow through the lift station
because the lift station has a "flow matcher" system which
puts out a variable flow and the readings from the time
meters on the pumps cannot be converted to gallons pumped,
however, the station has three pumps, any two of which can
operate at the same time producing a flow of 3000 GPM, and
the second pump operates less than 10 hours a month, which
indicates that the peak flow from the station seldom gets
over 2000 gallons a minute, while the station can handle
3000 GPM.
Based on the assumption that the area served by the lift
station contributes 3/4 of the total sewage volume from
Mound, Spring Park, and Minnetrista, the surplus capacity of
the station and of the 24" line into the station is 472,500
gallons per day or enough to handle a population equivalent
of 4,725 people.
WATER: The developer of the 58 multiple units proposes to
construct a watermain from Bartlett Boulevard to Maywood
Road. The fire protection will be supplied from the elevated
tower east of the site and south of County Road 15 through
an 8" main and from the tower on Evergreen and Rosewood
through a 10" and 6" main. This will provide adequate fire
flow to the site.
A report on the City's water supply system prepared by
Hickok and Associates in 1977 states that the City water
system has adequate facilities to meet maximum density and
fire flow
-3-
yo �
• •
requirements until the year 2000. The growth in demand is
based on an estimated population for Mound in the year 2000
of 9500.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is our opinion that there is adequate
capacity in the sewer and water system to serve the proposed
58 unit multiple development without denying service to
other areas in the forseeable future.
This study has necessarily been quite limited because of the
time restrictions imposed on us, however, we believe the
figures given herein are based on quite conservative assumptions
and that the surplus capacities of the sewers are, if
anything, greater than given in the report.
yoj
:7
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 3, 1978
COUNCIL - MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -36
0
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Delinquent Utility Bills
The Council set February 7, 1978 for the public hearing on delinquent
sewer and water bills (CM 78 -10) Pages 26 -28.
Attached is a revised list of the past due accounts still unpaid as
of this date.
�':� .�
-i e�nard L. Ko p F/
.t/ n 9
0 0
6 MONTH ACCOUNTS
10 -5301
Kenneth Folk
73.56
13 -1708
Terry Recket
37.28
16 -1543
David Stuth
128.73
34 -1742
Clarence DeWanz
75.14
46 -1760
James Doherty
58.80
52-5032
Darwin Gunion
49,54
58-5000
Orlando Alvarez
49.04
67 -2048
Robert Penney
26.94
85 -5510
Nancy Ptacek
74.54
88 -5865
Wm Michel
75.28
220 -2155
B. J. Clark
34.74
259-5776
Bill Barker
35.68
259-5901
Andrew Anderson
79.05
259 -6056
Steve Cooper
83.57
262 -3061
Roger Frank
69.63
2 O -5910
M. J. Simar
35.68
310 -3166
Debbie Frederick
55.26
343 -2631
Steve Hesse
181.23
404 -5025
Bonnie Strom
51.08
404 -5092
Paul Neuschwander
96.88
442 -4541
James Christionson
49.73
463 -4651
Barbara Bedell
115.62
436 -4661
Paul Marshall
35.68
484 -4701
Gordon Simon Jr.
34.08
487 -4873
Jerry Olsen
35.73
500 -4455
Donna Lugauer
19.00
581 -2885
Bruce Benloehr
35.68
581 -2901
Sally Swanson
53.61
590 -5124
Dale Svien
35.68
599 -4736
Lois MartinBa
63.77
1,850.23
�(o
• •
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -28
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Planning Commission Minutes
Attached is a copy of the Planning Commission Minutes. The following items
require Council action:
Item 1: Tabled
Item 2: Non - Conforming Use
Lot 38, Whipple Shores
Zoned A -2 - 6,000 Square Feet
Existing Garage is non - conforming. The Planning Commission recom-
mended the building permit for expanding the dwelling unit. The
Administration concurs with the recommendation.
Item 3: Subdivision of Land
Lot 6, Block 11, Mound Terrace
Zoned A -1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended Lot 6 be divided into two par-
cels:
Parcel A - The South 409.5 feet of Lot 6, Block 11, Mound Ter-
race - 52,252 Square Feet.
Parcel B - That part of Lot 6 lying North of the South 409.5
feet of Lot 6, Block 11, Mound Terrace - 27,800 Square Feet.
The Administration concurs with the recommendation.
Item 5: Conditional Use Permit - Will be the subject of a Public Hearing.
Item 6: Subdivision of Land
Part of Lots 11 and 12, Koehler's 2nd Addition
Zoned A -1 10,000 Square Feet
The Planning Commission recommended the following division:
Parcel A - The South 156 feet of the North 361 feet of Lot 11
and that part of the South 156 feet of the North 361 feet of
Lot 12 the East 10 feet lying East of the West 54.5 feet -
11,601 square feet
#D0
• •
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -28
Planning Commission Minutes - Page 2
Item 6: (Continued)
Parcel B - The South 156 of the North 361 feet of Lot 12
lying West of the East 10 feet - 8,481 square feet - which
will be added to the West 32 25/100 feet of the South 181
feet of the North 361 feet of Lot 12 and the South 181 feet
of the North 361 feet of Lot 13 - making a total lot of more
than 18,000 square feet.
f.
L onard L. Kopp
397
•
TO: Mound City Council
FROM: Found Advisory Planning Com iMisson
SUBJECT: Refund of fee for Application for Variance
David - �ui;;ley, 5505 Spruce Rd., (Lots 12,13, Block 3,
A.L.Crocker's 1st Div.) applied for a side ,yard variance
of 2 ft. because the contractor xnoured his garage slab
2 ft. too pride. The fee applicant and City Building
Inspector determined that the variance �xras not necessary.
Ne sw -rest that the application be cancelled and fee
returned to the applicant.
Planning Commission Agenda Item # 4
..ter
•
Minutes of
•
MOUND ADVISORY PLA`P,4TivG COiiMTSSIO'I
January 26, 1973
PI ?ESE!T: Lorraine Jackson, Russ Peterson, Bud Stanna.rd, Gary Paulsen,
Karen, ',lidhelm, Gerry Simi i.th, Gordy Swenson, Leonard Kopp, Don
Levens, rIan« Truelsen, and Sec. Karene Uhe
ELECTTON OF OFFICERS
Russ Peterson was elected Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1978
and Gerry Sr,:ith as Vice - Chairman.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. ADELINE CARP, 4700 Aberdeen Rd. - SUBDIVISION OF LAID
Ms. Carr asked that her request be tabled until further notice from her.
2. DAVID SI iLDOIN,, 5333 Piper Rd.
Lot 38, ',:ifhipp7_e Shores, 14ap 15
NOWT- CONFOR �IITvG USE
"Jactcson moved that the building permit be issued as addition is for
the house and does not concern the non - conforming garage.
Smith seconded and vote was unanimous.
3. RICHARD AI,DERSON - SUBDIVISION OF LANJD
(Heard at end of meeting)
4. DAVID QUIGLEY, 5505 Spruce Rd.
Lot 12, 13, Block 3, A. L. Crocker's 1st Div. Map 5
SIDE YARD VARIA?';CE - 2ft.
Variance not needed - Memo to City Council for refund of fees.
5. B EACUSIDE DEVELOPi1 ENT CORP, I -Tap 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMT'I'
Vern Veit and Thomas Betz, representinc, Beachside Developers, gave specific
information regarding the proposed project as follows:
34 one bedroom units, 24 two bedroom units
58 Sarage•c:, 58 open stalls, 29 future stalls
Total land of 10 acres, buildable land of 3.75 acres
Buildable land to be used as: Dwellings 10;o, parking
gara. ;es and driveways j8 "o, green area 52°x.
Remainder of land for water and :gild l=ife.
Lyle St: a.nson of McCo - -bs,& Knutson reported on streets, drainage, sewer
and wafer connections. Several questions arose in those areas:
Cap acity of lift station to be used and feasibility of
addin -; more later.
'Erosion coi:trol plan.
Cori_pletin:° of I-'Fa.y % -ood Rd. (no,.! dead -end)
Allo,,�,rance for 7f t. bike /Nike path on Bartlett
397
Page 2
r�
Pla-cmi n- 1,1Lnutes
1/26/7}1'
1;1-any abuttin,T property owners and area residents were present. Some
concerns they presented were:
Environmental impact
Effect of traffic flow
Legality of road on Lot i3, nh=i.ch is deeded for. one sip_�;le
family dwelling only
Fupure develop lent of Lost Lake area and city's long-ran -e plan
Density
i',iese residents also asked that a site plan of overall area be made
available to public at least one .Meek prior to the public nearing at
City Hall.
**Smith moved that no recommendation be sent to the City Council on
this project.
Stannard amended the motion to add the basic reasons why as the
followin. cr unanswered questions:
Se %,er impact, density impact, erosion control, traffic flow :impact,
water service, tie -in connection for -Iaylrrood, review of nevr ordinance.
The motion as amended was seconded. and voted unanimously.
'TAI_ , 5935 Gumwood Pd. I L
:oe'zler's 2nd Addr_. Dian !�
STJ'3D VISIO. ?< COI-MTHATTO'S
*Stannard ,roved to approve the subdivision.
Jackson seconded and vote was unani.r,lous.
(3. ) P,I C-HARD ANDERSON
Lot S, Block 1 1 , Mo )nd `Terrace Map 4
SUBDIVISION OF LAND
*Stannard moved to approve the subdivision.
Smith seconded and vote was unanimous.
35�
Minutes of
I-110IIND ADVI".SORY PLANNING COMII•IISSION
January 12, 19 ?8
PRES iii': Russ Peterson, xerald S-1itli, Lorraine Jackson, Bud Stannard,
Council Rep. Gordy Swenson, City M r. Leonard Kopp, City Planner
Don Levens, Sec. Karene Uhe
- DISCUSSION ITE•1S -
HOUSING STRATEGY
The attached sheet is a revised Ifousi ng Strategy plan, showing all
chan.,;es made by the Plannii_n Coy mission,
SUBDI`.TTS I Of,T FEES
Levens reported on a partial list of figures compiled. as to Mound's
cost for a new subdivision as: MO for public hearing, ',�20 for -publi-
cation for hearing. Other figures will be forthcoming;.
Sug;esti.ons> for staff were to et dates from other communities that
their rates cent into effect, and to compile a step by step procedure
reouired for a subdivision.
Ot'-er items to be looked into are possible charges for final plat,
rezo...in , gas heating connection, and plan checking,
i
-3 �
PUPPOSE.
9 . 9
t1OUJ SPI STRriml t Y
To develop a viable urban cot3munity by improvin- the existing I
housin Stock, thus attain in r, a more suitable livin:_; environs -gent .
03 EC "PiV,s: To support cmmmunity develop::.ent activities directed toward:
1. Encoura —e new and alternative types of housing as authorized by
State Building; Codes that have, a positive aesthetic affect on
nein;iiborhood.
2. Encourage Planned Unit Developrlents and Cluster Developments as
a ?leans of ot�taining lag ;er open s�-)ace areas within residential
areas and promote less density.
3. Pronote the use of subdivision codes which allow for an open space
or - oarkland dedication.
4. Pronote quality residential site planning which preserves natural
resources such as wetlands, lakeshore, steep slopes, and woodlands.
5. Recognize and enco`urar e quality site plannin to provide for energy
conservation, protect soil and turfed areas, reduce runoff, and
provide adeuate ingress and e;;ress.
6. Develop adequate controls to prevent bli -lit and blighting in..
fluences, and eliminate conditions ahich are detrimental to the
health, safety, and public welfare of the City.
7. The conservation and expansion of the City's housin; stock which
is safe, sound, and rparketa.ble; and preserve and encourage the
re?labili tation and improvei?lent of exist:i_n:a structures that are
feasible for rehabilitation and co-rsi.stant with sound planning.
0. The restoration and preservation of properties of special value
for 11:is tonic, architectural, or aesthetic reasons.
9. Eliminate overcro rdinr, of }dui ldi n� ;c and excessive d, ;gelling unit
densities.
10. Coordinate file rerloval of structurally substandard buildings not
fea.= >i�)le for re)apiLi Cation.
qua_lt i.ty of dc%c:�l
C'!-ar:ac per o " Vie
ref�u i. i:ol�s.
rellabili_tatimn or new construction, a sufficient
)_111 ' units to rti:Xi nt in the ex? stin:T, residential
ex.-sting ne- i- r;'ibor'.00ds consistant ;rit'1 7,on .ng
12. Pr'O' ;Ott t_ ",? level Of '.Oi11C O''J:lerS___ -Lp anion,; long an:i I:lOder to 11TC0 ? ?le
t - irou?�? a v ari ety of aD -oroac}les usl m state and federal
'njjt 'lpt l'._" I tei� to, t ',le f01l_Ol':1n'':
A. ! 21C'JUr '.' Sinn- ;)rCr?_t sponsor5 for re ?• 0 _�_' t %ltion �' ?1Ct
''.le of v1C:1'_t,1J'.= iC101ed, Or boarded re Si°
de''lt'i -cl)_ St ?'i_ICture�.
35Y
LI
Pad; e 2
Tou -inc; Stra tEer-ry
13, Encou.ra;e the private sector to develop nevi low and raoderat -e
income t
housing r
L OUP -;1.
A. innovative f- manc-iL i:1et`lods;
B. more meanin ;ful_ housin performlance standards wherever
possible tlirou,;l. t :out htful. and innovative housin ; deli : -n
W reduce the Ion; terra operating; and maintenance cost;
C. rehabilitation on eListin- housin ;• units throu 'fl the
use of state and federal. subsidy programs;
D.
E.
14, Create effective buffer,, screens, and /or transit-ions between
family residential use and non -- residential uses in order to
eli?.iinate bl.i`,htin effects of incorm- atibl e land uses.
15. Establish a_ traffic circulation ?pattern that would discourage
the use of local residential streets by through traffic.
0
�3 � 3
C lj G
ilipl Ku Mi `IVNOIjLIUidOO
g aekl (TeOel .zoo: uozgeozTdde eaS)
4. dEOO lNM, ,IdO`I9li3U SCIISHOVSR '
*IR - aTIVIUVA CIRV.X SUIS
� ae�.1 •.ntU �sT s i.za;Ioo.zO''I' V `£ xooTU. `£T.`ZT �oZ
•pH Gonads �O�� `X 1Z =aIi10 UTAVU •�j
UAI aYj do s10ISI1LIUUIIS
lI (leyj eoeadey punoyj `TT �IooTq 119 qoZ
NOSUSSUMV GEVHOIU ' £
3SIl I,)iq TdO TI0O'NON
�T aelq Seaous aTUCLTU 40Z
•pIl .xadTd 8££5 `R0ii'IHS UI11VU 'Z
(MVI s0 NOISIAICIUS
£T aeli (TeOaT .toj uozjeoZTdde aaS)
•pH uaop,zogV OOL� `ZIUVO Sa`III3UV 'T
TTeH lEYO punow - 'wd 0£ :L
9L6T `9Z I�Jenuer
NOISSIM1 100 ONIMIN Id I.b'OSIIIUV C1T'IiiON
JOj epua',JV
S'IVIIdcl HO t:2iVOS
0 0
TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL and PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: HENRY TRUELSEN, BUILDING INSPECTOR
SUBJECT: JANUARY BOARD OF APPEALS
1 _ CARR
Parcel A - To install an average size home of 24 ft. in width, it would
be necessary to grant a street front setback or a rear yard setback
variance. Using a 20 ft. minimum street front setback and a minimum
24 ft. wide house, it would only leave a 12 ft. rear yard setback -
a 3 ft. variance of rear yard being necessary.
Parcel B and C - Would be no problem with either square footage or setbacks.
2. SKELDON
The existing garage makes the property non-conforming use. The intent
is to alter the existing house by adding a second story, making the
home more liveable. The intent of the remodeling would not be injurious
to adjoining property and/or property owners.
3. ANDERSON
Parcel A - 77,772.20 sq. ft.
Parcel B - 27�880.60 sq. ft.
4&5. Self-explanatory - no comment.
I
311
0
1 0 '- Atov
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
4- )0
FEE
FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL
t
J
Location and complete legal description of property to be divid
vt
ZONING /j
To be divided as follows: 1
0"
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adj3cen sfreels, dimensio4 of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. > From Square feet TO Square feet
b 7�
Reason:
APPLICANT TEL. NO.
(signature)
ADDRESS
Applicant's interest in the property:
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACI ION
Resolution No
DATE /,-- - /
A!
b- P
V l-1 'f
AT
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID.
A list of residents and owners of property within _feet must be attached.
5-01
Z 2- o— ,Z 7 1,S-1
2A. --b-
3 Y o o V V
Phone: 473352
AWLEIGH C. SMITH
Registered Professional Enginccr and Land Surveyor
2030 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Akinnet;ota
(07 5UR` 4 7 ZIP
55391
A
14 ne
Ad.. e 4700 Aberdc)ea Rd. h t . 2 110 I= d 10 1 n 5
OF PROPERTY ----
U.
The youth 5606 feet of LotF, 17)_18 c,� 19
described as follows:
a-ad
sout.11 56.6 feet of 1�he wf—'—st of Lot li'i 31002
63
Pembroke
Scale: I inch —3 10---feet.
T
! i , Olt
,
0
20
U
tO
J,
J VV
ly
Z"
1n
In
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATION OF BUILDING
;,.& 13 q
I hereby certify that
made ade a survey Of the J)LOPUSed location of the building
on the above described property and that the location
of said buildint, is correctly shown on the above plat.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY 3?�
I hereb,, certify that on-/&— 19-22-1
surveyed the property described above and that the
above plat is a correct representation of said survey.
•
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF
APPLICANT David SK e%-d0 N
} tJ/
FEE $ S
ZONING
PROPERTY
ADDRESS 5'33'9--
PLAT 3717FO PARCEL Y7,00
Address 1 Quebec aUe- So' .LOT �d
Telephone
ST out 11 /?.& Number 6055' ADDITION,
INTEREST IN PROPERTY &��
BLOCK
OHIPPI -e 511ore5
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Telephone
Address Number e4�; ZZ�:
•
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
NOTE:
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
FRONT ACCESSORY
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other buildings
YARD
F�'•
BUILDING
FT.
on property and abutting streets.
SIDE
2. Give ownership and dimensions of
adjoining property. Show approximate
YARD
FT•
LOT SIZE
F
locations of all buildings, driveways,
and streets pertinent to the application
REAR
YARD
-F
LOT SQ,
FOOTAGE_4�
by extending survey or drawing.
3. Attach letters from adjoining affected
property owners showing attitude toward
or request.
r5?iN� 6m� 'l �� o-e5 Ndi /�'t eeT S .e'atd �Qe nee�mea73 of
(describe) P u.r}IcH r4esE�• -Ce Faye
,.�.� 404d/'4'A" G;rtcg
REASON FOR REQUEST: A4461NG
5eCons*1
FLo �R %o IA- o R -1-e it
7'a / n�c R �e a S � Gi v iwG 'dR -e � •
/ �X4" bAiddiiig ermit must be applied for within one year from the date of the
i �jcouncil xesolutian or variance granted becomes null and void.
Variances are not nsfe bl
APPLICANT DATE
ITIY Y A GIS 01-7 "� '. ' Signature
....................
c'0 S
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
DATE 3 tF 8
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.
T w TT
I am aware of the proposed construction at 5338 Piper
road and have no objection to it.
ME
6
.3 ?7
td
K�
11
...�-'- 4me worctl Con.,v�c7-S
Po %Nrs of NeIGNbo�1Jv¢.
{¢,uses W#ICj/ qne Gc��s.
111a t of Survey 7T0 Gal <lr .
for !: -xvid 5"Celcon
of Lot 3t;, Whipple Shores
Hennepin County, Xi nnesot,, - -.••• • 0!4 r4lpe- OF �RsPosel
/ bacc.f.l�s.
oak°
0 et
W .
o P' PQ r
o.
Certificate of Survey:
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
d su-nre y of the of ;i"7 t )O, tl` ipple I.ores, and th-e location
of all existing bi]i. AinLs therecin. It does not purport to show othar
iTorover :gents or encro_!ch,.�nts.
1" = 40'
Late I2 -14 -77
0 Iron : arkr-r
Gordor. it. Coffin R °t: • !� . �4
Su ce;-or sn,i 131%r,n- r
�-� J ce
APPLICATION FOR /iSUBDIVISION OF LAND
I Sec. 22.03 -a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
EE VINER )
� 1
i
FEE $
PLAT /,(//g o PARCEL
Location and complete legal description of roperty to be divided:
f �•
,►�'� /� c' F l Fr — c; G 1 y i k �� c u fi�', C�—
ZONING
14
To be divided as follows:'
IWO -G
(attach • rvey_ or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
buildirigsites;`square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER, IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
APPLICANT f�N r TEL. NO.�j
(si natur .)
ADDRESS �2'�" DATE
F W12 Applicants interest in the property: V W v) e, t
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
I COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
IAL1T � •"� r r- ter/--- _�.... ...............
. ..r Y.... --
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF TAXES BY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECO,NiES
NULL AND VOID.
A list of residents and owners of property within feet must he attached.
r
-13
ti
9
ZS
0 0
C. !., , •, (, �,
Rod
332
9915. f
- 95.7'..
13 4, jjj
14, 3 DO
27,
99
pro pose cl
how5t
127, C
t. f
c
T
ol t feet.
Ind the �,-ortheriy-
of t"he 1-i—If of
-nund Tor-
319
f ta
I
Co n Y
66
Il
LQ
66
Pl, I 'C' oil jurnr(-.v
RiCllz,37'-- T. iinderl: or.
oull C
POO
i V, . 2
V*
r\j
4 �'4
C.
t S is
Of iz:,LUIT,01 C-1- of'
t"I'A -,;rk. c.0 -o'k, 6 1-17-4rg Forth
of t o ljo-it'f, 41'' feat theveuf',
Hoc,*': 11-1 the
It Jir)-:s no ..)ur2;orlu to
z or
t
S r --. 1 1', --- 50,
lee
3 ?3
r• ?.A P
APPLICATION FCOVARIANCE FEE $
CITY OF MOUND ZONING
PROPERTY_
NA ADDRESS � �� 5- / OF � (u, .-� /
APPLICANT l! / 1.- �T� r e t PLAT O PARCEL 63Cn
Address �SC�.�7 �� ,� %7Gll /1..' -/� LOT �v� BLOCK
Telephone / j
Number �)4 : //ADDITION
INTEREST IN PROPERTY C) 1./ /L; F- �
FEE OWNER (if other than applicant)
Telephone
Addre s s Number
VARIANCE REQUESTED:
FRONT
YARD
F T.
SIDE
YARD
>. FT.
NOTE:
ACCESSORY
BUILDING F T.
LOT SIZE �C FT.
REAR LOT SQ.
YARD FT, FOOTAGE
N. C. U. or
OTHER (describe)
REASON FOR REQUEST:
1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing
showing location of proposed improvement
in relation to lot lines, other.buildings
on property and abutting t t
2. Give owner hi �ancl • =nsi-pn.s
adjoining propert o zonate
i .cam 9�` {
locations of all but l. incrs� .� e�Gvays,
and streets pertinent t 'the apply -cation
by extending surv��y�gr� ;c�rraysrbg „rrZxsZtr+
3. Attach letter p.•r from ad' ni % affected
property owners showing e--toward
request.
i
&-I -b _.z--
X Uliding permiI
council resolution
Variances are not
APPLICANT
comes null and void.
PLAN\'ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
DATE
COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.
DATE 3 0 oL
=n nn_ r• ran form in cr ---
I. 1,8F
. .z3uuvt� ouv .zolianans ours
7909 ' Ji6u ut3l(yo •)I uoP.toO
/vide' l
- x0yawar uo zI o
l of a IVaS
squaC74osos3ua ao sjuau:ono.td_rT no4-�; 0% Jacda d lou
saoo •„duo ,4auu -P,4 `Pur.c)"q `uolsT.,Ta Zsl sl..ca�,00..jo •Z •y :%f�'.T
apTsa a*,� `� ootg 'GT PUv ZT s4O t so saT.zaouncq atil 30 'Fansns a 3o
a�uasa zdaa qzo -laoo psu an.z1 a sT ST41 jsq1 .SjTwaa I�ga.za� j
�o.l.zns „o a1aoT; Tq-Z;;J
'b
L,` r
l o -
Ile
IQ
''
vo
OA
s'Iossuu .q 144unq} ` u jdduueH
4'9 jf iol*uuZ'l4 `Puno•,l `uoTsTnT(T �sT. s, zaxoo.�•�•}�
apTsa�jr.-r,i '£ xaoy3 `CT Pura ZY s�o'i So
Xuadwcq Zuamjvonuj uwmrr. i .Zoj
KQA.XnS -3 o JgTd
iz,
�r
/1
V
COPSDI.LTIONAL USE
APPdfATION FOR &P-€k' -AL -4JSP PWMIT
VILLAGE OF MOUND
/'n� FEE S
JJ k
FEE OWNER %�� I PLAT PARCEL
ADDRESS
/-S-2-(-) f�l ��257`C�i Ci�:ll �� %Z I Q(dA) _ TELEPHONE '� 7 =a" 6' - � /
LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY
LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 /I `�� <�C Li L'`' 1%� �t_ 'C/ L'�1�M
i
/ZONING ! /
Cp�pITIpAIAL
-- EPA£ +fry USE PERMIT (use)
V)-i G &Z Nl _ —)Y) J, /t- vL — 61�_
r y
a 1
Signature of Applicant l i�sn �`!✓ /.=
Address
Applicant's Interest in Property y
State why this use, if granted, would not be contrary to the general purpose and
intent of the ordinance to secure public health, safety, general welfare, and sub -
stantial justice.
"D e"W C C 5
E
.3 //
Residents and owners. of property within feet:
�l /19
640SOUUYA lay, My
amuny PU7 auAwas PU017
'jou u0jo) A UJPJU')
IS
-Ze qo7 plus jo inuam qsonynoy cy mAj ZInGynkynon q,"; jj qurgoly I jo- pj js _iyf
Alwyn, eqq u; qujod u yj Slae,sou,my E log P;U? jo JOU"Od 43AAA4401 Q4 -MAI UnNAP full v U , 1 all ,3c"j,
Am& Se 107 Pas so 4001 lun Idsm '%4UOq"UUj1 WO acuca &JAd 44010% Oqa� 'A Ov 'U lie V1 4 47
w;cOnuall IsquUOD UYUOUU_. gjQ "Olwal "OH-OZAL '&JI! "" U
!To ''I 40q njus jo Oull L -@q q ju USIOU0qX0 11 U jnp"jnqj 'n:Q 01 0- i w U
Im inixy 'it I, ju avlao" Q1bjSv-jqjO" py jo qyo� qQQj J,d Ao,"ily a Vol al-K ij WR 1�-2 � Qf U"
E w"t, 2qol plus o Lail yaul aq; 4-t :'1 Islyaud yoA w1sup =11 I ju Sidbon,. nu Al a: Pun 6T 040" S6 1---
is
03 r�v (,1 '41 10 "-bo!j
10-ION 11klm -b%A!j
U_',UCq;1UUT:' ��:jwq jalud Dania 1 1614dn, - va On- !j SIT U!
Pun ',Ll * J, oil ; ;A; ;.a: _,j a! Ful 1 -!on W-'.
upisqJUS, zs_
NJ tol-
SUBDIVISION. 8t COMBINATION
APP ATION FOR SUBDIVISION OIVAND
Sec. 22.03 -a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE OWNER
Harold Peterson
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
PLAT
61670
FEE $ 15.00
PARCEL
?685
The S 181 ft of 11 361 ft of Lot 11 and that part of S 181 ft of N 361 ft
of Lot 12 lying E of W 32 25AdOO ft thof ex road
ZONING A -1
To be divided as follows:
A: S 156 ft of the N 361 ft of Lot 11 and that part of the S 156 ft of the
N361ftof Lot 12 the E10fthyingEofW51 .5ft 11 `
B: S 156 ft of the N. 361 ft of Lot 12 lying W of E 10 q
I p o q�
Parcel B to be combined with W 32 251100 ft of S 181 of N 3'1 ft of
Lot 12 and the S 181 ft of N 361 ft of Lot 13 ex road of Koehler's 2nd
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed Addition
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No.
Reason:
From
Square feet TO Square feet
i,•a =� 4'� ADDRESS 5935 Gum��rood Road DATE
Ap Ic s interest'in the property:
}
n = y ^4 J ov �.r `; This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
` ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DATE
37Y
Y
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
MINN NO 2266
60. OAR 769
WIS NO. E•6176
►LO-DA NO. 6271
NO. OAK. 623
MONT. NO 1616.E CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FORS
r/Voi fh /ine Lof
- T —�
1A 14 OM--D \ L A S /C"
I
SCHOELL AND MA.DSON
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
'30 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH
HOPXINS. MINNESOTA
PHONE 930.7514
b
1
0
1
I
i
1 ••y 1
6
CARLISLE MADSON
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
MINN. NO. 4374
SO. OAK. 701
WIS. NO. S -974
IOWA NO. 3706
P.O. OAK. 110.
MONT. NO. 1742.9
VVE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF:
The 5oufh 156 feel of fhe A/orfh 361 feel of Lo/
SeCOnCI ��c�ili•v� fo /�ounci
AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, IF ANY. THERE N. AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS. IF
ANY. FP.OM OR ON SAID LAND. LL
AS SURVEYED BY US THIS Z DAY OF—
377
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
WILLIAM D. SCHOELL
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
"INN. NO. 2266
40. OAK 755
W19. NO. E6176
FLORIDA NO. 5271
NO. OAK. 621
"ONT. NO 1516•E CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
V/ L A C E Of ;'fir O y1c/O
FOR:
//n e Lof 12
— ---� _ _
t t
.1
SCHOELL A N 1) MADISON
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS
60 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA
PHONE: 938.7614
1
M
1
3
I
1 t
/ 98(, - zo
CARLISLE MADSON
REGISTERED LAND SURVC'YOR
MIN". NO. 4274
SO. OAK. *Y91
WIl. NO. 5•674
10'HA NO, 1702
NO. OAK. 110A
NONT. NO. 1742.0
�/�eno/`es !� on it- Jor>urr�enl`
WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE
BOUNDARIES OF:
The Soufh 4�6 feel of the Morlh 361 feel of Lol /2 '�oeh /er "s
56cor-)C/ /o /�OUl�Ci
AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS. IF ANY. THERE N. AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS. IF
ANY. FROM OR ON SAID LAND. 1
AS SURVEYED BY US THIS !� DAY OF---
REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR
i
scroELL SCHODLL &t MADSON, INC.
rD GIVIL ENGINEER
N. No. *I$% ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS
a so. DAK 765 DO NINTH AVENU! SOUTH
. W". NO. [ -e 176 HOrKINS. MINNESOTA
FLORIDA No. 6271
PHONE: 988-7614
NO. DAK. 623
uoNT. ND. tel..[
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
- FOf2-
/
1
i -
/
1.
EI -'
i
�t
1
44 9/ 59.60.
CARLISLE MADSON
MEGISTCRfO, LAND DURVEYOR
MIN". NO. 417A
00. DAK. "I
WIS. NO. M4
IOWA NO. 7.706
NO. DAK. t 106
PONT. NO. 7742.6
1
1
a
i -
1111111131111
o- per�ofes %n Molnlmen f Sfheef 1 of 2
1
i
ir
•
CITY OF' MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
January 27, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -27
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land
• 2 -7 -78
Attached is a copy of a letter from the owner of Lot 12, Block 26,
Wychwood, requesting to purchase Lot 23, Block 26 as access to his
property.
Late in the Fall, the City took 30 feet along Brighton Boulevard off
Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23 and returned the balance of the lots plus
Lot 13 to the State so the lots could be placed on sale at the next
auction.
Does the Council wish to divide Lot 23 off from the balance of the
land so the owner of Lot 12 can bid on this one piece alone? or should
they be left as is for sale?
The owner of Lot 12, because of its topography, has only a walking
access to his property off Wilshire Boulevard..
If Lot. 23 were sold separately, there appears to be 10,000 square feet
remaining in Lots 20, 21, 22 and 13. It appears from the long run view
that it would be better for all the land to be sold as one piece and
then the neighbors work out their access problems between them. How -
ever, this possibly would not assure Mr. Schaller a choice of the prop-
erty.
With regard to the discussion about the bike hike path infringing on
his property across the street on Wilshire Boulevard, we have asked the
Engineer to check into this and it shall be the subject of another
report.
This will appear on the February 7th agenda.
Leonard L.'Kopp ` f
cc: Mr. Schaller
?IAl
0
C't
I- I �' (3-9
r
1 -7
'14
'Tc
0-� "Q'k ��-Ulpl� A- ki-"
CC,
/YYN-C J,
,t7\
IN
72
tA
W
AL �-� .�'
S
�7 �
tyt
. ........
r r, \j
ay
. ........
r r, \j
0
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
January 31, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -30
TO: The Honorable Mayor
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Tax Forfeit Land
and City Council
Attached is a copy of a letter from Roger Reed asking that Lot 8, Block 2,
Abraham Lincoln's Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, be released for sale
or be acquired and sold to him so he can combine it with the Lots he owns- -
Lot 9 and Part of 10.
Sometime ago the Council established a policy whereby the City would pur-
chase and resell lots such as this. Does the Council wish to acquire
the lot or would they sooner release the lot for sale and let it go to
auction?
This will be listed on the February 7 agenda.
4ne�a rd L. Kopp`
377
REED & RYERSON
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
P. O. BOX 157
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
January 30, 19 7 8 PHONE 472 -2223
ROGER W. REED
DAN T. RYERSON
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Att'n: Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager
Dear Leonard:
I own Lot 9 and all of Lot 10 except the south 18 feet thereof,
Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound,
Minnetonka (85- 61730- 0230). Because this parcel faces the four -
plexes I believe that it would be more salable for a two - family
dwelling than for a one - family dwelling. This area is zoned for
two- family dwellings. However, the parcel I own does not have
sufficient square footage to qualify under your ordinance for
a two- family dwelling. The adjoining lot (parcel 0200) is tax -
forfeited, but the county has held up selling it at your request.
I assume that you made this request because you did not want to
see a parcel as small as Lot 8 used for a single - family residence.
It is possible that the city would like to see Lot 8 combined with
my property in one parcel. This would give me sufficient square
footage to sell the combined parcel for two- family purposes. It
would put Lot 8 on the tax rolls and yet prevent it from being
used as a separate one - family dwelling. If the city feels this
way, it can either release Lot 8 for sale by the county at auction
or it can purchase it from the county for resale to me.
If you request the county to release Lot 8 for auction I will
endeavor to purchase it. There is, of course, no guarantee that
I will be successful. If you want to be sure that this parcel
is, in fact, combined with my parcel, you can sell it to me with
the stipulation that the parcels :rust be combined at closing.
I would appreciate it, Leonard, if you would take this matter up
with the City Council and let me know-how they feel about it.
Sincerely yours,
REED & RYERSON
Roger W. Reed
ZWR : bw
34.1
6 f lt2
1 \0 10 9 4P a o•� � r�-,z x s ', -te
�\:: n 39 `IO v 1 $.. � (_ Z-� ,..u.l�.t -,c �'. ('�_ ,. �tp•,�r� .
IS' r� k�
f•'- 17 �\ i \• 3'35 ��c�l y e 7 ,, ° %/ 92 \ \, `�' \. { �•2 ,� fitT� F
7f t3o1r.. S IB .32 0. 10 50 �. �- __ 1' •yC....;� � a'� �+F'c'ry ''
L
\3.31
2 I 2$ ,29^ t'• 46 V -z. 2 ..7 _ �1 k
• 14
28 45
N �?jj2S26 •; a 17 5 ,424i O •• 9�g P° T ti.:• 4 t (v /�'�U / I „ ,'.�i. w.i {^
.n -.,.24 0 � • .\19 _ 41 � � 57 - � ,.I ♦ -, _- �.y- %� J `,,� _ _ .,
20 •39'10 12 It , 5S
21 e P ^t `yt,�•j.`\ l� �i> •.?�, •'!� �) fy'tY'""� l� \.s�r� C� 7` J(J •z�`IF ' ' .:
6 � 2. , � 3g ' �13 , 53Sq 1� ® 1. 1<� r'- , \ �L,' [ "' �•'�r...
��' 3637 � • 6e 11 GG L M` ..
B G} `'r \2•°' �3 \ !G�L'� g�1514 '51 �i�� ~V 0�l'•y ' \\ � A,by�;. ✓.
?yW00D " ^�'AY 3334. 5 1x17 a9 //2 „t, y ' .•. / '* a7.
.1/1 rt .'•SO �' J 2120. •` � 4 . ' \O�\ ,•At�;o ' tt � 3 , � •<F
2\ v . 23 • 43 +" - "�- - -. - 2--!C ��i _ - 7}. �,a! xc.
Is ��. 2524• 4142 N�OpO Y�f 4 i 5 1_.
14 _' '272� r
ao ' P Ap►' -- /, >
X39 \ yal S 6 v .Q �w" ^
IS 1 � 28 0 _ � ter. �•fr F � r:. � � t"` �F..
- �9,. ., r �. ` o'C x_13 2•" z9 s I : - or, ,�L `^4 r � �-'�,
•,S.24C 3 g 7 2 ti u�.1'S- `6' -�.. �, ke. ;t, t` �`=p�tt •c?';
4 ,. 27 8 L.• �!- J ..3 G, t 3 /1r..z by +b '.A_
AF
'�_ \. /i • [= 2 2t� _6 25 I° 10 F
LU
yty„S U • 20 7 ] 24V
w u " _ 40 ;,•L p�.0 [V �'•/ "r Y x4: , f
S 4' 3 2 I4 4 tL p 12 24
22 g`' 12 �f\ 'Q!J ,�. t r•. }
IO S . IB _ 9, 13 21 v. 11 8 J� -�29 ° ' V r ,i .U/ •,
t{ `.} 9 gr•6 17_ 10 21 q• W 13 23 Q g 20 ti Q. 7 GB •33 `i v r .J '�.
M +Iti7_ - 9 IB 11 r ` 20 1 14 22 U
xs-
i 7E -` • 7 ^
10 1$°� 1t/, 7.2. •.nr• :,
�t r _ _ 8 s � a.t. ;14a��= 13 „e$ $ I 3 • 7 3 •_ �h11_ } -- t. 0 10 2S : �6'e( 1 1lI til�y ft yrL.•V'r >C~��? e �`
f; 114 N �' CHURCH
WAY f Y �Ilo20 �q 17 • 11 zq r 9 �,i"03�, , ~ Q i 2ti 3 '' ”; �` r
4.
4 3
bl O
R 12 4
!� •; `���, '� 3 _ Itl y b . �r,��,��. � ,4 's• � -s j �yq �Cy - 1 } S
13 w zl 28 _ 7 , zz ° �• t' � } t+- r
_,,{{. ', ;, -It �6�`'�._,_w; 4. 10 - i�f. --- W - _ .3''r <. z �. .. �'•1 „s
2YA f'E PARK �� ' ��'__ -f 4 - }- rp lo” 7 . 7 f.F' 2�i re •y _ \ �� 21, 4
G'►u! r .n ai , _ '� S * -11, .i g - r7 1� 1i.r 6 . °. an e, : r, b 6A.." L ". I •ems ° W ,��' 19 a4 26 v -/(9 20 7 5 .'.
5•y1, 10 H f ts. r II
7 ! J 4° 15�a"��,,/�' 25 .j• \ 3 tat>
10
� _ p roo � '{ 3 4 S C > ,� � 3 10 O �d 8 ' 2- `� 16 1f'�- Q' • V 9 , m ', .x;:
�- � • _ , ,� �- i m_ �°. . - _ ii � ' z 7f/ : ; 11 15 Q , .f t •, � a
B• "9' IO It 12. 13, 14, 15 76, 17 16 19, 20 2'122
t:t. - - - 'o. - :: o Ic.a �°~ , 6 J •. 194:� 1 + <J •,;r'"7' , OP �1^ ~ i`!��"C xy..
�, 1 LYNWOOD BLVD. g z'r„ �► L � � ✓ // •', f �
1 5•• 7675 t'> LYNWO
3 33 Al
�43 42� 4I0 40 39 37 36 3 t/ t c 1 24 +23 `r _ - .. i i I • yyy 1 161 17! IB'
Ikraft I 32 31 30 29 •28 27 6i �� ••bl 2 3 4 5" 6 7 8° 9,� IOi 11
33 - 12 13' I4� I I 2OI
-
ae
be
6 5 4 '•3
n
�S � DIV.
� U� x ° =ryr
SL• r tf w? N til 1+� wo..•
tr , 1 2 i 3 I -\ 6 ! .1 �� _� /?• � _- �`Op > n �� JZ i c� It it 'tj L1.1 ` - �� - �`f �
Cnp 17:6 .�-��
•N •; Lt, I� ,'> 'S /..fr '.r V• w. fo4
N't
�,j� _' � �, i I f > � f � �• �7'ec..l eSil -Tai ;e^ I W x I .I �'� I IrL'=, �Tr-x
•
y \ S ^� v...Z�' • \ I , {i - .. _ 1 %:..`• ` ii Li -- Q y_�.x}'''r�'. tr'w;•
- ?a r - � .. '•=•� ..„ ,,` /r`i.. ` \, _t W �i6 i�' S9 ?s--- - t'�
ze._ `mot f
st .,130' !_..
•C
to —12
.V� b
LEY
1]
so
Q y
3;C z
S 5ces 1 -a• cc :.�2ti":><.!.rr. =3si� . ._:iy-...21 ':�•,'�'.
• •
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78--33
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Parking Variance
Michael Weber, 5109 Drummond Road, has requested a variance from the
Winter parking ordinance.
The variance is not recommended by the Public Works Director.
Le nar�opp
-367
VARIANCE RS JOST, OFF STREET PARKING 02DIN.W
NAME ��c� . L Z4zc 61c o
sTR� r rD_DRESS/ 6 9 r
PHONE - Home-4/729 -6 7 7 0 Business
LOT BLOCK ADDITION
APPX. APPOINr,M,NT TIME FOR OJ S?TE IIISPF,CTION
APPLICANTS SIGMATURE
DIACR '14 OF LOT - Use U v 1
reverse side of this request:
.
rw ?
R N�iRI'S & L �',O1.2- E- NlDATICI;S BY DTIDIVIDUAL i:AYL',T INSPECTIO,
/�'t.- ✓ L:..•../t`�'`�,�,�' >/ ✓L.�� ,/1� °.�i,� -_�T .��..LiG;.41"� L'4'.ora..t.�L• �,'-'v•C./ ��t <tN�'- :.,...._
N%""� . �- ..a�i..!� yLiry, r� �:•:. -/f y�lfi,,(; (.,,6;_.•r- .. -,_.:. " ,.. +' ._,si:�t✓_:_.j"
✓ti' J"!/42r'✓'�
v
C �T -•.rte_ G% 1,: ��`- "-�t.R?> rC �:. -+:/ � - �
%!mo.'s
{� -'try "` -C�nr' �'��ir^'�''c�f�:•/Lj..�. �..�..• �•cr+ c'T �f,_. +-�1�/ -�./' ��.C..-
SIGNA t OF I'jDIVIDUAL XVIIIG INSPECTION & IDENTIFICATION
N
�d j;�. �• � Tai °S ��'E►�i --
l �+ (j
v
1 x •
r �
..,
3(o to
•
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
January 26, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -24
•
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Metro Planning Grant
The Metropolitan Council has approved Mound's Planning Grant of
$2,051.00.
In order to obtain the grant an agreement must be made with the
Metro Council. A copy of the proposed agreement is attached.
It is recommended that the Mayor and Manager be authorized to
enter into the agreement.
Leonard L. Kopp
3�S
XW
M- P, r
I N C: I
300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291 -6359
January 23, 1978
Mr. Don Levens, Planner
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: File No. 5117
Contract No. 7820
Dear Mr. Levens:
On October 27, 1977, the Metropolitan Council approved the award
of Mound's Community Comprehensive Planning grant entitlement
of $2,051.00.
Attached are five (5) copies of the Grant Agreement which must
be executed in order for the grant to be disbursed. All five
copies must be signed by an appropriate Mound official who is
authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the city.
Note that Appendix B, which lists the Funded Portion of the
Work Program, must also be completed and made part of the
contract. Instructions on how to complete Appendix B are
attached. When the funded activities are complete, you will
have to provide us with a Funded Portion Completion Report.
If you have any questions about the grant contract, you may
contact me at 291 -6517 or John Hoeft, Assistant Staff Counsel,
at 291 -6450.
Sincerely,
n omasel1i
rants Coordinator
LT:im
Attach.
J Co
An Agerjc.v Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Comprising:
Anoka County o Carver County 0 Dakota County 0 Hennepin County o Ramsey County 0 Scott County 0 Washington County
0 0
HOW TO COMPLETE APPENDIX B
Purpose
The purpose of Appendix B is to allow the community to select the
portion(s) of its comprehensive plan work program on which it wishes
to spend its grant entitlement. These activities will then be known
as the "Funded Portion of the Work Program." When the activities
listed in Appendix B are half completed, each community must notify
the Council by letter. When the Council receives this mid -point
notification from the community, it will send out the Funded Portion
Completion Report forms to'the community. when the activities listed
in Appendix B are complete, the community must submit the Completion
Report to the Council. The Council will then evaluate the Completion
Report and supporting documentation to determine whether the activities
which the community stated in Appendix B of its contract that it would
pay for with its grant funds were satisfactorily completed.
The Funded Portion Completion Report may also be the means by which
the Council will know a community is ready for the disbursement of
additional funds which may have been subsequently awarded to the
community.
Communities with grants of over $3,000 will be receiving 900 of
their grant when the contract is signed. Satisfactory evaluations by the
Council of the Funded Portion Completion Reports from these communities
will be the bases upon which the remaining 10% of the grants are disburs
How to Complete:
In order to complete Appendix B, community officials should look at
the original Community Grant Application (included in the contract as
Appendix A) and decide which portion(s) should be funded by the
grant monies. Generally, it is advisable that the portions of the
work program to be completed first should be selected to be listed
in Appendix B.
An example of how a typical community might complete Appendix B is
given below:
Community A has a total grant award of $3,025 and its total work
program cost is $10,000 (see attached work program and Appendix B).
In this example the community officials decided to fund all of
the inventory activities (I.A, II.A and III.A) plus the land use
plan (I.B.1.) and the protection element (I.B.2). These activities
total $3,050, or just over the $3,025 grant and were listed in
Appendix B.
3 6-4 3
Example: Communit
Appendix A (contin)
40
Work Program
Total Cost of
Performed
Major Tasks:
Major Task: 1
by: 2
I. Land Use Plan
A. Inventory3
500
City Staff
B. Development of
Policies and Plans:
1. Land Use
1'r 150
if
350
"
2. Protection
450
3. Housing
50
„
4. Airport- related considerations
11. Facilities Plan
A. Inventory3
750
B. Development of
Policies and Plans:
1. Transportation
500
700
2. Sewer Policy
550
„
3. Parks and Open Space
III. implamentation Program
A. Inventory3
300
B. Development of
Programs or Descriptions:
1. Official Controls
600
1,500
2. Capital Improvement.
750
( „
3. Housing Impiemerrtation
IV. Preparation and Adoption of
Official Controls
1,850
Total Cost of Work Prcgrnm•
10,000
I
Outside Assistanca
( -)
0
Cost to Community
10,000
1 Includes all costs defined as included in the total cost of the work program
21-yad person(s), Firm(s) or agency(s) responsible for the performance of the major tasks of the work program.
If indefinite at present, provide your best estimation and inoicate that it is tentative.
3FOr communities that are eligible for Inventory Activity Grant entitlements, specify (1) the eligible activities
to be undertaken, and (2) the cost to the community.
3f
,
y
Oxample: Community "A" •
APPENDIX B
FUNDED PORTION OF THE PORK PROGRAM
List below the work program major task(s) which will be funded by
the total grant award of $3,025 If only a portion of
a major task is to be funded, list the specific activity(ies) and
cost(s).
Major Task (s) or
Activities to be Funded
Cost
I. Land Use Plan:
A. Inventory
$ 500
B. Development of Policies and Plans
1. Land Use
1,150
2. Protection
350
II. Facilities Plan:
A. Inventory
750
III. Implementation Program:
A. Inventory
300
Total Cost of Funded
Tasks or Activities
$ 3,050
Less Outside Assistance
(_)
Applicable to the Above
0
Remaining -Cost
$
of.Funded Tasks and Activities
3,050
*Must be equal to or greater than the total grant award.
Estimated completion date of the above major tasks and
activities July, 1978
3LI
0 • Contract No. 7,P_-7T>
GRANT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND
CITY OF MOUND
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of ,
197_, by and between the Metropolitan Council, hereinafter
referred to as the "Council," and the City of MQ nd ►
hereinafter referred to as the "Grantee."
WHEREAS, the Council is required by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 473.851, et seq., to administer the Metropolitan Land
Planning Act, hereinafter referred to as the "Act," which requires
local governmental units within the Metropolitan Area to prepare
comprehensive plans; and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature by Laws 1976, Chapter
167, has made available and required the Council to administer
a fund to be utilized to assist local governments in the carrying
out of required planning in the form of Planning Assistance Grants;
and
WHEREAS the Council desires to assist the Grantee in carrying
out required comprehensive planning in accordance with the Act.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council and Grantee agree as follows:
1. A. The Council shall pay to the Grantee, in accor-
dance with the schedule set forth below, a total
grant amount of $ 2,051.00 Grant funds
shall be made available to the Grantee as follows:
$ 2,051.00 , immediately upon execution of
this agreement.
$ 0 , upon satisfactory evaluation by the
Council of the Funded Portion Completion Report
submitted by the Grantee pursuant to Paragraph 4B
of this agreement.
B. The Grantee agrees that no more than 75% of the
total cost of carrying out the work program set
forth in Grantee's application for grant assistance,
Appendix A, attached hereto and made a part hereof,
shall be financed by grant funds.
C. The Grantee shall utilize the grant funds to carry
out the activities specified in the funded portion
of the work program set forth in Appendix B, attached
hereto and made a part hereof.
D. The Grantee agrees to comply with all provisions
of the Metropolitan Council Application. Award and
Disbursement Guidelines for the Administration of
Planning Assistance Grants, hereinafter referred to
as the "Guidelines," dated April, 1977, which is
hereby incorporated by reference into this agreement 3to D
and made a part hereof.
0 -2- . •
2. Authorized use or grant proceeds.
It is understood and agreed that the following costs
and expenses shall be the only such costs and expenses
paid for out of grant proceeds. Costs and expenses to
be reimbursed, shall additionally be in substantial
accord with specifications contained in the grantee's
grant application and other provisions contained herein,
but in no event shall the Council reimburse the Grantee
for costs and expenses incurred in excess of the total
grant amount. The following costs specifically incurred
in carrying out the planning activities required by the
Act and specified in the funded portion of the work program
shall be payable from grant proceeds:
A. Compensation of existing staff.
B. Compensation of newly hired staff.
C. Employment of a qualified consultants).
D. Payment of other costs such as overhead, rental
of space and equipment, purchase of supplies,
printing and publishing.
E. Payment of costs incurred in eligible inventory
activities undertaken since the date of passage of
the Act.
3. Accounting.
A. The grantee agrees to establish and maintain accurate
and complete accounts and records relating to the
receipt and expenditure of any and all grant funds
including, but not limited to documentation and
information relating to the selection and payment
of consultants.
B. The above accounts and records of the grantee shall
be audited in the same manner as all other accounts
and records of the grantee are audited, and may be
audited and /or inspected on grantee's premises or
otherwise by individuals or organizations designated
and authorized by the Council at any time following
reasonable notification during the grant period and
for a period of three years following final grant
payment.
4. Reports.
A. Midpoint Report. Grantee shall prepare and deliver
a midpoint report by letter notifying the Council
that the activities undertaken in connection with
grant assistance are half completed. The report
shall contain a short description of the utilization
of grant funds, remaining funds in the grant account
and projected future planning expenses, and expected
completion dates.
Js9
•
-3- •
B. Funded Portion Completion Report. Upon completion
of the funded portion of the work program, the
Grantee shall submit to the Council a funded portion
completion report. The Council shall evaluate the
report to determine that performance was satisfactory,
in that the major tasks to be funded by the grant
proceeds were completed. The report shall be of
sufficient content and detail to enable the Council
to adequately make said evaluation.
C. Final Progress Report. The Grantee agrees that
upon completion of the total work program, the
Grantee will submit to the Council a final progress
report which shall be evaluated by the Council to
determine that:
1) the planning costs funded by this grant did
not exceed 75% of the total cost of the work
program;
2) the scope of work was completed;
3) The terms of this agreement were met.
5. General Conditions.
A. Duration. The period of grant award specified
herein shall commence on the execution of this
agreement and remain in force and effect until
July 1, 1980. At that date, all allocated grant
funds which have not been expended or otherwise com-
mited by contract, or are not reasonably expected
to be paid out in connection with expenses incurred
before that date, shall revert to and become a part
of the Council's local government assistance fund,
and may be reallocated or expended by the Council
for planning assistance to other local governmental
units in accordance with the Guidelines.
B. Rights Reserved. In the event that the Council finds
that there has been a failure to comply with the
provisions of this agreement, the Council reserves
the right to take any and -all such action as it
deems necessary or appropriate to protect the
Council's interest.
C. Changes. The terms of this agreement may be changed
or modified by mutual agreement by the parties hereto.
Such charges or modifications shall be effective
only upon the execution of written amendments signed
by authorized representatives of the Council and
Grantee.
D. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable 3j g
laws relating to non-discrimination, affirmative
action, and public purchase, contracting, and �loyrent.
•
-4-
E
In particular, Grantee agrees not to discriminate
against any employee or applicant for employment
because of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin, and to take affirmative action that applicants
and employees are treated equally with respect to
the following: employment, upgrading, demotion,
transfer, recruitment, lay -off, termination, rates
of pay, and other forms of compensation, and -
selection for training.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written
by their authorized representatives.
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
By
John Boland, Chairman
GRANTEE
I
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL Title:
FORM AND ADEQUACY:
Office of Staff Counsel
3� 7
o�itap
APPENDIX A
METROPOLITAN UNCIL Suite 300 Metro Square Bu g, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
'"• ''' COMMUNITY GRANT APPLICATION
1. Name of Community City of Mound
2. Name of Local Contact Person Don Levens , City Planner
Telephone Number 472-1155
3. Work Program -
Outline the major tasks and the total costs of those tasks which must be undertaken in order to prepare or update the community's
comprehensive plan according to its systems statement, and prepare and adopt its Official Controls. The outline should follow the
format shown on the back of this application form.
See attached
4. Completion Date
Estimated completion date of the Work Program June 1 , 19 78
5. Previous Planning
Indicate whether this work program reflects the cost of updating a previously prepared plan and, if so, describe to what extent the
plan(s) will be utilized in developing the community's Comprehensive Plan.
The work program will encompass an update ofiMbund's Comprehensive
Plan that reflects the foundation of the community's growth.
6. Outside Assistance
List amounts and sources of outside assistance.
CDBG Funds undetermined
Revenue Sharing - undetermined
7. Special Fund Requests
-`L }
FILE f
r1LE INI0.
If the community wishes to apply for a portion of the Special Fund: (1) describe the existing or proposed metropolitan feature or
activity that exists within or near your community that increases the total cost to the community of preparing or updating its
comprehensive plan relative to other communities; (2) document as best as possible flow the feature or activity relates to the funding
criteria (V C 3 of the Guidelines) and how it increases your cost; and (3) state the amount requested and indicate where this amount
is reflected in the work program major task cost estimates.
1. To develop a Comprehensive Plan to accomplish the goals of low and moderate
income housing through implementation of housing objectives.
2. To develope a housing strategy relative to the needs of low and moderate
income families within the City of Mound
3. The amount requested is $2,500.00 to further implement the work program task
documented in 3A
8. Grant Amount(s) Reauested:
a. Community Comprehensive Planning Fund entitlement
b. Inventory Activity Fund entitlement
C. Special Planning Problems Funds requested
$ 2,051.
$ - 0 -
$ 2,500.
TOTAL" $ 4,551. 3S /
*Total grant amount requested, plus assistance from the counties out of the County Assistance to Freestanding Growth Centers (p
Fund or Inventory Activities Fund, may not exceed 75% of the total cost of the work program, or the total cost to community.
• CITY OF MOUND • APPENDIX A (continued
Work Program
Total Cost of
Performed
Major Tasks:
Major Task: 1
by: 2
I. Land Use Plan
A. Inventory3
B. Development of
Policies and Plans:
1. Land Use
$2,250.
Staff
2. Protection
3. Housing
$2,250.
Staff
4. Airport- related considerations
11. Facilities Plan
A. Inventory3
B. Development of
Policies and Plans:
1. Transportation
S2,000.
S a f f
52,000.
Staff
2. Sewer Policy
3. Parks and Open Space
111. Implementation Program
A. Inventory3
B. Development of
Programs or Descriptions:
1. Official Controls
$2,500.
Staff
2. Capital Improvement
$4,000.
Staff
3. Housing Implementation
IV. Preparation and Adoption of
Official Controls
Total Cost of Work Program
$15,000.
Staff
Outside Assistance
( -) _ 0
Cost to Community
S.1-5-,000 -
Staff
'includes all costs defined as included in the total cost of the work program,
2Lead person(s), Firm(s) or agency(s) responsible for the performance of the major tasks of the work program.
If indefinite at present, provide your best estimation and indicate that it is tentative.
3For communities that are eligible for Inventory Activity Grant entitlements, specify (1) the eligible activities
to be undertaken, and (2) the cost to the community.
3 YS�
• CITY OF MOUND •
APPENDIX B
FUNDED PORTION OF THE WORK PROGRAM
List below the work program major task(s) which will be funded by
the total grant award of $2,051.00 If only a portion of
a major task is to be funded, list the specific activity(ies) and
cost (s) .
Major Tasks) or
Activities to be Funded
Cost
Total Cost of Funded
Tasks or Activities
Less Outside Assistance
Applicable to the Above
( -)
Remaining Cost
of Funded Tasks and Activities
$
*Must be equal to or greater than the total grant award.
Estimated completion date of the above major tasks and
activities
3SAI
•
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -34
•
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Funding - West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board
Attached is a copy of a letter from the West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board requesting the Council to pass a resolution regarding
funding of the Board.
Adoption of the resolution is recommended.
r� -zz,n z,����
Leo and L. Kopp
3�3
west hennepin human services planning board
41st and Vernon South / St. Louis Park. Minnesota 56416
920 -5633
TO: West Hennepin Municipal Officials
FROM: Marcy Shapiro, Director, WHHS
RE: Funding of Community Planning Boards
On Janu a
Services
Hennepin
meetings
proposed
planning
ry 23rd, the Executive C
Council, South Hennepin
Human Services Planning
that were held with the
County Board resolution
boards.
ommittees of Northwest Hennepin Human
Human Services Council and West
Board met to discuss the three area
County Commissioners regarding the
concerning the funding of community
The Joint Executive Committees felt that it was the general opinion
in all three areas that a similar resolution should be introduced in
all the councils of the member municipalities and that this resolution
take the form of the enclosed resolution.
It was felt that this joint effort of a large number of municipalities
passing a similar resolution would have the strongest impact on the
County Board.
The content of the enclosed resolution was developed out of the
opinions expressed by municipal officials in three area meetings with
the Commissioners.
We would appreciate this resolution being introduced to your council
for discussion. Tracy Whitehead, Chairperson of the WHHS Board, your
municipal representatives to the WHHS Board, the WHHS staff, or I can
provide information about the background on this issue, action that
has been taken, this resolution and future action anticipated.
We would also appreciate it if you could send copies to all of the
County Commissioners, if your council passes this resolution.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact
me.
We appreciate your time and effort in being concerned about WHHS and
its funding.
2sz
•
WHEREAS, this City Council is in full support of the activities
and leadership provided by the West Hennepin Human Services
Planning Board; and,
WHEREAS, this Council feels that these activities have had a
positive impact on the development and delivery of human services
in our community; and,
WHEREAS, this planning activity has been delegated to Hennepin
County by state legislation and has been responsibly and
effectively carried out through community planning boards;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
, that.
1. This Council recommends that a strong human services planning
board be maintained;
2. That the most appropriate funding mechanism is through
Hennepin County; and
3. That this Council urges the County Board to continue funding
as they have in the past.
—3SI
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
January 31, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -31
TO; The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT; F. B. I. Academy
Attached is a copy of a letter from the Police Chief requesting approval
to apply to attend the FBI National Academy.
The Academy is an 11 week course and has a waiting list of a year or
more for successful applicants.
It is felt that this will be excellent training for the Chief and it is
recommended that the Council, by resolution, approve the application and
attendance, if accepted. The cost to the City will be the Chief's salary
while in attendance at the Academy.
Le nard L. Kopp /(
3,60
...��. - •
01
ON LAKE MINNETONKA INDIAN BURIAL. MOUNDS
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472 -1155
January 26, 1978
TO: Leonard Kopp
FROM: Chief Charles Johnson
SUBJECT: Requested approval for attendance to the FBI National Academy
It is respectfully requested I be allowed to apply for acceptance to attend
the FBI National Police Academy located at Quanitco, VA. It is further
requested that the city council pass a resolution of approval for my nomination
to attend the academy. The resolution should also request approval for my
attendance at the academy and further state that while attending the academy I
will continue to receive my salary.
All tuition and most equipment and other essentials required to participate in
the National Academy program are furnished free of charge. These include,
among other things, all tuition, classroom supplies, textbooks, typewriter,
and other misc. items. Also provided is transportation to and from the academy.
The National Academy is recognized as one of the best training facilities in the
world for law enforcement administrators. The academy has an eleven week
curriculum of advanced professional instruction. Cur riculiii' consists of courses
relating to management science, behavioral science, law, education and communi-
cation arts, forensic science, and law enforcement arts.
It is requested action to taken on this request as soon as possible as there is
a lengthy waiting list for acceptance to the academy with the waiting period
normally running between one and two years. In conferring with the local office
of the FBI, I was told that the soonest I might expect to attend would be one
year from the date the application is submitted. "
Sincerely,
Charles Johnson
CHIEF OF POLICE
CJ /sf
41 CI
• 0
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
January 31, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -29
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Black Lake Bridge
At the January 24th meeting, the County suggested the Council send
them a resolution accepting Layout lA for County Project 7586.
Attached is a suggested resolution. Spring Park will pass an identi-
cal resolution on February 6.
Also attached is a copy of a suggested resolution prepared by the
County.
Leo and L. opp
'3 yy
Rough Draft
• 0
RESOLUTION NO. 78 -
RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAN LAYOUT lA
COUNTY PROJECT NO. 7586 FOR BRIDGE ON COUNTY ROAD 125
(BLACK LAKE BRIDGE) AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
OF RIGHT -OF -WAY
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared preliminary plans for the replacement
of the bridge on County Road # 125 over the channel between Spring
Park Bay and Black Lake, and
WHEREAS, the preliminary plan known as Layout lA for Project 7586 provides
the most economically feasible alternative for replacement of this
bridge, and
WHEREAS, Layout lA for Project 7586, as presented, will enhance the public
use of Black Lake as well as provide an economical replacement for
a dangerous bridge,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That they join with the City Council of Spring Park and approve
Layout lA for Hennepin County Project 7586 as presented.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:
1. The acquisition of right -of -way is authorized.
2. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, The State of
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, The Minnehaha
Creek Watershed and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District be urged to approve the plan as presented.
Adopted by the City Council this day of 1978.
3 y%
•
L
At a duly authorized meeting of the City Council of Mound
Minnesota, the following resolution was moved and adopted:
WHEREAS, Layout No. lA Project No. 7586 showing
the proposed improvement of County State Aid Highway No. 125
within the limits of the City has been prepared and presented to the City.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED: That said Layout No. lA be in
all things approved and that Hennepin County is hereby authorized by the City to
acquire all rights of way, permits and/or easements required for said improvement
in accordance with said Layout. No. lA
Dated this
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of Mound
day of
CERTIFICATION
19
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution is a true and correct copy of
a resolution presented to and adopted by the City Council of Mound
at a meeting thereof held in the City of Mound Minnesota on the
. day of __1 19 as disclosed by the records
of said City in my possession.
(Seal)
- - - - -- City Clerk
• •
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
HENNEPIN
LM 935 -3381
25 January 1978
Mr. Leonard L. Kopp, Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Kopp:
Re: CSAH 125 at Black Lake
Hennepin County Project 7586
Ep1N CO
Attached is one copy of Layout and Profile No. 1A, dated September 13, 1977,
for the above referenced project.
We are requesting the review, approval and authority to commence acquisition
of any necessary right of way by formal City Council resolution. A sample
resolution is attached.
If you have any questions, please call me at 935 -3381.
Ver " 'truly you
Don S. Spielmann, P. .
Chief- Design Division
DSS /DWS:Iar
Enclosure
HENNEPIN COUNTY
an equal opportunity employer
3 Ys
0 •
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -32
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Dock Inspector - Park Keeper
At the Budget discussions last fall, the salary scale for the Dock Inspector
was discussed and established temporarily at $4.25 per hour.
Attached hereto is a copy of a letter from the Public Works Director suggesting
a wage scale rate that is in line with what other suburbs pay park keepers.
The scale attached meets with the approval of the Union and the Dock Inspector.
It is recommended that the following scale be adopted for the Dock Inspector:
0 - 6 Months
7 - 12 Months
13 - 18 Months
After 18 Months
$5.39 per hour
6.29 per hour
6.59 per hour
6.90 per hour
Note: This scale is slightly less than the Street and Water Maintenance rate.
Leonard L. Kopp 1
3 'VY
1�
,1,
Adbk
ON LAKE MINNE70NKA INDIAN BURIAL MOUNDS
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD TELEPHONE
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472 -1155
January 23, 1978
TO: Mr. Kopp
FROM: Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Wages, Parks Department
As requested here is a suggested wage schedual for the Dock Inspector /Parks
Maintenance person.
Starting Wage ..................$5.39
6 - 12 Months ..................$6.29
12 - 18 Months .................$6.59
After 18 Months ................$6:90
As was suggested the above reflects a fifteen dollar a month reduction from
Sewer/Water/Street Maintenance wages, $180.00 a year difference is approximately
1.2% difference which is what the above wages are figured from.
Respectfully,
Robert A. Miner
Public Works Director
RAM /jcn
3f3
0
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -35
•
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Liquor Checks
Attached is a list of NSF checks issued the Liquor Store that
we have been unable to collect.
All of the checks have been turned over to the Attorney who
will continue to try for collection.
It is recommended that the Council, by resolution, authorize
these checks to be written off.
F�' C--Hj
6� � Le nard L. Kopp
.3 Yz
•
City of Mound
Mound, Minnesota
January 25, 1979
•
TO: City Manager
FROM: Accounting Clerk
SUBJECT: Reimbursement to MM Account (01427 -9) for Uncollectible Checks
Following is a list of "Bad Checks" taken at the liquor store. Every effort
has been made to collect. Checks were issued from the MM .Account to remove
those listed from the bank statement. Request is made for fi124.75 to bring
the MM Account back to $250.00.
NAME
DATE OF CHECK
AMOUNT
Bruce Addington
July 22, 1977
$ 3.90
Michael Tankersley
9 -16 -77
25.23
Margaret Strandberg
7 -13 -77
5.98
Kathy Krotzer
6 -3 -77
10.00
Mark Howley
6 -13 -77
3.80
Denise Carlson
7 -14-77
12.11
Betty Davidson (Cygnus Corp.)
8 -8 -77 ,3
44.11
Anthony Miller
10 -22 -77
9.62
Donna Hendrickson
10 -27 -77
10.00
$12 +4.%5
3'! /
• •
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
February 1, 1978
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 78 -9
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: The City Manager
SUBJECT: Boy Scout Troop 569
Boy Scout Troop 569 of the Bethel Methodist Church will visit the
Council on February 7th.
Bruce Melenich is the Scout Master and about 10 scouts will be in
attendance.
L onard L. Kop
7 4/n
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
N/ 6-P
L.M.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE
February, 1978
Thursday 2- 2 -78 Special Meeting of the Board of Directors
8:00 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Road
Saturday 2 -11 -78 Boat Storage, Mooring & Launching Committee
7 :30 a.m., Harts Cafe, Wayzata
Saturday 2 -18 -78 Executive Committee
7 :30 a.m., Harts Cafe, Wayzata
Monday 2 -20 -78 Lake Use Committee
4 :30 p.m., LMCD Office, Wayzata
Wednesday 2 -22 -78 Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors
8:00 p.m., Freshwater Biological Institute, - Navarre
2 -1 -78
.33�
0
PHLEGER AND REUTIMAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
401 EAST LAKE STREET
WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391
GARY L. PHLEGER
ROBERT W. REUTIMAN, JR.
Feb:nlary 1 ", 1978
Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager
City Offices
Mound, 1,1innesota 55364
Re: City of Mound vs. Heller
Dear Leonard:
`1 �l
i
i
}
612- 473 -732B
We obtained on behalf of the city a default judgment on
January 30 for the sum of $50.00 regarding the Stop Payment
check. T am turning the pending Mound files over to Timothy
Piepkorn and this will be one of the files he can follow
through on to try to collect the judgment.
Yours c ly,
Gar L. Wleger
GLP:Ij
33F
• .
CITY OF MOUND
PROSECUTIONS - JANUARY 1978
TIME RECORD
Date Function
1 -5 -78
Correspondence re check case
1 -5 -78
Revocation hearing
1 -9 -78
Interview
117 -78
Trials and pretrials
1 -24 -78
Arraignments and plea
1 -71 -78
Draft complaint
1 -30 -78
Conciliation court
1 -30 -78
Prepare for trials
1 -31 -78
Pretrials
Time
:15
2:10
:45
3:55
1:20
:30
:50
1:20
3 :40
14:45
J
.337
EHLA AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS
FIRST NATIONAL -SOO LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 339-8291 (AREA CODE 6121
February 1, 197$ File: Financial Consultants: Ehlers and Associates
Please distribute to governing body members
k
1
Surplus funds: Retire debt? Invest?
A number of clients have inquired about the best use of surplus debt sinking funds. Is it
better to solicit tenders of outstanding bonds? Call bonds? Or invest funds until maturity
of the bonds?
A tax exempt organization generally should not buy tax exempt bonds - -even its own bonds.
Maturity for maturity, quality for quality, it can safely invest at yields which can be
1 to 22% higher. It should exercise the call option only at a yield (amortizing any call
premium) higher than it can get on other instruments.
In most jurisdictions, once a municipal debt
(bond) is prepaid it is retired and cannot be
reissued for cash. On the other hand, invest-
ments in other, market obligations can be con-
verted to cash on short notice.
Thus, investing funds instead of buying its own
tax exempt bonds, a community receives a higher
return on its money, greater flexibility and
its net debt is no higher than if bonds are
actually retired.
Another possibility is to cut taxes: give the
taxpayers use of the funds. In principle,
this is a good alternative since a government
is not normally in the business of investing
constituents' funds. Good, that is, if the
issuer has sufficient reserves to protect
against reasonably forseeable contingencies.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
I
t,,SHiP_,PI_N_
G LINES
11 �� V I "
WULVI r -
"I know that's the correct term, Finley, but
couldn't we call them something else beside
'Sinking Fund Bonds' ?"
(Used with permission of the artist and
* * * * * * * The Wall Street Journal)
The bond market remains reasonably stable not-
withstanding buffeting of the dollar, increases
in the prime rate and the Federal discount rate
and the inflationary implications of huge social
security tax increases. Some relief from upward
pressure on tax exempt yields is due to the
Treasury's outlawing most IDB refundings. If that
hadn't happened tax exempt rates would have risen
significantly. The Dow -Jones Index of tax exempt
yields is 6.45 %, up from 6.14% December 1.
Have a good year,
rEHLE ND ASS CIAT ,
. Ehlers
Dow -Jones Index 6.45%
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Monday, January 16, 1978
ffioso.�
S
CITY OF i10". D
?Mound, I'Iinnesota
Nonth of
Monthly Activity Report of Street Department & Shop
Work Units
T'nis
P'Ionth
Last
Month
This Year
to Date
To Date
Last Year
Patching # ?80
Snow Removal
Sidewalk Snow Removal #28?
Street B12dina #283
Storm .Serer Plaint. #284
C.B.D. %Iaintenance #285
Lo_
Materials Transport 286
9
/.,,j c
Residzntial Sweeoing #287
1 1
Clerical #288
�
l
G�
C%S
Street, Seal Coated 08
P2ver #290
CJ
C.B.D. Swe-e ing #291
Sidewalk Maint.
Street Sand & Ice Control #293
/
C�
p�
disc• #2 5
-J
c 2
Signs #?96
(J
•--'
Shoo i•Ia i ntena nce #299
EQClip. Service - Operators 4,2
7'
Street. Li o_ hti no.: (Xmas) #320
U
Ce-mat--ry #3 ?1
L/
..3s
CITY Or NDUND
Mound, Minnesota
?Month of ��.�..
monthly Activity Report Sewer Department
Work Units
This
Month
Last
?Month
This Year
to Date
Last Ye
to Dat
Administration Am
/
Station ii;aint. & Insp. #602
Office Routine ,603
31
19
?taint. & Repair #605
a
Schools #617
CH
Sewer Maint. Cleaning #619.
V
Hiscellaneouse #621
J3 It
CITY OF MOUND
• Mound, Minnesota
Page 1 Month of�fa—"
Monthly Activity Report of Water Department
This
work Units Month
Last
Month
This Year
to date
Last Ye;
to date
�Bio. of Water Customers
.,Dater Produced (Gallons) Se�S "'�
_
2 I 'Cc'
.ti �' _'� ti t'�' �
6 7 1-&
a `.e r Consumed ---
-'
No. of Fire Hydrants
Hydrants Flushed - Man Hours
Hydrants Repaired - Man Hours
C9
2
jH•ydrants Thawed Out - Man Hours �%
0
%
Hydrants Replaced - Man Hours 0
0
D
�
Hydrants Painted - Man Hours
Main Breaks
Hydrants Inspected �2
2-
o. Times Checked Pump rfl
o. Times Checked Pump #2 31
.'', /
�31
3 1
No. Times Checked Pump 113 -
31
No. Times Checked Pump 774 31
31
3 i
f
No. Times Checked Pump #5 1 ?%
Curb Boxes Replaced
Curb Stops Replaced
C1
4
Curb Boxes Lowered
lCurb Boxes Raised
Curb Boxes -- Man Hours � %
� /
E ,?_ %
yLocating
�
j- ervice Connections Installed
4
,33.3
_t
• CITY OF MOOD
Mound, Minnesota
Page 2 PZonth of pO -f 2
Monthly Activity Report of Water Department -
Worl} Units
This
Month
Last
Month
this dear
to date ��,
Last
to dai
o. of Turn Offs
%
No.,.-of Turn. Ons
9
7
No, of ?.'tern Offs Non -Pa ent
0
0
0
�
~_
No. of Turn Ons Non -- Payment
CJ
CJ
0
-
No. of Meters Tested
lNo.
of %inters Re aired
o. of Meters Replaced
No. of Meters Read
�1%
/
i 7
10110
No. of Deters Read (Request)
_
Cutside Readers installed
-3 3
og�
Water Sam 1es - Man Hours
6"
3
�.
Com laints Investigated
G
/
n
1
s�lC o', c.- -e CA LL-'C-
9
7
9
:�
19
7
/G,
c
7
L
416
0 0
MOWTH OF J'-(5
CITY OF NOTID
Mouimj
MOMTEILY ACTIVITY REPORT OF LIQUOR DEPAR.aTENT
7 —o ��9T& I -ro Y4 7'-C-
SAIES THIS MIMI- UST FILONTH THiEAR LAST YEAR
HO' M, OFF SAME.- 3 3, 7o 7, 0, g5-6. 33, 70 7. 33. &S-7.
C mparlocin Vf 1,11critbly Su]'Las
19
Month ?z "Yeav 33 7074r 33 4 �s' A 96 `��
331
•
January 26, 1978
To: Labor Relations Subscriber Service Members
I am writing as chairman of the LMC Personnel Management
Services Committee to bring you up to date on the renewal of
the Labor Relations Subscriber Service. My letter has the
M
following three purposes:
N
d'
1. To transmit herewith your 1978/79 statement for
U)
L
the LRA subscriber service.
CU
2. To review basic terms of this service and indicate
•ir+
O
changes in the 1578/79 agreement between the
■ ®
LMC and LPA.
3. To advise you of a fee incroase planned for the
1.979/80 agreement year so you have time to
.�
make adequate provision in dour. 1979 budget.
i�
St e t for 1 j� `7 rti � 'V ear
�... atei.;�._i� .. I £' '7 171 e mc.nl: � e�,:
ff
■ ■�
(�
your stateme nt is attac;ed, The a:;;ount remains the carne as
lzast year. Please remit y:-)ur clh.ec lr, to the League of Minn °sofa
a if -;S jl;St a SOUn aS i:iOS-SlblU.
Ci i.
``D
/
Services to Subscribers
cc
The services provided by LRA unCier V-,e 1976/79 agrei<.inept (Mlarch
15, 1978 -- ML6rch 14, 1979) remain exactly the same: Gs the previous
CU
agreement. In summary, the following services are provided to
governmental agencies which subscribe the labor relations service:
.Ew
®
1. One principal member of the Consultant's firm will
participate in joint negotiations with I.U.0.E., Local
49. The principal member will also participate and
■
O
advise the subscriber in mediation and arbitration
0
~
procedures which may occur in the joint negotiations,
and which arise concerning the administration
grievances
of the jointly negotiated contract.
2. One principal member of the Consultant's firm will
participate in joint negotiations with I.B.T. , Local
No. 320. The principal member will also participate
and advise tho subscriber in mediation and arbitration
telephone: 869 -7521 (612)
an equal opportunity employer
33o
Labgr Relations Subscriber Service Members
,January 26, 1978
Page Two
procedures which may occur in the joint negotiations, and
grievances which arise concerning the administration of the
jointly negotiated contract.
3. Advice to subscribers in negotiations and mediation with other
organized employee groups, and advise such subscribers on
arbitration problems.
4. Individual subscribers may seek legal opinions through the
Consultant on specific points, but any expenses incurred beyond
the services of the Consultant will be the responsibility of the
requesting jurisdiction.
5. Prepare research studies, revise contract language, analyze
arbitration decisions, develop arbitrator profiles, make presentations
to elected officials, and otherwise assist all subscribers in address-
ing collective bargaining problems.
6. The Consultant shall, if authorized by the Chairman of the League's
Personnel Management Services Committee, provide assistance or
participate in negotiations, mediation, or arbitration of a subscriber -
union dispute not covered by this Agreement, provided that the problem
may li�ive a pattern- setting impact upon collective bargaining generally
in the Twin Cities area.
Only two changes were made in the 1978/79 agreement and both relate to consultant
fees. Beginning with the 1974/75 agreement, the consultant has been provided with
a fixed monthly retainer of $1500 for office, overhead and miscellaneous support
services. Irn addition, the principal consultant has been paid $21 per hour. for
services rendered. The monthly retainer remains the same. However, the $21
per hour fee has been increased to $26 per hour in the 1978/79 agreement.
The second change relates to the hourly fee charged by the principal consultant
for services rendered to subscribers beyond the scope of the agreement. Prior to
March 15, 1978 that rate has been $35 per hour. The new 1978/79 agreement
provides for a rate of $40 per hour. The corresponding LRA rate for non - subscribers
is $45 per hour.
Increase in User Fees for 1979/80 Acreement Year
The current fee schedule is as follows:
32 9
Labor Relations Subscriber Service Members •
jantrary- 26, 1978
Page Three
Population Category Amount
Under 5, 000
$ 500
5,000 - 9,999
750
10,000 - 14,999
1050
15,000 - 19,999
1400
20,000 - 29,999
1800
Over 30,000
2250
In addition, the AMM and LMC each contribute $3, 000 per year.
It appears that the existing financial condition of our fund together with a con-
tinuation of the current number of subscribers paying current fees will provide
adequate money to finance 1978/79 agreement services even with the $5 per
hour increase in the consultant hourly rate. It will be tight and we vvil.l definately
require a fee adjustment in 1979. However, we wanted to give you ample notice
so you could plan for the increase in your 1979 budget.
Consideration was given to how, the fees should be adjusted for 1979. It was
finally concluded that it made sense to stay with the existing population categories
and simply make a percentage adjust:rient.
As you are all aware, the'', extent of specific services received by the municipality
and the amount of time devoted to any single municipality varies from year to
year. In some years a specific city may require very little direct service while
in other years, services received may far exceed the fee paid. However, most
fl artici.pating municipalities do benefit collectively from the assistance provided
in one or both of the Local 49 and Local 320 negotiations. In addition., changes
in pay rates and fringe benefits in one community in the metropolitan area ultim-
ately have an effect on others, and fo_ this reason, every community should be
concerned that good labo relations services are available for use to all. Thus,
the fees paid by participating agencies are fixed on population rather than
assessed on an actual usage basis.
The current fee schedule has been in effect since the 1974/75 agreement year.
This will make a total, of five years without change including the 1978/79 agreement
year.
The new fee schedule shown below retains existing population categories, but has
been increased by twelve percent and rounded to the closest $25.
2-9
0 0
Labor Relations Subscriber Service Members
January 26, 1978
Page Four
Population Category Amount
Under 5,.000
$ 575
5,000 - 91999
850
10,000 - 14,999
1175
15,000 - 19,999
1575
20,000 -29,999
2025
Over 30,000
2525
Please determine your category based on the most recent Metropolitan Council
population estimate and include the appropriate amount in your 1979 budget.
Do not hesitate to give me a call if you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
\'J yo
�f� !
v
Wayne S. Burggraaff
City Manager
WSB /ea
32,7
WHHS
Meeting with Municipal and County Officials,
Minnetonka City Hall, Community Room
January 19, 1978 Nr
MINUTES
1
PRESENT: Kay Bochert, Minnetonka; Commissioner E.F. "Bud" Robb, Hennepin
County Board; Donna Gustafson, Plymouth; Debbie Harmon, Wayzata;
Leonard Kopp, Mound City Manager; Kay Grayden, Deephaven Council;
June Barron, Hopkins; Ginny Miller, Hopkins; Patti King,
Suburban Public Health Nursing Services; John Elwell, St. Louis
Park City Manager; Jan Haugen, Shorewood Council; Jim Willis,
Plymouth City Manager; Frank Boyles, Plymouth City Staff;
Cindy Foster, Deephaven; Jan Guetschow, Interchurch Community
Assn; Mary Hathaway, Excelsior; Bob Grewell, Minnetonka City
Manager; Jan Hornick, Excelsior Council; Jerre Miller, Hopkins -
Mayor; Benjamin Withhart, Mound Council; Bill Craig, Hopkins
City Manager; Dick Harmon, Wayzata Council; Ethel Graves, St.
Louis Park; Darlene Kvist, Long Lake; Ray Cummings, Hennepin
County Office of Planning and Development; Commissioner Nancy
Olkon, Hennepin County Board; Phil Eckhert, Henn. County O.P.D.;
Commissioner Richard Kremer, Hennepin, County Board; Ron Rankin,
Minnetonka City Staff; Commissioner Jeff Spartz, Hennepin County
Board; Colleen Faber, Minnetonka Public Safety; Bob DeGhetto,
Minnetonka Council; Tracy Whitehead, WHHS Chairperson;
Marcy Shapiro, WHHS; Gary Kelsey, WHHS; Ingrid Choin - Nemzek, WHHS;
Howard Karger, WHHS; Philip Rice, WHHS; Pam Nelson, WHHS
I. Introductions
Meeting was opened by Tracy Whitehead, Chairperson, West Hennepin
Human Services Planning Board, at 3:15 P.M.
II. Background of Funding of Community Board
Tracy Whitehead read the Resolution regarding County /Municipal funding
of the planning boards entered by County Commissioner Ticen, Chairman
Ways and Means Committee, and gave some background information on past
funding of WHHSPB.
The Resolution has been tabled until some time in February or beginning
of March to allow for more input by the municipalities regarding the
funding of the planning boards.
III. Discussion by County Commissioners of the Resolution and Why It Was
Introduced
The need for coordinated human services planning in the suburban areas
brought about the funding of the planning boards in South, Northwest,
and West Hennepin by the County. In 1975, the municipalities were
first confronted with the funding question. Funding..wa,s, however,
-2-
continued on a yearly basis by the County. The Resolution by Ticen
was drawn up in an attempt to have the municipalities share in the
funding.
It was also mentioned that the City of Minneapolis is now interested
in forming planning boards for human services, which would create an
additional financial burden for the County.
There was agreement among the Commissioners present as to the need
for the services of the existing planning boards, and Commissioner
Kremer thanked board members for their time and talent.
IV. Open Discussion
Among others, the following points were brought out in the open
discussion:
1. The need for a definition of who should do the planning.
2. Suburbs share many of the same problems of the city, only spread
out over a larger area.
3. Need for coordination of services.
4. Tight budget situation for both County and municipalities.
5. Municipalities are at their levy limit. Issue of municipalities
considering sharing in funding of the planning boards.
6. Decentralization Issue. How centralized do we want planning?
The planning boards are a form of decentralization.
7. The need for coordination of human services.
8. Disproportion of money spent in city as opposed to suburbs.
9. Need for planning boards not to spend valuable time on justifying
their existence, but rather on planning for human services.
10.. Very few services available in suburbs.
11. Defining what benefits County /municipalities. Identify functions
so that municipalities and County can make some decisions.
12- Human services are a County responsibility.
13. The need for planning boards to continue educating public regarding
human services.
14. Request that County listen to needs of suburbs through this
planning board.
15. Support for community planning boards and what they are doing.
Tracy Whitehead thanked everyone for coming and sharing ideas and
suggestions. A special thank you was extended to the four County
Commissioners who attended the meeting: E. F. "Bud" Robb, Nancy Olkon,
Jeff Spartz, and Richard Kremer.
Meeting was adjourned at 4:40 P.M.
Ingrid Choin - Nemzek
Recording Secretary