The URL can be used to link to this page

86-07-22 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of the July 8, 1986, Regular Meeting Pg. 1422-1430 2. Presentation of Commendation to Bill Goblirsch 3. PUBLIC H~ARING: Delinquent Utility Bills 4 pUBLIC HEARINGi Proposed Subdivision, (Preliminary & · Final Plat Approval) 23-117-24 13 0003/ 0004/0005/0006/0008, 58XX Beachwood Rd. 5. ~SE #86-~28' Mueller-Lansing Properties, 2240-2242- 2244-2246 Commerce Blvd., PID #13-117- pg. 1431 pg. 1432-1433 Pg. 1434-1449 24 33 0042/0043 pg. 1450-1455 Request: Sign Variance 6. Liquor Liability Insurance (Dram Shop) pg. 1456-1463 7. Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Quit Claim Deed to $andra.Nel'son for Lot 1, Block 15, Devon, PID #25-117~ ~.~i.i Pg. 1464-1465 24 11 0046 8. Comments & Suggestions from Cit~{zens Present 9. Resolution Authorizing Application for Conveyance from State of Certain Tax Forfeit Lands pg. 1466-]469 10. Resolution .Reconveying (if necessary) Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Back to the State and Requesting the County Board to Impose Conditioins on the Sale of said Tax Forfeit Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners of Adjoining Lands 11. Resolution Releasing Certain Tax Forfeit Lands to Hennepin County for Public Auction and Certifying the Special Assessments 12. Resolution Authorizing Dispatch and Use of City Equip- ment and Services by City Manager in Emergency Situations 13. Request for Utilities - City of Minnetrista 14. Payment of Bills pg. 1470-1479 pg. 1480-1487 Pg. 1488-1505 Pg. 1506-1530 Pg. 1531-1545 Page 1 420 1~. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. June 1986 Monthly Financial Report as Prepared by John Norman, Finance Director B. Planning Commission Minutes - July 14, 1986 C. Metropolitan Council Provisional Population Estimate - April 1, 1986, for City of Mound and other Metropolitan Communities 16. Adjourn pg. 1546-1548 Pg. 1549-1550 Pg. 1551-1554 Page 1 421 105 July 8, 1986 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING JUL2 8, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, July 8, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle Jr., City Clerk Fran. Clark, City Attorneys Curt Pearson and Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler and the following interested citizens: Cheryl Grand, Steve Coddon, Milt Seaman, Harlan Brue, Gary Haugen, Jean McNeill. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. He then noted that items #2 & #4 have been withdrawn from the Agenda and there would be an addition to the Agenda, a request to hook-up to Mound sewer by Jean McNeill. The Minutes of the June 24, 1986, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Councilmember Peterson asked, that the following be added to page 96 under Cooks Bay Estates: 5. The lot layouts will allo~ various designs in housing. Councilmember Smith asked that the word "fictitious" be deleted in his reason for voting no and "fiction" be inserted. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Smith to approve the Minutes of the June 24, 1986, Regular Meeting, as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ?UBLI.C HEARING: PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THREE POINTS BLVD. ABUTTING LOTS 1~, 14 & 15, BLOCK 25, SHADYWOOD POINT The City Planner explained the request of Brian Zubert and stated the Planning Commission and the Staff have recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak for or against the proposed vacation. Bob Fields, representing Brian Zubert, stated that this vacation will allow the proposed new houses to be lined up with the other homes on the block. The Mayor closed the public hearing. 106 July 8, 1986 Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~=86-81 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE CITY A UTILITY EASEMENT OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS THAT PART OF THE DESCRIBED VACATED JENNINGS ROAD (NAVAJO ROAD) The City Attorney stated that Mr. Fields should tell Mr. Zubert that in order to have the vacated portion added to the property descriptions of Lots 13, 14 & 15, he would probabl~ have to go for a Proceedings Subsequent. This will also clean up his titles to the properties. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $86-S18~ Slq & S20: STEVE CODDON~ LOTS 6~ 7 & 8~ BLOCK ~? REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES~ LOT SIZE VARIANCES & FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The City Planner noted that Mr. Coddon has asked that Case #'s 86-519 and 520 be withdrawn as he is in the process of acquiring additional land adjacent to the parcels. The Planner stated that the Staff recommendation is to approve the lot size variance on Lot 8 because it falls within 90 percent of the required lot area. 'The lot has 9,640 square feet and 10,000 square feet is required. The Staff also recommended approval of the front yard setbac~ variance because it meets the hardship criteria. The Planning Commission recommended denial because they would like to see the entire plan if Mr. Coddon acquires Lot 5 to go along with Lots 6, 7, and 8. Polston moved.and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID ~13-117-2~ 22 0046, PLANNING COMMISSON CASE $86-518 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MODIFICATION OF THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HEIGHT & WIDTH REGULATIONS'FOR HOUSING The City Planner stated that this proposal has been modified since the original presentation so that the Height minimum was lowered from 15 feet to 12 feet. This will not infringe on manufactured or stick built housing. He further reported that of the random samplings of other Zoning Codes, several do have these kind of provisions. 107 July 8, 1986 CounciImember Jessen stated she is in favor of the' minimum standards because it will make more liveable and attractive homes for the future, will increase the value of different neighbor- hoods and will increase the tax base. Councilmember Paulsen agreed. The Council discussed the width limitation and how it was figured on a multiple of three. It was decided t'hat this part of the modification should read "... where the length of the main structure exceeds the width of the main structure excluding garage by more that a multiple of three." Steve Coddon was present and stated that Mound is a unique city with a lot of homes that are less that 20 feet wide. He stated he is against this modification because it would make all older homes less that 20 feet in width nonconforming thus requiring variances. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to continue this item until the next meeting in order to publicize this proposed modification more and gain more input from other builders in the city and the public. Mayor Polston and Councilmember Smith stated it has already been publicized, a public hearing was held, and now is the time to deal with the issue. The vote. was 2 in favor with Jessen, Peterson and Polston voting nay. Motion failed. Jessen moved and Peterson seconded the following ordinance amendment: ORDINANCE 9488 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.410 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE TO ADD HEIGHT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS Councilmember Paulsen stated he would like to have a list of all the homes that would become nonconforming as a result of this amendment. Councilmember Peterson asked how the 12 feet height would be measured? The City Planner explained it would be the ground line to the tip of the roof and that the full explanation of measuring is in the Zoning Code. Councilmember Smith asked why we need this proposed amendment? The City Planner explained that the Building Inspector received a permit application for a 14 foot by 66 foot unit. This was a manufactured unit, but this was not material because it could have been stick built. The 108 July 8, 1986 ' Planning Commission reaction was that this was not the size of residence that was in conformance with what was perceived to be the norm in the community. The result was this proposed modification to height and width. Councilmembers Peterson and Jessen agreed to amend the above ordinance as proposed earlier with the 12 feet high limitation and adding "excluding garage" in the width limitations. The vote on the amended motion was 3 in favor with Paulsen and Polston voting nay. Motion denied. ~/~r~~ " Mayor Polston stated that he voted no because he felt we already have a minimum square footage requirement for homes and he does not want'to get into regulating the height and width of homes. As long as a home meets the square footage requirement, the setbacks and is structurally sound he has no problem with height and width"of a home. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE: TO AMEND THE RECREATION EOUIPMENT DEFINITION IN THE ZONING CODE.& MODIFY THE EXTERIOR STORAGE PRO- VISIONS (SECTION 2~.702) MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Paulsen to set August 12, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to amend the recreation equipment definition in .the Zoning Code and modify the exterior storage provisions (Section 23.702). The vote was unanimously in favor. MotAon.carried. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE: SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY BEACHWOOD ROAD MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Smith to set July 22, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on the subdivision of property - Beachwood Road area, PID ~23-117-24 13 0003/0004/ 0005/0006/0008. The vote was Unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from the citizens present. There were none. LIOUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE (DRAM SHOP} The City Manager explained the letter submitted by Mr. Earl Baily. There is no data available to advise the Council on exactly what amount of dram shop insurance it should require over and above what the State requires except what other municipalities are doing and what other businesses in Mound are providing for coverage. Mr. Bailey is still recommending that the Council increase the requirement for dram shop insurance be $300,000. 109 The City Attorney, asked that, because he was not at the last two meetings, he be given time to look at what was done during those meetings. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Paulsen to table this item until the next meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LOST LAKE SUBDIVISION - DOCK PROPOSAL The City Manager explained that the last time this was brought up. it was referred to the City Attorney for his opinion on whether the City could consider using the area it owns adjoining the Lost Lake Subdivision for docks which would only be used by the residents of that subdivision. The City Attorney has by letter explained that he feels the Council can permit public docks on the lands abutting the Lost · Lake Subdivision, but there should not be any indication that the lands in the Lost Lake Subdivision have priority. That would be controlled by the dock ordinance itself and its rules.' He also stated in the letter that before any dockage is permitted in the area, a total plan should be worked out for access, location of docks and other public usage of the property. Barry Schneider, developer, was present and stated he would grant public .easement to allow access to the Lost Lake area and any future walkways in the wetlands. In exchange he would like to have 9 dock sites that would be a.gailable first to the residents of the Lost Lake Subdivision. He is proposing 9 dock sites with 30 foot spacing allowing 2 boats per dock. He would pay for and install the docks and the City could collect the dock fees from them. The Mayor s't~ted he opposes this dock situation because he feels every resident should have the right to use public property and this.is limiting the use of public property to individuals who own property in the Lost Lake Subdivision. Councilmember Paulsen stated that there was a Council Resolution passed in 1977 limiting the docks on the Roanoke Commons to residents of a certain area. The Mayor then suggested he would like to hold off doing anything on this item until the study is completed for the Lost Lake area and there is a complete plan for the area. Councilmember Smith agreed. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Polston to deny the application for docks on public property adjacent to the Lost Lake Subdivision. The vote was two in favor with Jessen, Paulsen and Peterson voting nay. Motion failed. 110 July 8, 1986 There was further discussion on waiting until there is a complete plan for the area. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to table this item to a date unknown at this time. The vote was unanimously in ' favor. Motion carried. BID AWARD: LYNWOOD BLVD./FAIRVIEW LANE IMPROVEMENT The City Engineer reported that B bids were received for this project. They were as follows: Hardrives, Inc. Buffalo Bituminous Alber Construction $33,830.00 $37,075.00 $41 ,209.00 The Engineer's estimate was $40,250.00. It was recommended to award the bid to Hardrives, Inc. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $86-83 RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR THE LYNWOOD BLVD./FAIRVIEW LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO HARDRIVES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,830 .o0. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REOUEST $1 - LYNWOOD BLVD.:-~ & TUXEDO BLVD. PROJECT MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Smith to approve Payment Request $1 - Lynwood Blvd. and Tuxedo Blvd. Project in the amount of $116,709.63. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LICENSES & PERMITS The City Clerk stated that the following licenses and permits need to be approved. Public Dance Permit - July 12, 1986 Minnetonka Music Games of Skill~ License - 5-1-86 thru 4-30-87 Minnetonka Music Public Dance Permit - August 2, 1986 Our Lady of the Lake Church 'Charitable 3.2 Beer Permit - August 2 & 3, 1986 Our Lady of the Lake Church " 111 July 8, 1986 MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Peterson to authorize the issuance of the aforementioned licenses and permits. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $153,O08.93, when funds are available. A roll call vot~ was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROPOSED HOOK-UP TO MOUND SEWER The City Manager explained that Ms. Jean McNeill has purchased property in Minnetrista that abuts the City of Mound. She proposed to build a home on this property but needs to be hooked .up to Mound's sewer in order to do so. The Council discussed this situation. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Smith to refer this item to the Engineer and the City Attorney to draw up and agreement to be presented to the City of Minnetrista for this parcel to hook-up to the Mound sewer system, with all costs to be paid for by the property owner, Ms. McNeill. The vote was~unanimously in favor; Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS The Mayor explained that the Council would now go into Executive Session to discuss the matter of Contel. 9:10 P.M. The Council return from Executive Session at 10:05 P.M. The Mayor stated 'that the issue with Contel is still in the hands of the staff. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Heads June 1986, Monthly Reports. B. 1987 LMCD Budget. REMINDER: for orientation meeting on July 9, 1986, with the Maxfield Research Group regarding Lost Lake Market Analysis. D. Report from Mound City Days Committee. E. Planning Commission Minutes - June 23, 1986. F. Park Commission Minutes - June 12, 1986. 112 July 8, 1986 MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to adjourn 10:05 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS JULY 8, 1986 Batch 864063 Batch 864064 Computer Run dated 7/1/86 Computer Run dated 7/2/86 Total Bills 107,280.21 45,728.72 153,008.93 WHEREAS, Bill Goblirsch has served as a member of the Mound/Westonka School Board for the past six years with dedication and distinction; and WHEREAS, these years of service have been marked by exemplary and energetic leadership in the vital accomplishments of this board; and · WHEREAS, he was Chairman of the Mound/Westonka School 'Board for the past B years, and played a vital role in the passage of two levy referendums which allowed our schools to continue providing a high level of education for our youth; and WHEREAS, Bill has announced his resignation as a member of the Mound/Westonka School Board effective June 30, 1986. NOW, THEREFORE, I, Bob Polston, by virtue of the authority vested in mc.as Mayor, do hereby proclaim Tuesday, July 8, 1986, as BILL GOBLIRSCH DAY in the City of Mound and I do urge all residents of the Mound/Westonka School District to join in honoring this faithful and dedicated citizen. Robert D. Polston, Mayor PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE ON MAY 27, 1986 33 406 2700 32 33 424 4738 33 439 4681 42 33 &39-4948 73 3.3 439 4961 01 33 439 ,5017 O1 33 439 5023 81 33 463 4718 43 33 466 493~ 31 33 469 47q3 91 33 4[<3 4767 81 33 47.8 2854 71 33 454 3331 35 Sharon Austin Gary Paulsen John Zombori Robert Hedderson Duane Shal~er Occupant C.A Hill- Brad Nelson ~James Grady Dean ~unter Rober. t Moulton David Borrett Chester Dawson 33 487 4647 43' Swanson Masonry 33 5.30 3118 42 33 5!'i4 3065 71 33 . 3063 31 33 '578 2841..11 3.3 5'78 2871 81 33 587 3o21 o2 33 587 3o26 91 33 593 4866 53 33 596 46~8' 31 33 596 4908 81 Mary Grones Steve Kokal es Robert Smestad S Frederickson Ben Ei kout Joan Conkey David Slack Farragher & Hipp Willis Dressel Sandy Hentig Bobby Sa i n Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 52.80 Pd. Paid $15~.OO Pd. 84.99 201.20 71.50 125.57 238.83 95.25 107.23 97.52 57.42 117.O2 90.82 179.35 120.34 . 213.'11. 80.89 87.18 202.50 93.64 93.51 62.23 149.98 99.06 187.68 114.18 2700 Tyrone Ln. 4738 Galwa'y Rd. 4681WilShire Dr-. 4948 Wilshire Blvd. 4961Wilshire B~vd." 5017 Wilshire Blvd. - 5023 Wilshire B,lvd., 4718 Bedford Rd,. 4937 Brunswick Rd. 4743 Richmond Rd. 4767.Richmond Rd. :~' 28'54 Essex Rd. 3331 Tuxedo Blvd. 4647 Cumberland Rd. 3118. Donald Dr~ 3121 Donald br.'. 3065 Dundee Ln':. 3063 Devon Ln. 2841 Marlboro Ln. 2871Ma~lboro Ln. 3021 Brighton Bl,vd. '3026 Brighton. Blva. 4866 Drummond Rd. 4618 Hanover Rd. 4908 Hanover Rd. 33'596 5138 11 33 620.4738 71 33 620 4818 71 33 635 5123 91 33 638 3Zl~ 13 33 635.5223 11 33 650 4618 81 Eric Berglund James Broucksau pd'. Irene Dixon Barbara Miller ~Bhapte~ 13) Julie Gustofson G. LOngl.eY (c/b) P.L. Heckmann $111.39' 57.07 3 .2s 436.66 56.73 118.20 65.75 5138 Hanover Rd. 4738 Island View Dr. 481'8 Island View Dr. 5123 Waterbury. Rd. 3219 Warner Ln. 5223 Phelps Rd:. 4618 Kildare Rd; $3903.85 $3420.28 33 406 2700 32 33 424 4738 41 33 439 4681 42 33 439 4948 73 33 439 4961 Ol 33 439 5017 Ol 33 439 5023 81 33 463 4718 43 33 466 4937 31 33 469 4743 91 33 469 4767 81 33 478 2854 71 33 484 3331 35 33 487 4647 43 33 530 3118 42 33 530 3121 81 33 554 3065 71 33 563 3063 31 33 578 2841 11 33 578 2871 81 33 587 3o21 02 33 587 3026 91 33 593 4866 53 33 596 4618 31 33 596 49O8 81 Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 52.80 84.99 201.20 71.5o 125.57 238.83 95.25 107.23 97.52 57.42 117.02 90.82 179.35 120.34 213.11 80.89 87.18 202.50 93.64 93.51 62.23 149.98 99.06 187.68 114.18 7-17-86 33 406 2700 32 33 424 4738 41 33 439 4681 42 33 439-4948 73 3~3 439 4961 01 33 439 ,5017 01 33 439 5023 81 33 463 4718 43 33 466 493> 31 33 469 4743 91 33 4[~9 4767 81 33 478 2854 71 33 4~4 3331. 35 Sharon Aus'tin Gary Paulsen John Zombori Robert Henderson Duane Shal~er Occupant C.A Hill Brad Nelson James Grady Dean Hunter Robert Moulton David Borrett Chester Dawson 33 4~7 4647 43' Swanson Masonry 33 53© 3118 42 33 530 3121 81 33 5~'~4 3065 71 33 ~3 3O63 31 Mary Grones Steve Koka 1 es Robert Smestad S Frederickson 33 '5~'8 2841 11 Ben Eikout 33 578 2871 81 33 587 3021 02 33 587 3026 91 33 593 4866 53 33 596 4618' 31 33 596 49O8 81 Joan Conkey David Slack Farragher & Hipp Willis Dressel Sandy Hentig Bobby Sain Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 52.80 Pd. Paid $15p. OO Pd. 84.99 201.20 71 .50 125.57 238.83 95.25 107.23 97.52 57.42 117.O2 9o .82 179.35 120.34 213.'11 · 8O.89 87.18 202.50 93.64 .93.51 62.23 149.98 99.06 187.68 114.18 2700 Tyrone Ln. 4738 GalWay Rd. 4681 Wi lshire Dr. 4948 Wilshire Blvd. 4961Wilshire B3vd.' 5017 Wilshire Blvd. 5023 Wilshire Blvd. 4718 Bedford Rdi. 4937'Brunswick Rd. 4743 Richmond Rd. 4767 Richmond Rd. 2854 Essex Rd. .: 3331 Tuxedo Blvd. 4647 Cumberland Rd.~- 3118 Donald Dr.~ 3121 Donald' D.r.',. 3065 Dundee Ln';'. ,~-, 3063 Devon Ln. 2841 Marlboro Ln. 2871 Marlboro Ln. 3021 Brighton Blvd. 3026 Brighton Blvd, 4866 Drummond Rd. 4618 Hanover Rd. 4908 Hanover Rd. 53" 596 5138 11' }5 6Z0.47.38 71 3~ 620 4818 71 53 635 5123 91 3} 638 3z19 33 635.5223 11 33 65O 4618 81 Eric Berglund James Broucksau ?d. Irene Dixon Barbara Miller~Bhapte} 13} 'Juli'e Gustofson G. LOngl.gy (c/b) P.L. Heckmann ~7.07 56~73 118.20 "65.75 $3903.85 $3420 ..28 5138 Hanover Rd. 4738 Island View .Dm. 481'8 Island View Dr. 5123 Waterbury' Rd.,. 3219 Warner Ln. 5223 Phelps'Rd:. 4618 Kildare Rd~ ,! CITY OK MOUND Hound, Minnesota LANGDON VI EW NOTICE OF-PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that on July 22, 1986~ at 7:30 P.H. at the Hound City H~ll, $3ql Haywood Road, Hound, Hinnesota, the City Council will hear a request for subdivision of the prop-. erty described as follows: Those parts of Lots 17 through 22, inclusive, Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also those, parts of Lots 23 and 24, said Auditor's Subdivision Number. 168 1ylng northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of the north 15 feet of Lot 28, and lylng southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also that part of Lot.25, Auditorls Subdivision Number 168 lying southerly of the g~utherly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also all'of Lots'2$ and 27, and'the north 15 feet of Lot 28, said Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, situated in' the Clty of Hound, Hennepin County, Hinnesota (Also to.be known as 58 Beachwood Road) PID # 23-117-2~ 13 ooo3/oooq/ooos/oooG/'6~o8 Such persons as.desire to be heard with reference to the above will be given an opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS 3.Jly 8, 1986 Oan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5~41 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBJECT: Langdon View Plat Review MKA File Dear Oan: As requested, we have reviewed the most recent material submitted for final plat approval on the proposed plat of Langdon View. The following are our comments and recommendations. Preliminary and Final Plat. The information submitted does not indicate the area of each individual lot. This needs to be submitted prior to Council action. ' ~rading and Drainage. As you are aware, some site grading was done on this property by the previous owner, in fact, the site was left in quite a mess. We would suggest that the new owner contact Geotechnical Engineering, the firm which did the original soil borings · on Lots 6 and 7, and hav~ .the report brought up to date before any more fill is placed on these two lots. After the grading is completed, the slopes on the soOth side of the entire plat will need black dirt placed, seeded and mulched to prevent erosion. The new slopes created by the grading should not be greater than 3 to 1. Erosion control measures are needed to prevent excavated material from washing onto Beachwood Road until such time ground cover is established. The existing storm sewer inlet and concrete apron which extends from the catch basin in front of Lot 6 will need to be abandoned as per City requirements once this area is filled to allow overland drainage to the street. A permit may also be required from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which the developer will need to obtain before the final approval is complete. Utilities. From the records available, it appears that Lots 2, 4 and 5 will need sewer and water services installed and/or extended from the existing mains in the street. We would recommend that the developer be responsible for providing sewer and water services at the front property line of each lot. Development Contract and Performance Bond. We would recommend that the developer be required to enter into a development contract with the City to insure that the site grading and utility work is completed as required. We are suggesting that the amount of the performance bond be set at $12,000.00. The following is an estimate of the cost for the site grading and utility construction and how the bond amount was arrived at. Oan Bertrand Ouly 8, 1986 Page Two' Grading: 7 lots ~ $ 500. O0/lot = $ 3,500.00 Utilities: 3 lots $ $2,000.00/lot = $ 6,000.00 Estimated Construction Cost ........... $ 9,500.00 Bond Amount:S9,500.00 x 125% = $11,875.00 Street Assessment Deficiency. This property was assessed frontage area and 5 units for the 1978 Street Improvements. The policy in the past has been to collect for any additional units created by platting or subdivision of lots. If this policy is continued, 2 additional units at $1,170.90 per unit for a total of $2,)41.80 should be collected. Park Dedication Fee. The 1985 market value for the entire property is $17,500.00. Using 10 percent of this figure, the park dedication fee would be $1,750.00, or $250.00 per lot for 7 lots, which would be collected at the time building permits are issued. In conclusion, we would recommend approval of the final plat of Langdon View subject to the following conditions: 1. Furnish to the City an up to date soil report on Lot 6 and 7 prior to completion of the site grading. 2. Developer sign a development contract and furnish to the City a performance bond in the amount of $12,000.00 to cover grading, drainage and the installation of sewer and water services for Lots 2, 4 and 5 as per plan approved by the City Engineer. Two deficient street improvement unit charges in the amount of $1,170.90 each, for a total of $2,341.80 are to be paid. / 4. Park dedication fee of $250.00 per lot to be charged and collected with building permit fees. 5. Driveway access to all lots to be from Beachwood Road. . 6. Approval from the Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other agency requiring review. 7. City Attorney's approval of title opinion. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, OC:cah HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 2. Case No, 86-529 Pre.limlnary and Final Plat of Land - 58XX Beachwood Road; Lots 17 - 24, 26, 27 and part of 25 .and 28, Auditor's SubdiviSion No. 168; PID Numbers 23-117-24 13 0003/0004/0005/0006/0008 Adrian Johnson was present for Bank'of Minneapolis and Trust Company The Building Officiat stated this subdivision has-come through several times in the last few years. It started out about 1978; about the time Beachwood Road was improved. In 1983, they .received final approval; however, someone dropped the ball and let the. approval expire.. The City Attorney has advised that the present owner would have to go through the proceedings again. A public hearing has been see and the notice pre-published for July 22nd. 5he reviewed the Engineer's report and his recommendations' on requirements for approval of the preliminary and final plat of the proposed plat of Langdon View, The Planning Commission .had questions on ~hy Park Dedication fee was not collected on development as a wholel whether all of the. lots meet the minimum .I0,000 squat, foot lot area.requirement? how would they stop erosion from taking place? Adrlan Johnsonstated'he thought th~.bullder'would place retaining Walls with plantings:and.trees to control'-the.erosion'. It was mentioned that land could. be graded'easier prior to having construction'started on any of the lots if one developer'took over the project. Welland.mov~d and Meye-r..seconded',a'motlon 'to recommend granting of the preliminary and final plat of the-subdivislon,'Langdon View, with the staff recommendations. The vote-was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The public hearing will be held on Jul¥.22nd by the City Council. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND L AND PARCEL Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: /o+~ /7 ,.. ~¢ ~-~ ~ ¢~77 ~/, 5~,/~./~ 'All'supPortlng documents, 'such. as sketch plans, surveys',' attac!!'~ments.., etc. must be submil:ted~in i$½'"'x Il". $ize'a'nd/or 14 copies, plus'one .$½"'X ]]" copy. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of prolx,~ed 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 Reason: DATE This application must be signed by all the OWb 'ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMiSStON RECOMMENDATION= / Sept~mbe. r 27, 1983 ! , : RESOLUTION NO. 8B-160 rRESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CO.KMISSION TO APPROVE THE FIN.AL PLAT OF L~GDON VIEW SUBDIVISION PID ~23-1i7-2~ 13 000B/0004/0005/0006/0008 ¥~,W-REAS, the final plat of Langdon View has been submitted in the manner required from platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 22.0D and under Chapter A62 of the .Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City .. plan and the regulations and requirements of the lsw~ of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Plat approval requested by Richard Heggemeyer for Langdon View is approved upon compliance with 'the following requirements: Per final plat "Exhibit A". Escrow fund to be established in the amount of $1,500. Park dedication fees of $250 per lot to be spread over the lots and paid with. the building permits.' Furnish to the City, a ?performance bond in the amount of $5,500 to cover: a. grading; · ' b. drainage; .'c. sewer and water service to Lot 4; all in conformance with City approved plans and specifica- tions at the sole expense of the sUbdivider in conformance with Chapter 22 of the City Code; or if in lieu of the developer making said improvements, the City proceeds to install any ~nd all of the said improvements, under the. pro- visions of Chapter 429 of Minnesota State Statutes, the 'above mentioned corporate surety bond shall guarantee pay- sent. in full by the developer of the costs of said improve- meats upon completion and assessment of the improvements. Driveway access to Lots 1-7 .will be provided from the platted Beachwood Road. 6. Approval of any 'State or County Agencies· 7. City Attorney's title opinion approval. 8. · ?rovide sewer and water service stub-ins to'~t~ with t~e newly platted lots. 9. Two deficient street ~prov~ent unit cha~es in ~e ~ount of $1,170.~ efch (S2,B~q.BO for the ~o) are to ~ Druid or ~ssessed ~ith waivers si~ned. ~. ~t the CCty C~erk ~s hereby d~rected to supp~ of thcs resokut~on to ~e ~bove n~ed ~ner c~pletion of the requir~ents, for his use ~62.~58. C. ~m% the ~yor mod City Msnmger mre hereby ~orized to exec~ the certificate of approval on ~h~f of th~ Cit~ c~pliance with ~e foregoing resolution. D.' ~is final plat sh~l ~ filed mhd recorded date of the siEn~nE of ~e hmrdshells by the Mayor ~d.Cit~ Mansger in ~ccordmnce with ~ction 22.00 of ~e City ~e and shall ~ recorded within 1~ d~y$ of the adoption date of this resolution with one ~W ~ing filed with the City of Mo~d. ~e foregoing resolution vms moved by CouncillOr Ps, sen and seconded by Co~cilm~ber Jessen.' ~e roll,lng Council~mbers voted in the affl~stive: ~m~n, Jessen, Paulsen, ~eterson mod Polston. ~e foll~in¢ Counc~bers V%~d .in ~e ~ODe. Attest: City Clerk i ! Case No. 83-250 I I I I .; ! ! : i ! i ! ! !. : CASE NO. 83-250 LANGDON VIEW 1ann|ag Commisslon Hinutes ,ugust 29, 1983 6.Case No. 83-250 Preliminary Subdivlslon - 58XX Beachwood.Rmad Lots 17-22, Part of Lo~s 23, 24 & 28~ Lots 25-27, Auditor's Subdivision 168 Richard Heggemeyer was present.' '- Applicant is back requestlng preliminary plat approval for 7 lots on Beach~ood Road. (Previous approval ran out) Jansen questioned if 5 stub-ins for 7 lots was right and also what was frontage'on Lot 6. The Building Inspector explained there had been 3 stub-ins and ~ new stub-ins were put in with street improvements;' now there are 8--locations haven~£ been determined. ~ill find by televising if necessary. Discussed.subdivision value of' the lots {or park dedication an~ that ~11 lots are over lO,OOO.square feet. Exact figures are being calculated. Byrnes moved and Hichael seconded a motion to recommend accepting the Staff's r~commendafion for preliminary plat approval for 7 lots conditioned with clarifl- cation of lot value for the park dedication (reZest~blish value of land). The vote was unanlmously in favor. (Request Council to set public hearing 216 September 18, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-1q3 RESOLUTION GRANTING ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO. 83-160 WHEREAS, on September 27, 1983, the City Council approved Resolution $83-160, entitled "Resolution to Concur with the Planning Commission to Approve the Final Plat of La,on View Subdivision - PID #23-117-24 13 0003/0004/0005/0006/0008i' and WHEREAS, the applicant, Richard Heggemeyer, has now requested an extension of Resolution ~83-160, because he is-' having trouble with the abstracting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of.Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant a one year extension of Resolution. #83-160, until September 27, 1985. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councllmember Peterson. · The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen and Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Mayor ?to Tem' 'Attest: City Clerk AL 22t9 MOU D APPI~iCATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 2:2.03- a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE $ CASE NO. 83-150 ,ON,NG (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension 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 APPLICANT TEL. NO. ADDRE~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ T'. DATE Applicant's interest in the proper~y: This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation g;ven why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Resolution 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 TAxESIaY 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. MINUTES OF MOUND ADVISORY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION " Present: December 11, 1978 Chairman Russell' Peterson, Commissioners Gerald Smith., Harriett Dewey, Helen Newell, Hill Rennet, Lorraine Jackson and Gary Paulsen; Council Representative Gordon Swenson; City Manager Leonard L. Kopp; Cit~ Inspector· Henry Truelsenand Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Chairm~n welcomed the newly, appointed Planning Commissioners, Harriett Dewey and Bill Rennet. ' ' · Swenson'moved a~d JackSon seconded a m6tion to approve the minutes of the November 27, 1978. meeting as presented. The vote was 'unanimously in favor. Manager's Report. ' The City Manager. expiained that the application for HUD funds has to be in by January. 15, 1979 and has gotten more complex. He asked for im~ut from the Planning Commission members by phone or letter. ' Planner : ~ CitX Manager introduced charles Riesenberg, Planner, who spoke briefly on goals and.onworking out a time schedule with t~ members of the Planning Commission for the. Mound Planning Program. After completing a base map, wishes, to f) Update the Land Use Pl.an, 2) Work on Park and Transportation. Plans and 3) get into the Zoning. ·Wishes to discuss with the Planning Com- miSsio~ appropriate ways· to receive and. encourage citizen imput and insure that people ar~ knowledgeable on programs. Smith moved and Newell seconded a motion that the. first discussion meeting (2nd Monday) of each month will be for meeting with Planner. The' Vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD. OF APPEALS -Agenda Item 2. Subdivision of Land Lots 17-22, Incl. and Part of Lots 23-28, Incl., Auditor's Subd. 168 R/chard Heggemeyer was present. ~ Newel1 moved and Jackson seconded a motion to recommend to the Council that either of the plans be approved with the following stipulations: 1. Subj'ect to the Park Ordinance 2. Ail lots front on Beachwood 3. Land be graded toward Beachwood to prevent undue drainage from one building site to another. The vote was all in favor except Renner voted nay. He would like more specific information and know what Attorney says on Park Ordinance so far as land dedication. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE FEE OWNER A/C ~ ~'/~'~) /:/ ~"/*'~A'4 e/~r PL~T PARCEL ~ / &7~ / ~7~ Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: ZONING To be divided as follows: (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension 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 Reason: Square feet TO Square feet APPLICANT ~gnaturA/) ADDRESS ~'~z/ /~,2t'¢/~. ..~/~2/.Z/Z... T'<O:'''' ( ~~,-~. ~/11 Applicant's interest in the prope~y: This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the pr~e~y, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. TEL. NO. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Newel1 moved and Jackson seconded a motion to recommend that either of the plans be approved wit~ s:ipu[at£ons: [. Sub~ec: to :he Par~ Ordinance DATE 2. All lots front on Beachwood ~. Land be oraded toward Beachwood to Prevent undue drainage from ' ~ ~3 .. i · one building site to ano%her. ;!COUNCIL ACTION Concur with the recommendation of the Plannin~ATE December 19, 197'~ [[ Commission to approve the subdivision with certain l l Resolut,on No. stipulations as submitted on Plan A. ,' I!,~£'~ v",. . : ' . I ' '!/ !!'h" -~-~ rn ¢~ ' DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION I "" +~"-~') j / AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOFTAXESBY THE FEE OWNER · .J ; ..Ii , [=. '~:.;[ 'WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES --. ~ .. ~ .,, w NULL AND VOD. /%'/0 L."'"L ,, NO. 83-250 5~ PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO, 86-529 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF LANG- DON VIEW SUBDIVISION PID # 23-117-24 13 0003/0004/ 0005/0006/0008 WHEREAS,' the final plat of Langdon view has been submitted in the manner required from platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section'22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have.been duly conducted thereunder; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on July 22, 1986, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 22.00', Chapter 22, of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the preliminary plat and final plat of Langdon View Subdivision located on property described as follows: Those parts o'f Lots 17 through 22, incluslYe, Auditor"s Subdivision Number 168, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also those-parts of Lots 23 and 24, said Auditor's Sub~ivlslon NUmber-168 lying northerly of the westerly extension of the south llne of the north 15 feet of Lot 78, and lylng southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also that part of Lot.25, Auditor's Subdivision Number 168 lying southerly of :he ~utherly right-of-way 1|ne of Beachwood Road; also a11-qf Lots'2~ and 27, and'the north 15 feet of Lot 28, said Auditor's Subdi.vlslon Number 168, situated in' the City of Mound,';~Hennepin County, Minnesota (Also to.be known as 58 Beachwood Road) PID # 23-117-24 13 ooo3/ooo4/ooo5/ooo / - o8 WHEREAS, said. plat. is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the Pegb]ations and. the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota. and the City Code of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of.the City of Mound, Minnesota; A, Plat approval ls granted for Langdon View requested by Bank of Minneapolis and Trust Company upon compliance with the following requirements: 1. Per final plat, Exhibit "A": 2. Furnish the City an up-to-date soil report on Lot 6 and 7 prior to completion of the site grading. The Developer is to sign a Development Contract. and furnish the City a Performance Bond in the amount of $12,000. to cover grading, drainage and the installation of sewer and water services for Lots 2, 4 and 5 as per plan approved by the City Engineer. 4. Two deficient street improvement unit charges are to be paid PROPOSED RESOLUTION - Page 2 CASE NO. 86-529 in the amount of $1,170.90 each for a total of $2,341.80. 5. Park Dedication Fee of $250.00 per lot is to be charged and col- ]ected wlth Building Permit at the time of development. 6. Driveway access to all lots is to be from Beachwood Road. 7. Permits as required shall be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and any other agency. 8. Approval of'the land title by the city Attorney.- That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Reso]ut'ion to the above named owner and subdivider after completion of the requirements for his use. as required by M.S.A. ~462.358. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute · .the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Counc|l upon com- pliance with the foregoing resolution. This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days. of the date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager in accordance with Section 22.00 of the City Code and shall be recorded withi'n. 180 days of the adoption date of this ResOlution wi. th one copy being filed with the City of Hound. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner~ DATE: July 8, 1986 SUBJECT: sign Variance Request ~CANT: Mueller-Lansing Properties CASE NO.: 86-528 VBS FILE NO.: 86-310-A16-AO EXIS~TNG ZONING: - Commercial (B-I)' PROPOSAL: The applicant has requested a~ variance from the provisions of the sign ordinance to construct 5 signs, each 3 feet by 12 feet or a total of 36 square feet per sign. The Sign Ordinance allows roof signs if ~hey are an ~ _~art of the architecture of the building~ In such cases, signs can not extend more than 5 feet above the roof line and not exceed 75 square feet in area. The PrOPOSed signs will extend 3 feet above the roof and will total 60 square feet in area. COMMENT: The design of the exterior of'the building creates canopies at business entrances. These canopies coupled with the mansard roof limit signage locations. Although the proposed signs are technically not an intergral part of the architecture of the building, the applicant is proposing to install wood signs to compliment the exterior of the structure. Therefore, the proposal seems consistent with the intent of the ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a variance be granted to install five roof signs, four facing Commerce Boulevard and one facing Lynwood Boulevard subject to the following conditions: Each sign shall not exceed the measurements of 3 feet by 12 feet. Lighting of signs"shall ~e shielded and shall focus light only on the sign face. Free standing signs for any of the individual new businesses shall be prohibited. MINUTES OF THE HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 1986 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Ken Smith and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steve Smith; City Manager Ed Shukle; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner William Thal was absent and excused.. Also present wemthe following interested persons: Mike Mue]ler, Phil Lansing, Rick Jacobson and Adrian Johnson. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting .of June 23, 1986 were presented for consideration; Jansen stated'she didn't second the motion on page 2 to reconsider the motion to. table. Ken Smith had seconded the motion. Reese moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to approve the minutes with that correction. The vote was unani- mously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS· 1. Case No. 86-528 Sign Variance for 2240-2242-2244-2246 Commerce Boulevard; Metes and Bound~ Description, Koehler's Addition to. Hound; P'ID # 13-117-24 3~ 0042/004 . Building owners, Mike Mueller and Phil Lansing, and Rick Jacobson of Apex Con- struction~ Inc. were present. The Bui)dlng Official .reviewed the request' for a variance from the provisions of the sign ordinance to construct 5 signs on the building (model shown); four facing Commerce. Boulevard and one facing Lynwood Boulevard; each sign to be 3 .feet by 12 feet. They are proposing to roof mount them above the roof line over the top of the.newly'constructed mansards. The Sign Ordinance allows roof signs if they are anintegral part of the. architecture of the building. The applicant is proposing to'insta)l wood signs to compliment the exterior of the structure. The staff recommendation )s~for approval;:with.conditions if the Planning Commis- sion finds that it is an'integral part of the architecture of the building. The Commission quest.!oned type.of material mansards would, be? Jacobson.stated mansard would'be fire retardant lumber and signs.would be wood and have ~ome Of the colors of fascia and soff|t (belgy cream).and shakes (dark brown). Back- ground of all.the, signs will .be the same, Commission's concern With roof signs when ordinance originally discussed was.attachment of signs securely and mainte- nance of them. The Comml'ss.lon. dlscussed. Whether they would be setting a prece- dent with this signage? What Would the signage.be on the Lynwood facing sign? It will not include adve.rti~ing Of other occupants. Jacobson stated he took aesthetics Into considerat.ion and he'wanted to do something with style.and that would compliment the new mall. It was asked if there wer~ standards required for mounting signs? Ken Smith moved, an~ Welland seconded a motion to.accept the staff recommenda- tion. and approve slgnsas requested, and shown on Exhibit "A" with a I00 mile an hour-anchor.system. The vote on the.motion was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda for July 22, ]986. Case No, 86-529 Preliminary and Final Plat of Land - 58XX Beachwood Road; Lots 17 - 24, 26, 27 and part of 25 .and 28, Auditor's Subdivision No, 168; PID Numbers 23-]17-24 13 0003/0004/0005/0006/0008 Adr!an Johnson was present for Bank'of Minneapolis and Trust Company The Building Official stated this subdivision has come through several times in the last few years. It started out about 1978; about the time Beachwood Road CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO'PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSlON (Please type the following information) Case No. ~/_. L.t"~ Fee Pald .~-~ -- Date Filed /, ~o "~, Street Address of Property ~-L/~)~'~-~7~ -~--~~~~-¢~-~.,~__~ ~:~_~.~J~ 2. Legal Description Of' Property: Lot ~ ~ ~ ~. O.ner's Name FH ~ ~A~- %1 ~ Block Day Phone Address.: Applicant (If other than owner): .amp ~ .~/~ ~__,"~ fi~ 51~, /~ ~ ~- Day Phone No. ~ I~ ~ Address ~'e~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~V' '-- ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~ ~~ Type of Request: (~Varlance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation ~ Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) ~etland Permit (') P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property ~'_.4:D~)~'~ ~11~_~-!_~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /~]4~) If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No..(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request· I certify that all of the above statements .and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be-submitted herewith are true.and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described. In this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of~os~alning and removing such .notices as.may be required b~law./~ Signature of Applicant i ~J(/~ Date Planning Commlssion Recommendation: ADDr ve with staff recommendations and with a 100 mile an hour anchor system. Date 7-14-86 1 Action: Resolution No. Date 7-22-86 NAJ~E OF .~.PPLICANT ADDRESS APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERHIT CITY OF ~OUN6 · PH.ON.E Street Number CIty Zip OWNER ~L-J/~- .' (If other thap sl~pJlcan.t)v''~ Name._- " - - J Add_cress · ~ ~~. ~~~~.~~ ~) ~~.. _. . . .,. CONT~CTOR '~ ]~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~0~ ~~ ~ Name Address /n"r' - BLOCK"' "' " , ALLO~ABLE,SIGNAGE ~ ' .~- ........ "' V. ALL ARE~.~ ;~,~B~'.~ /...~ .Ft. ' TOTAL 'Ai~OITiOH~:~~F~::~.. Square Footage ZONING DISTRICT · " EXiSTING'SIGNAGE."' . .... NUHBER OF SIGNS' SQL FOOTAGE OF SIGNS DESCRIBE SIGN ~aterlals, etc:)'"lL4~ ' ' ~ '~ ~ ' '1 ' HEIGHT OF SIGN .~ ~---1~ '" ' ILLUHINATED: YES. ~ NO · SIGN SIZE BEIN~ REQUESTED '~'~-'-~-ZV'~:"I~PE OF SIGN: LENGT~' ~ TIHE SEASONAL SIGN.TO BE ERECTED~' FREE STANDING " "' PORTABLE · '~':. ' : -' : . ~A~ c..~/~ . . . PLEASE DESCRIBE. RI~QUEST AND REASOH.FOR REQUEST. "~TO i~, ~Z,-~ ~ 'T"O ' Is' sign for a' commbnlty organization and does .It meet a11 the standards ot~ Section. 55.38? I'f addlt'fonai' information Is attacheci~' Recon~enda t I o~ ~ ' Date submitted R ~185 APPROVED: Building Official 168 ' PROPOSED RESOLUTION · CASE NO. RESOLUTION NO. 8G- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSlON TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR 2240. COMMERCE BOULEVARD PID # 13-117-24 33 0042/0043 WHEREAS, the applicant, Rick Jacobson, and the owner, Mike Mueller and Phil Lansing, have requested a variance to allow roof-top signs at the commercial location of 2240 Commerce Boulevard, and WHEREAS, the Sign Ordinance Section 55.38 of the City Code requires that the roof signs only be allowed if.they are an integral part of the archi- tecture of the building with'limitations in size for signage, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the requested variance.upon certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE I.T RESOLVED that the~City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does approve the sign.variance as requested for Mueller/Lansing properties at 2240/2242/2244/2246 Commerce Boulevard, PID Numbe~13-117-24 33 0042/0043, upon the following conditions: 1. Each sign shall not exceed the measurements of 3 feet by 12.feet and be limited to 5 roof line signs as shown on Exhibit "A" and be an integral part of the architecture of th~'building. 2. Lighting of the signs shall be shielded and shall focus light only on the sign face. ~ 3. Free standing signs for any of the individual new businesses shall be prohibited. 4. Sign anchor system to meet State Building Code design requirement for 100 mile an hour wind loading (26 P.S.F.). Exhibi t'"A" ! I 5 . ' I ; · R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOC., INC. *i ~2C)~ MINN~-TONK,,A BOUL~"VARD · MINNI~TON~CA. MINN£.~O"'rA 55~.~.~ June 19, 1986 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Dear Ed, I am writing you in response to the two insurance related issues that you asked me to review and state my recommendations on. The first issue being about the City of Mound requiring all onsale liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount of public liability insurance. The second issue being the City's requiring these same liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount'of liquor liability (dram shop) insurance. First, a city requirement of public liability. After talking to many insurance people and municipalities I find that the city of Mound is one of the few cities in Minnesota to have a public liability requirement as a prerequisite to obtaining an on sale liquor license. Mone of our surrounding communities do, 'nor can I ~:$nd one of similar population to Mound that does. But that does not necessarily mean that ~mund should eliminate their requirements. Although you should look closely at it. Carrying public liability insurance, or any insurance, is certainly one means of proving financial responsibility. The question is though, should the city control the basic insurance coverages, or other business .acti~f=ie~.,. of a restaurant, or a hardware store, or a bank, or any other main street business? The "public liability" in~urance that we are addressing here covers the basic, general activities involved in running a business, any businems. It doesn't cover out of the ordinary or hazardous activities, in fact it exclUdes them. That is why a special policy like a dram shop policy is necessary. It addresses the special exposure or dangers of intoxicating people. This special exposure to the public is probably why cities control the exposure and issue licenses to a select few. Stringent requirements of the dram activity should be made without a doubt, but controls over the basic restaurant operation I question. If the City council should decide to continue with making a minimum requirement for public liability as a prerequisite for a liquor license, then I think you should consider a minimum of ~500,000 combined single limit per occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability with an aggregate of $500,000 combined single limit. -2- The City does not own, nor is it running the activity of these two restaurants that are applying for liquor, so I don't see the need to require the city oriented $200,000/$600,000 split limits that the state refers to as a city's limit for immunity. .."7his $500,000 limit is a reasonable limit and is readily available to the t~o restaurants concerned. Righer ~imits are available, but might cause financial hardships due to the high premiums being charged restaurants in 1986. A lower limit of $300,000 is the absolute minimum that you may want to consider. The price difference between $300,000 and $500,000 is only about 20%. In lieu of the price di££erence and the current trend of high court settlements, I do not recommend this lower limit. Secondly, the city requirement of a minimum limit of liability for iiouor liability (dram shop) insurance. Once again I have contacted many v~ried people to get various angles of thinking about this .topic. Apparently, most cities are requiring minimum limits around $300,000. While a few are requiring $500,000 limits and an even rarer few are requiring the state mandated minimum.of $50,000/$100,000. There are only three "active" writerS'of liquor liability in Minnesota. One of those is' the "Risk Pool." The other two are Transcontinental Insurance Company and St. Paul Company~ with St. Paul Company being very restrictive. Here is a sample of Transcontinental's premi,~s per $100 of liquor receipts: 50/100/10/50/100 000 $2.00/$100 · 3oo/3oo/3oo/3oo/3oo,ooo $4.90/$100 500/500/500/500/ 00,000- $7.90/$100 We are dealing with only two on sale l:~quor license applicants, and both of these have' liquor liability insurance readily available to them at whatever limit the Council selects. Because of this, I:hink the state minimum of $50,000/$100,000 is way too low. I 'recommend that the Council consider as :he minimum limits, $300,000 combined sin§le limit for Bodily InJu.ry each person and each occurrence, Property Damage, and Loss of Means of Support for each person and each occurrence, amd $300,000 Aggregate. When you look back at the price difference'between the $300,000 and $500,000 limit of liability youwill see about a $2,100 premium difference for each $100,000 of liquor sales. In other words, for $300,000 of liablity coverage and $100,000 in sales, the premium would be $4,900. While $500,000 of liability ~nd $100,000 in sales would be a premium ~ould be a premium of $7,000. A $2,100 difference. If liquor sales were $300,000 instead of $100,000 then the $2,100 difference would become a $6,300 difference. Thusly, I believe the $300,000 liability limit to be a reasonably acceptable minimum requirement for these times and this geographic and demographic location. If the license applicants wish to carry higher limits than this minimum then they are certainly welcome to do so. Thank you Ed for the opportunity to review these matters. I hope this input is beneficial. ' Respectfully, R.L. Youn[ldahl & Associates, Inc. 15208 MINNETONKA BLVD. · MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345 · (612) 933-7488 July 8, 1986 City of Mound Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Mound, MN Dear Ed, At the last Counail'~-meeting the Council asked myself and the City Attorney to find any evidence that would show that the State Statutory minimum Dram Shop Liability limit of $50,000/$100,000/$10,000/$50,000/$100,000 was too low. These are the results of my attempt to find evidence indicating whether or not the State's minimum limits are too low. I talked to ~. David Gorum at the Insurance Commissioner's office in St. Paul and he informs me that there are no records kept in his office that would indicate the dollar amount of settlements in Dram Shop Liability Suits. Due to the fact that he has no records of the settlements of these suits,.he offers no opinion as to what limits would be adequate. I talked to a Ms. Debbie Woodard at the. John H. Crowther Insurance Brokerage Firm. This Brokerage Firm is the main writer of Dram Shop Liability Insurance in Minnesota. Ms. Woodard had mentioned that they in their office once again do not have a record as to what the dollar amount of the Dram Shop settlements are. She did mention that many of the claims are settled out of court and thusly, no records are available. She recommended that the only possible way of getting specific information would be to find specific cases and then contact the Claims Departm~mt'~ of the various involved insurance companies. This process would take many weeks though investigating. I talked to the office of the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and was informed that they have no information at all as to the amounts of insurance that should be required in Dram Shop cases or that they would recommend be carried in Dram Shop cases. They felt that theT-area of insurance was something that was totally out of their realm. I talked to Don Riley from the Professional Insurance Agents Association of Minnesota he also stated that to his knowledge there are no records kept as to the amount of settlement in general on Dram Shop Liability cases. Once again, many of the claims are settled out of court and in private thusly, the knowledge is private and not for public record. He pointed out another issue and that was that insurance companies as a matter of practice do not oublish or make available the records of claim settlements. He advised that it would be almost impossible to get claims records out of an insurance company regarding the general issue of Dram Shop Liability. -2- I also talked to several Attorneys all of which asked to leave their name as anonymous. One of the Attorneys was a ~laintiffs Attorney another Attorney was an Insurance Company Attorney and another Attorney was a Defense Attorney. Ail of the Attorneys seemed to agree that businesses should carry the most amount of Liability insurance that they can afford to pay. It was pointed out that if ~there is not adequate insurance available, it will not stop an Attorney sueing for more than the amount of insurance that is being carried. It was pointed out that if somebody is legitimately injured for the rest of their life then the Attorney will sue for whatever he believes to be a proper amount of settlement for the neglagence that caused the accidente In summary it appears that several facts are apparent. Firstly, insurance companies do not like to make public the amount of the settlements in insurance claims. This makes it very difficult for anybody to come up with a logical dollar amount to put as an adverage settlement amount of claims. We just don't have available of minimums and maximums of these settlements. Secondly, if somebody is legitimately injured in a claim, the sky is the limit as to the amount that a neglagent party is going to be sued .for. It appears to be a question of just how much is enough. I do know that the insurance policies that are being written on this Dram Shop Liability currently all carry an aggregate amount. Meaning that the amount of coverage being written is all that is available for the policy. Which is usually for a 12 month period. If an insured has a policy limit of $50,000 per person for bodily injury and $100,000 for all of the people involved in an accident for bodily injury then the policy is saying that that is'all that is available for a 12 month period whether those amounts are used up in one claim, two claims or more claims. In talking to insurance company people, their attitude is not to take a stand on the amount of coverage of the type of coverage that a person should be carring. There stance is to simply offer what ever limits that a City Council requires. They leave the decisions both up to the individual cities and to the individual ins~reds without making a preferrence one way or the other. So it appears to boil down to a city's comfort level as to what they feel is a minimum amount of Dram Shop Liability insurance that the insureds in their city should carry to prove their financiaI responcibility for their citizens. After reviewing all of this information I still contend that a $300,000 combined single limits of liability insurance should be a minimum requirement of the city of its two on sale liquor venders. I hope that the information that I have porvided will help the Council in making this difficult decision. Res ~tfully, E . CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (512) 472-1155 July 3, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK The following is a beer or liquor and 1. Al & Alma's On-Sale & Set-Ups Wine 2. American Legion Club 3. Captain Billy's On-Sale Liquor 4. Donnie's On-Sale Liquor 5. House of Moy On- Sa 1 e Bee r Wine 6. P.D.Q. Off-Sale Beer 7. SuperAmer i ca Off-Sale Beer 8. V.F.W. Club list of establishments the dram shop insurance Off-Sale Beer '7- in Mound serving intoxicating they are providing. Insurance Provided S5OO,OOO' & $5OO,OOO aggregate $3OO,OOO & $300,O00 aggregate $5O/lOO/lO & $300,000 aggregate $5oo,ooo & $500,000 aggregate $3oo,ooo & $300,000 aggregate $300,000 $1,000,000 $300,O00 An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. ORDINANCE NO. ~87 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11.15,: 11.50, 11.80 AND 3Z.07 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO UNDER AGE PERSONS AND PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE The City Code of the City of Mound is hereby amended as follows: Section 11.15, subsection d. is amended to read as follows: de No liquor shall be sold to any person under the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes. Section 11.50, Subdivision 14, subsection (1) is amended to read as follows: (1) Prior to the issuance of an "on-sale" liquor license, the applicant shall file (a) a public liability insurance policy providing coverages of at least $300,000 because of injury to any one person in any one occurrence and $300,000 because of injury to two o~ more persons in any one occurrence and (b) a liquor liability policy covering liability under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.801 providing coverages as set forth in Section 11.80 of this Code. Section 11'.50, Subdivision .12, amended to read as follows: subsections (6) and (7) are (6) No person under 18 years of age shall be employed in any room constituting the place in which intoxicating liquors are sold at retail "on-sale", except that persons under 18 years of age may be employed to perform this duties of a bus boy or dishwashing services in hotels .or restaurants licensed under the provisions of this section. (7) No intoxicating liquor shall be sold or furnished or delivered to any intoxicated person, to any habitual drunkard, to any person under the minimum age all'owed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes. Section 11 .50, Subdivision 16 is amended to read as follows: Subdivision 16. Restrictions Involving Sale to Minors. (1) No iicensee, his agent or employee shall serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating liquor to any person under the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes; nor shall any licensee, or his agent or employee, permit any person under the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes to be furnished or consume any such liquors on the licensed premises. Any person who may appear to the licensee, his employees or agents to be under the minimum age allowed by Chapter .340A of Minnesota Statutes shall upon demand of the licensee, his employee or agent, produce and permit to be examined an identification card, including a driver's license. Section 11 .80 is amended to read as follows: Section 11.80. Liability Insurance for Sellers of Intoxicating; Non-Intoxicating Liquor and Wine. Every person licensed to sell at retail intoxicating liquor, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine at on-sale or off-sale in the City shall demonstrate proof of financial responsibility with regard to liability imposed by Minnesota Statutes Section 340A. 801, to the City Clerk and to the Commissioner of Public Safety as a condition of the issuance or renewal of his license. Proof of financial responsibility may be given by filing: (a) A certificate that there is in effect an insurance policy or pool providing the following- minimum coverages of dram shop liability: (1) $50,000 because of bodily injury to any one person in any one occurrence and, subject to the limit for any one person, in the amount of $100,000 because of bodily injury to two or more persons in any one occurrence, and in the amount of $10,000 because of injury to or destruction of property of others in any one occurrence. (2) $50,000 for loss of means of support to any one person in any one occurrence, and, subject to the limit for one person, $100,000 for loss of means of support of two or more persons in any one occurrence. (3) The certificate shall provide that no payment of any claim by the insurance company shall in any manner decrease the coverage provided for in respect to any other claim or claims brought against the insured or company thereafter. (b) A bond of a surety company with minimum coverages as provided in clause (a), or (c) A certificate of the state treasurer that the licensee has deposited with him $100,000 in cash or securities which may legally be purchased by savings banks or for trust funds having a market value of $100,000. (d) The licensee shall provide the certificate and proof to the City Clerk at the time he applies for a new license or renewal of his license. The certificate of insurance shall show that all coverages meet or exceed the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subd. (1) and that the insurance company cannot cancel said insurance until at least 30 days written notice of said .cancellation has been served upon the City. If a new certificate of insurance is not filed with the City Clerk during the 30 day period after notice of cancellation, the license to sell at retail intoxicating, non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine shall be suspended until a new certificate of insurance is filed with the City Clerk and the Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety. (e) The City Clerk is hereby authorized to waive the foregoing requirements for non-intoxicating liquor and wine licensees with sales of less than $10,000 per year if said licensee files an affadavit from a Certified Public Accountant to show that sales are under $10,000 per' year. The licensee must also file a w'ritten commitment with the City Clerk that if sales reach $10,000, the licensee will not continue to sell non- intoxicating liquor or wine until he has filed a certificate of insurance meeting the requirement~ set forth in 11.80, Subsections (a) through (d) of this ordinance. (f) Coverages contained in this ordinance shall be considered minimum to meet the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.409, Subd. (1) and shall apply to all intoxicating, non-intoxicating liquor and wine licenses issued by the City.. Section 32.07, subsection e. is amended to read as follows: ee No sale of any non-intoxicating malt liquor shall be made to any person under guard~anshop, nor to any person under, the minimum age allowed by Chapter 340A of Minnesota Statutes. ATTEST: City Clerk Russell Peterson Mayor Pro Tem Adopted by the City Council June 24, 1986 Publish in The Laker June 30, 1986 July 22, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 87 WHEREAS, on July 25, 197~, the City of Mound issued a Quit Claim Deed to Sandra Nelson and Don d. Forchay for Lot 1, Block 15, Devon; and WHEREAS, the Quit Claim Deed was never filed and was lost by the purchasers; and WHEREAS, the City was paid for the property .and does hold an easement of record., Document 1466491, filed on May 10, 1982; and WHEREAS, the purchasers of the property have now asked that the City issue a new Quit Claim Deed for the above described property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to sign a Quit Claim Deed to Sandra Nelson, for Lot 1, Block 15, Devon, PID #25-117-24 11 0046, subject to easements & restrictions of record. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Polston was absent and excused. Mayor Pro Tem Attest: City Clerk From No. 30-M-OUIT CLAIM DEED No delinquent taxes ~nd ~ransfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of P~eal Estate Value No County Auditor bi' Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ Date: July ,19 86 (reserved for recording data) FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, the City of Monna a municipal xx;m~ corporation unde~ the laws of Minnesota , Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Sandr~ N~I .~n ,Grantee real property in Hennepin County, Minn.sota, described as follows: Lot 1, Block 15, Devon Subject to easements and restrictions of record. P.I.D. No. 25-117-24 1100 46 Lots I and 2, Block 15, Devon'are to be combined for tax' purposes and shall remain as one parcel. (If more mace is needled, continue on bsdx) together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. CITY OF MOUND Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here By It~ Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF Hennepin By It~ City Manager The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of July ,19 86 , by Robert Polston .and ~ Shukle , the Mayor and City M..~g.r of the City of Mound ,amun~r~p~] rm-rpmr'm~-;,-,m . under the laws of Minnesota , on beh~f of ~he Ci.ty o~ Mm,nd NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITL,E OR RANK) THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DB. AFTED aY ~AME AND ADDRESS): Curtis A. Pearson ll00 First Bank Place ~est Minneapolis, I~ 55~02 SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKIN0 ACKNOWL, EDGM]M~T S~temeat~ lo~ the re~ p~ps~y July 15, 1986 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: TAX FORFEIT PARCELS - TO Attached is a resolution "Authorizing the State of Certain Tax Forfeit Lands". BE RETAINED BY THE CITY Application for Conveyance from The parcel is PID #14-117-24 31 0014, Lot 13-B, Brookton and the purpose for the request is for drainage. fc enc. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEIT LANDS WHEREAS, there are certain lots in' the City of Mound which are tax forfeit; and WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council either release these lots for public auction; release for private sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because' of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance; and WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm sewer drainage, street or park purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make application to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of the lot listed below for the public purpose listed. ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ 14-117-24 31 0014 Lot 13-B, .Brookton Drainage The foregoing resolution Was moved'by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councllmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk l$~.i .. PID #14-117-24 31 O014 LOT 13-B, BROOKTON i~, ~-.\ ...,-,- APPLICATION BY GOVERNMENT. AL SUBDIVISION FOR, CONVEYANCE OF TAX-FORFEITED LAN~S Co~ ~v Cl~ 0F MOUND · ~. ~) Resolutlon ~' (Cop~ attached hereto) entl'tled: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROH THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEIT LANDS $. (Plat-#6'1530, Par. eel lqO0) resldentlal 5. ~ha~.wppl~an~ d~sLre, to obAa~ ~ai~ lan~ for the foZlowi~ p~rl~o_~: (a~) conservat |on 8. ~rla~t th.r~.i~.n~e~ for *ueh. la.r~ /or the foZZow$nE fao. mn.: ._r.dra.La~ge,., . · ]T~h~refor~ ~zppl~an~ pra~l~ tha~ ~Ld ~n~ be co~,~/e,~ to ~ /'or f~a ~ ~_&~_. ~r~. .. CITY OF HOUND CITY CLERK Co~ of. Hennep i n ,~ .' - City Clerk __J..o~./~1~ ......... ~.~.~Lof Hound ~'~.~ ........... $~bzori~e.d and rworv~ to befor~ rn~ thla dali of__ ., 19 ........ July 15, 1986 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK TAX FORFEIT PARCELS - TO BE SOLD ONLY TO & COMBINED WITH ADJOINING PROPERTIES Attached is a resolution "Reconveying (if necessary) Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Back to the State and Requesting the County Board to Impose Conditions on the Sale of said Tax Forfeit Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners of Adjoining Lands". The parcels on this resolution are unbuildable for one reason or another, or are undersized lots and should only be sold to and combined with adjoining properties. fc enc. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities, I 17o RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin· County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a number of tax parcels which do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes because of a lack of minimum area, shape, frontage, access prob- lems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation which would allow said parcel's to be withheld from public-sale and sold at a non-public sale to eliminate nuisances and dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use ordinances and Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 523, Article 39, Sect. 6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the County; and WHEREAS, a specific list of tax~forfeited lands has been provided the City and the City wishes to restrict and condition the sale of certain lands to bring them into conformance with City ordinances and land use goals; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The County Board is hereby requested to impose condi- tions on the sale of the following described lands, and is further requested to sell such lands only to owners of lands adjoining at a non-public sale so that said lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and will comply with City ordinances and regulations: REASON FOR AND CONDITIONS TOBE IMPOSED SPECIALS LEVIED BEFORE FORFEITURE LEV~ AMOUNT SPECIALS LEVIED SINCE FORFEITURE LEVy ~ AMOUNT (Lots 6 & 7, Block 14, Wychwood ) 19-117-23~32 0151 Lots do not front on a public street, Lot 7 is unbuildable due to sewer easement and should only be sold to and combined with adjoining properties NONE NONE 19-117-23 33 O128 Undersized lot to be 3180 (Lot 1, Block 12,sold only to and 3388 subj. to road, combined with ad- 3397 Pembroke) joining properties 7928 24-i17-24 44 0089 Undersized lot to be 7928 (Lot 21, Block sold only to and 7, Arden) combined with ad- joining properties $ 49.21 $ 348.78 $ 166.75 $ 2,337.62 $ 1 ,426.21 NONE NONE 3-117-24 42 0070 Undersized lot to be (The part lying sold only to and Wly. of Ely. combined with 12 ft. of Lot joining properties 9, Block 5, MN. Baptist Summer 25-117-24 11 0145 Undersized lot to be (Lot 17, Block sold only to and 19, Devon) -combined with ad- 'joining properties 3180 $ 26.81 3388 $ 293.43 5803 $ 33.3O 8297 $ 1,211.15 NONE NONE The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale, subject to the County imposing the aforestated condi- tions and the lien of special assessments on said lands. The City of Mound is releasing the above properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk o'l' 0 X~SS3 I ; OC) · '~ 0 ~ '~' ~t 0 ~d , ,,-%- NOZHoI~8 o_ _J N 'ON ~.~S.'~ I' X..4539001H ~: oA'II /~77 R£CONYEYXNCE 01~ FORFEITED I~ND$ TO STAT£ OF ]~IINNE$0TA BY ¢OYEI~]~ENT,tL SUBDI¥I$ION$ ' W~EREAS, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 282.01, Subd{vlslon 1, the STATE OF MI-~EEEOTA, ss trustee under Minnesota St~tu.tes, ~ect~on 281.25 conveyed to ~ oF ~o~ , a ~ov~men~] subdivS~on, the l~nds d~cr~bed, to Be used for ~n authorized publ~c use, and .' WHERZ~S, Saia governments] su~ivis]on 'has failed to put such land ~ the ~ublic use fo~'wh~ch is was conveyed~'has abandoned t~e public use for which such land was ~nveyed, and ~] :v of ~ound now desir~ to reconvey said la~ds to the State of ~[innesots, as such trustee, ~0W, THEREFORE, This indent~ made ih;, a~y of 19 between C; ty ~f Mnu~d ~ ~overnm~l subdiv~]on of the State of ~innesota, ss p~ty of the first p~,~and the S~te of ~i~eso~, M t~stee ~s here~t~ set fo~ a~ p~rty of the se~nd parL .. W~NESS~, That the said ~a~y of the first p~, ~n cons~derat]on of the pr~ oth~ valuable considerations, the receipt whereof t~ hereby ~c~owledged, does h~eby Gr~t, ~ar~' Quitcl~im and Reconvey un~o the s~id p~y of the s~o~d p~rt ail the ~act or parcel of l~d ]y~ being in the ~unty of Hennepin . in the State of Minnesota, des~ibed ~s follows, t~wit: [' H[nnesota Baptist S5~er Assembly .in ~ust as provided b~ ~esotg Statutes, Section 28L25, upon like conditions and w~th ~ke. effe~ as ff said l~ds h~d not been conveyed to said p~r~ of the ~st pa~ ~s TO ~E ~' TO HOLD THE S~E, Together wi~ a~ the h~edi~men~ ~ppu~snc~ th~eu~to belon~ng or in an~vise sppe~inMg, to the s~id p~ty of tbs second p~ and its successors and ass[~, Forever· IN TES~0NY ~RE~F, SMd pa~F of the fir~f pa~ has ~us~ thee pr~en~ be eXecuted in itz corPOrate name by f~ M~v~r andi~ ~itv Clerk hereunto affixed the day and year first above written. In ?resen, ce of..' ' .. · CITY OF HOUND snd its corporate seal to be Mayor- By. Ira Ci'ty Cldr.k STATE OF MINNESOTA} County of Hennepi n On thL~ ' day of ,19 , before me, a Notary Pub l; C within and for said county, personally appearS. Bnh Pnlst~n ' and ~'~'~. Cl~,r'~,' to me personally known, who, being each by me duly s~vom s~y that they are respectivel~ Mayor and the City Clerk of the ~overnmental subflivlsion named in the foregoin~ instrument, and that the s~ affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal oi s~id governmental subdivision, and that said instrument was signed and scaled in behalf of said governmental subdivision by a~thori~ ' · of its Cl:y Council ,nd said M~yor ~nd City Clerk a~now}edged s~id instrumen~ to be t~e ~ree act ~nd deed of s~i~ ~ove~mental subdivision. V"I V"i :1 CITY of MOUND July 15, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK RE: TAX FORFEIT PARCELS - TO Attached is a resolution "Releasing Hennepin County for Public Auction and Certifying Assessments". BE RELEASED FOR PUBLIC SALE Certain Tax Forfeit Lands to the Special The parcels on this resolution are to be released for public auction. The City has no use for them. fc enc. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national or,gin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs anc~ activities. RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (al'so note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of .Mound, Minnesota: 1. That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are released to the County of Hennepin for public auction and the City hereby certifies the following special assessments: AMOUNT BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY $ AMOUNT AMOUNT AFTER FORFEITURE LEVY $ AMOUNT #19-117-23 23 0092 (Lots 11 & 12, Block 27, Seton) 3180 $ 49.21 3388 $ 349.78 3397 $ 210.02 7514 $ 2,844.26 NONE #19-227-23 32 0085 (Lots 20, 21 & the East 20 ft. of Lot 19, incl. adj. part of Cumberland Rd. vac., Block 8, Wychwood) PLEASE NOTE: 3180 $ 49.21 3397 $ 7.90 7928 $ 9,687.87 NONE This property does not have sewer & water services #19-1.17-23 33 0211 7928 (Lot 50 and that Part of Lot 51 lying West of East 15 ft thereof, subj. to road, Block 10, Pembroke) $ 9,431.29 NONE #19-117-23 33 0212 7928 (Lot 52 and E. 15 feet of Lot 51 & W. 10 feet of Lot 53, subj. to road, Block 10, Pembroke) $ 9,428.45 NONE #19-117-23 34 0114 31 80 $ 49.21 (That part of Lots 1 3388 $ 269.52 & 2 which lies Nly of 3397 $ 137.64 a line drawn 50 ft. 7928 $ 5,640.63 S of meas at R/A to and par with N line of Lot 1 and lying E. of a line drawn 105 ft. E of meas at R/A to and par with W line of Lot 55, Block 10, Pembroke) #19-117'23 34 0115 3180 $ 49.21 (That part of Lots 2 & 3397 $ 137 64~ 3 which lies Sly of a 7928 $ 6,611~66 line drawn 50 ft. S of meas at R/A to and par with N line of Lot 1 and lying E of a line drawn 105-ft. E. of meas. at R/A to and par with Line of Lot 55, Block 10, Pembroke) NONE NONE #23-117-24 34 0087 6952 $ 617.75 (That part of Lots 6 & 7928 $ 5,207.70 7 lying Wly of the SEly 112.5 feet thof Except the NEly 10 fe~t of said Lot 6, Block 9, The Highlands) NONE The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale at public auction subject to the County imposing the lien of special assessments on said lands. The City of Mound is releasing the above, properties subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound· The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk 0 X~SS3 Idate) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DISPATCH AND USE OF CITY EQUIP~ENT AND SERVICES BY CITY MANAGER IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council finds that instances have occurred in the past and can be anticipated in the future wherein there is a danger by fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrences taking place or occurring out- side the territorial limits of the City of ; and by the suddenness thereof it would be impossible or impractical for the Ci. ty Council to meet and authorize the dispatch and use of City equipment and personnel t6 combat such fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council as follows: The Council finds it desirable and necessary to authorize the City Manager or his designee to exercise discretion, considering at all times and in each case the internal needs of the City of and its in- habitants, to dispatch City equipment ~nd personnel as deemed necessary to combat such occurrence whether it takes place within or without the City limits. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such dispatch and use as directed by the City Manager or his designee shall be fully authorized as an act of the City of and all provisions for compensation of personnel, rental of equipment, liability insurance'coverage, workman's compensation insurande and all other safeguards and matters pertaining to the City, its equipment and personnel, shall apply in each case'as if specifically authorized and directed by this CitY Council at such time, whether or not the governing body or authority of the place in which the fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence exists, has previously requested and provided for assistance and the use of the equipment and personnel under a mutual protection agreement or other type protection agreement with the City of ,' FURTHER, the City Manager or his designee shall recall, order and terminate the use of such equipment and personnel when the need for their use no longer exists, or earlier, when at his discretion it appears in the best interest of the City of · Adopted by the City Council Attest: Mayo r City C1 erk Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and legality: City Manager City Attorney CITY OF MOUND MIERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. Xe XI. XII. XIII. General A. Purpose/Legal Basis B. Concept Organization Warning and Notification Personnel Notification List Emergency Operations Center Emergency Responsibility Assignments Mayor/Council/Director City. Emergency Mangement Coordinator City Clerk/Building Inspector/ Finance Director Police Chief/Designate Fire Chief Public Works/Utilities Support Services A.' Vehicles B. Equipment CITY OF MOUND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN Basic Plan Revision: General A. Purpose/Legal Basis Purpose - The purpose of this plan is to ensure that in the event of any type of disaster, the City's facilities, equipment, and manpower will be used in a coordinated, effective way, so as to: Maximize the protection of life and property, and to ensure the continuity of government. Legal'Basis - The legal basis for this plan is: Public Law 920, as amended, Minnesota Statutes~. Chapter 12, as amended, and City Ordinance No. 14, dated June, 1978. ~ Be Concept The Emergency Operations Plans ~or the City of Mound is based on coordin- ation of emergency government activites from a centralized location, exercised through the Mound City Manager/Emergency Management Director, subject to.direction and control of the appointing authority. Since Emergency Management is a government function, the Mound City Emergency Operations Plan will be implemented by all levels of Mound City Govern- ment using employees, auxilaries, and supplementary personnel as required; and local public and private resources. Mayor Date Emergency Management Director' Date -1- City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 II. Organization Existing government is the basis for emergency operations. That is, government agencies will perform emergency activites related to those they perform as a day to day basis. City organizat{on and interrelation- ship are shown as follows~: Emergency Mangement COordinator I MAYOR/COUNCIL[ CITY I~NAGERt Command Coordinate ~Includes operational positions/departments only -Police Dept [ Fire Dept I Public Works/EnKrI -2- City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 III. Warning and Notification Receipt of WarninR - The County Warning Point (Hennepin County Sheriff's Office) is responsible for relaying any warnings which it receives which affect the City of Mound to the Police Department. The Police Department serves as the City Warning Point, and is responsible for disseminating any warnings which it receives. Dissemination of Warning/Notifications - Hennepin County Sheriff's dispatch Mound Police to notify when appropriate and confirm notification. For Natural Disaster: 1). Sound sirens (5 minute steady tone) and tone- alert radios; 2). Notify key city personnel (see Personnel Notification list below); 3). Notify TV/radio stations. For Nuclear Attack: 1). Sound sirens (5 minute wavering tone) and tone- alert radios; 2). Notify key city personnel (see Personnel Notification List below); 3). Notify TV/radio stations. -3- City of Mound Emergency. Operation Plan IV. Personnel Notification List: POSITION NAME BUSINESS PHONE Basic Plan Revision: 0 HOME PHONE 1. City Manager/Director 2. Emergency Mgmt. Coordinator 3. Mayor 4. Council Member 5. Council Member 6. Council Member 7. Council Member 8. Fire Chief 9. City Clerk 10. Finance Director 11. Street Supt. 12. Water Department 13. Inspection 14. Parks Director 15. Community Services Edward Shukle Len Harrell Robert Polston Phyllis Jessen Gary Paulson Russ Peterson Steve Smith Don Bryce Fran Clark John Norman Geno Hoff GregSkinner Jan.Bertrand James Fackler Donald Ulrick 472-1155 472-3711 533-2581 929-0346 884-5255 560-2560 472-1155 472-1155 472-1155 472-1251 538-1981 472-1251 472-1155 472-1155 472-1g00 472-6928 472-5637 472-5520 472-4519 472-3725 472-4625 472-7664 472-4085 472-3635 472-5439 472-2664 472-4368 474-8308 566-6298 City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 VJ Emergency Operations Center Direction & Control - of the City%s response to the disaster will take place from the City Emergency Operating Center (EOC). The EOC is located at 5341 Maywood Rd. The alternate EOC is located at the Mound Fire Department on Wilshire at Maywood Road. EOC Activation - The EOC will be activated by: The Director or Coordinator of Emergency Management. EOC Staff- Are to report to the EOC automatically upon occurence of a disaster. EOC Equipment/Supplies - The City Emergency Management Director is responsi- ble for ensuring that the EOC is operational (that the necessary maps, tables, and chairs, communications equipment, message logs, etc. are on hand). City of Mound Emergency. Operations Plan Basic Plan Revisions: 0 VI. Emergency Responsibility Assignments Code: P = Primary, S ~ Support, C = Coordination 1. Warning and Notification 2. Direction & Control EOC 3. Emergency Public Information 4. Search & Rescue 5. Health/Medical 6. Evacuation & Traffic Control 7. Fire Protection 8. Damage Assessment 9. Congregate Care 10. Debris Clearance 11. Utilities Restoration 12. Radiological Protection RESPONSIBLE AGENCY Police-P, Hennepin Cty. Sheriff-S, Mayor-C Director-P Coordinator-S ~ayor-P, Council Designate-S, Director-C Fire Dept=P, Police-S Waconia Hosp-S Waconia Hospital-P Red Cross-S Police-P County Sheriff-S Fire Department-P Building Insp.-P Park/Rec Dir-S Finance Dir-C Community Services-S City Clerk-P Public Works-P Water Dept.-S Water Dept-P Public Works-S Fire Dept-P State Haz/Mat-S REMARKS -6- City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: O VII. Mayor/Council/Director 1. ~n~ure that City emergency management coordinator has activated/is activating the EOC. 2. Report to E0C 3. Ensure that the City emergency management coordinator and/or service. chiefs provide a initial damage assessment and casualty report. 4. Ensure that the City emergency management coordinator and the service chiefs brief the EOC staff as to the status of the disaster. 5. Be ready to issue a decla~ation of emergency. 6. Serve as.the City Public Information Office (PIO) or designate a member of the City staff to perform this function. In consultation with the City emergency management coordinator, determine whether or not state or federal assistance should be requested. (City resources must be lully committed before state or federal assistance will be available. If assistance is requested, bespecific).~ -7- City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: VIII. City Emergency Management Coordinator 1. Ensure that City officials have been notified, key facilities warned sirens activated, etc. 2. Activate the City EOC, make sure that it is fully operational, and that EOC staff have reported/are repbrting to it. 3. Obtain initial damage assessment and casualty report, and relay this information to the county emergency management director. 4. Ask the service chiefs to brief the EOC staff as to the status of . ~ the disaster~ 5. Ask the City Council to issue a declaration of emergency. Evaluate available resources, including personnel, by checking with service chiefs. If difiCiencies exist, take action to obtain needed resources. 7. Ensure that good..records are kept on expenditures. -8- City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 IX. City Clerk/Building Inspector/Finance Director 1. Maintain records indicating City expenses incurred due to the disaster. 2. Assist in the damage assessment process by: a. Providing information regarding the dollar value of property damage a result of the disaster. b. Providing information (name, telephone number, etc.) regarding the owners of property which has been damaged/destroyed as a result of the disaster. 3. Set up procedures to permit acquisition of equipment and supplies needed following a disaster. -9- City of Mound Emergency'Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 X. Police Chief/Designate 1. Ensure that all police department staff have been notified and that they'report as situation directs. me e Report to the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Review disaster situation as it pertains to police department and forward this information to the City emergency management director. Direct Office~(a) to close off damage so as-to stop. ali'in-boun-d traffi~[i ! Set up an emergency pass system ................... ~ If appropriate and if available, dispatch a communications vehicze to the scene of the disaster. 6. Coordinate the activities of your personnel with the other services. 7. Use all departmental resources; including personnel, equipment, and supplies before requesting assistance. Se e Try tO'anticipate your department's needs for manpower and~equipment 24 hours in advance. Remember that the number one priority is to save lives. (Don't waste time,'money, or manpower on anything until all lives'that can be saved are saved.) - 10 - City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 XI. Fire Chief 1. Ensure that all personnel are alerted to the disaster and that they r. eport as the situation dictates. 2. Report to the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC). 3. Review the disaster situation as it pertains to the fire department and forward this information to the City emergency management director. 4. Coordinate the activities of your department with other services. 5. NUmber one priority will be to rescue injured and trapped persons. For rescue assistance, call Waconia Hospital. 6. If additional assistance is necessary,, utilize mutual aid agreements with other fire departments. - 11 - ]Soo City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 XII. Public Works/Utilities 1. Ensure that all department personnel have been alerted to the disaster and that they report as the situation directs. 2. Report to the City Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Review the disaster situation as it affects the public conveyances and utilities, and forward this information to the City emergency management director. 4. Coordinate the activities of your department with other services. 5. Direct debris removal to permit passage of emergency vehicles. 6. Assist rescue personnel as needed, in rescuing trapped persons. 7. Coordinate/direct/assist the restoration of utilities. 8. If assistance is required, coordinate with the City emergency manage- ment director.. /5-o/ - 12 - City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan Basic Plan Revision: 0 XIII. Support Services 1. Support'from County departments: a. Support that can be expected from Hennepin County is as follows: County Sheriff - law enforcement support County Engineer - Equipment and personnel County Social Services - coordinate all emergency welfare planning and operations between county and local governments. 2. Support from private agencies/volunteer groups: a. Red Cross - food and bedding b. Westonka Community Center - kitchen facilities and shelter. Support from the National Guard: a. General overview: When a natural disaster or other major emergency is beyond the capability of.'local government, support from National Guard units may be available. Only the governor has the authority to activate the Guard. b.' Request Procedure: In the case of the county and all cities that are not of the first class, the Sheriff must submit the request for as'~istance to the govenor's office. In the case of cities of the first class, the mayor, after consulting the county sheriff, will submit the request to the govenor. 4. Support from state and Federal agencies: 80 Information and assistance in securring State or Federal support may be obtained by contacting the Hennepin County Emergency Management Director. - 13 - City of Mound Emergency Operations Plan A. Vehicles 1. Street Department dump trucks 3/4T pick-up 2½T truck L8000 AMC Co.cord pumper truck trailer 2. Park Department 2 3/4 ton pick-ups 1 5-10 pick-up 2 trailers 3. Water Department 1 3/4T diesel pick-up 1 Chev. van 1 diesel pick-up 4. Sewer Department me 1 tank truck 1 }T pick-up 1 Flusher truck 1 3/4T pick-up Police Department 5 marked squads 1 ST marked pick-up 2 unmarked squads 6. Adminstrative 2 passenger cars 7. Fire Department 1 3/4 ton van 1 #4 pumper truck 1 Suburban rescue truck 1 #11 pumper truck 1 Rescue truck 1 tanker truck 1 sutpen T5-100 & truck 1 84 pumper truck - A1 - Annex A City Resources Revision: 0 City of Mound ~nergency Operations Plan B. Equipment 1. Street Department 1 Cat grader 2 E1Rin Sweeper 1 Steam cleaner 1 Trackless diesel snow blower 1 Cat loader 1 Oiler 1 Jet Vac-All 2. Fire Department 8000' 2~" hose 6000' 1½" hose 3200' 4" hose 2 Smoke extractors 26 MSN Air packs 3 Resuscitators 1 Lund boat & motor 9. Portable radios & 8 mobiles 2 12,000 KW generators 2 5,000 KW generators 1 10,OOO KW generator 3. Park Department Ford tractor w/attachments Mowers Outboard motor Portable radios Snowblower 4. Water Department 300 6PM pump 3500 Watt generator 2500 Watt generator 1 Metro tec leak locator 1 Heliflux wand locator 2 Portahlelradios 5. Sewer Department 1 Homelite blower 1 Heliflux locator 1 Jet machine - A2 - Annex A City Resources Revision: 0 City of Mound Emergency OPerations Plan Annex A City Resource~ Revision: 0 6. Shops 1 Garage hoist 1 Torch &Welder i Arc Welder 1 300 lb compressor 1 4T floor jack 5 12% floor jacks 7. Police Department 8 Mobile radios 5 UHF mobile radios 5 ~City UHF radios 6 Resuscitators 1 Nikon FE 35mm 6 Shotguns 5 Radar units 3 UHF City portables McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Oune 5, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of ~ound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUB.IECT: Proposed 10" Watermain Extension West Edge Boulevard MKA File #7953 Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: As directed by the Council at their last meeting, we have prepared a detailed cost estimate and proposed assessment roll for connecting the 10" watermains in West Edge Boulevard, Enclosed are these estimates and the proposed assessment. The 10" watermain extension (Part A) necessary to serve the proposed 22 lot subdivision adjacent to West Edge Boulevard between County Road 15 and Wood Edge Road is estimated to cost $29,600.00. We are suggesting that this 680 foot extension be paid for by the Developer in Minnetrista, except for the cost of oversizing the main from 6" to 10". The oversizing cost of approximately $4,760.00 (680-L.F. ~ $7.00/LF) would be paid by the City of Mound. This portion of the 10" watermain extension should be constructed in conjunction with the proposed street improvements of West Edge Boulevard between County Road 15 and Wood Edge Road. The remaining 10" watermain extension (Part B) necessary to loop the system back to the highlands water tower is estimated to cost ~79,000. The oversizing cost for this project is estimated at $10,850.00 which we are suggesting be the City of Mound's responsibility. The remaining estimated project cost of ~68,150.00 is proposed to be assessed to the benefitting properties. Due to the fact that this watermain project is located within the City limits of Minnetrista, the City of Mound can not access these costs directly. Oune 5, 1985 Page Two If the parcels responsible for paying for the project do not wish to have these costs assessed to their property by Minnetrista, then Mound would need to defer the assessments and charge the individual parcels at such time water service is requested. This charge should not only include the original assessment but also interest charges. The problem with this method of financing the project is that M~und would need to provide the project money up front and then be reimbursed as the assessments are paid or the connection charges are collected. I will be present at the Council meeting, Tuesday evening, to answer any questions you may have. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $ohn Cameron 3C:cah RRE-LIMINARY COST ESTIMATE 10" WATER~AIN EXTENSION (PART A) - WEST EDGE BOULEVARD WOOD EDGE ROAD NORTH TO EXISTING lO" MAIN ITEl~ QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL 10" D.I.P. Watermain 6" D.I.P. Watermain Fittings 10" Gate Valves 6" Gate Valves Hydrants l" Water Service Groups l" Copper Water Service Granular Material Contingencies 680 L.F. ~ $ 20.O0/L.F. 50 L.F. 8 16.00/L.F. 1,000 LBS ® 1.50/LBS 1 EACH ~ 700.O0/EACH 4 EACH ~ 400. O0/EACH 2 EACH ~ iO00.O0/EACH EACH 8 80. O0/EACH lO0 L.F. 8 7.00/L.F. 50 TON 8 8.00/TON *Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost $ 13,600.00 800.00 1,500.00 700.00 1,600.00 2,000.00 240.00 700.00 400.00 2~160.00 $ 23,700.00 $ 5~900.00 $ 29,600.00 *NOTE: Estimate based on construction in conjunction with Street Improvement Project. EXHIBIT A FILE #7953 RRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE lO" WATERHAIN EXTENSION (PART B) - ~EST EDGE BOULEVARD HAL.STEAD LANE TO WOOD EDGE ROAD ITEW QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 10" D.I.P. Watermain 1,500 L.F. 8" D.I.P. Watermain ~" D.I.P. Watermain Oacking lO" W.M. Fittings lO" Gate Valves 8" Gate VaIves 6" Gate Vaives Hydrants Granuiar HateriaI Street Restoration 6"-CIass 2 'Roadside Seeding Contingencies $ $ 20.00/L.F. 30 L.F. $ 18. O0/L.F. 50 L .F. $ 16. O0/L.F. 50 L.F. $ 150. O0/L.F. 2,000 LBS $ 1.75/LBS 2 EACH $ 700. O0/EACH i EACH ~ 550. O0/EACH 2 EACH ~ 400. O0/EACH 2 EACH 8 1000. O0/EACH 150 TON 8 8. O0/TON 1, O00 TON 8 7.50/TON ~ 3/4 ACRE 8 2000. O0/ACRE Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legai, Fiscai and Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost TOTAL $ 30,000.00 540. O0 800. O0 7,500. O0 3,500. O0 1,400. O0 550. O0 800. O0 2,O00.00 1,200. O0 7,500.00 1,500.00 5~710.00 $ 6~,000.00 $ ~6~000.00 $ 72,000.00 EXHIBIT B FILE #7953 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT Total Estimated Project Cost (Parts A & B) $ 108,600.00 Less Mound's Share for Oversizing Main (2,230 LF ~ $7.00/LF) Less Developers Share (Proposed 22 Lot Subdivision) Total to be Assessed 15,610.00 24~840.00 $ 68,150.00 $68,150.00 ' 22 acres = $ 3,097.72/Acre USE $ 3,100.O0/Acre Parcel A (22-117-24 11 0002) 16 Acres ~ $3,100.00/AC = ~49,600 Parcel B (22-117-24 11 0003) 1 Acre ~ $3,100.00/AC = 3,100 Parcel C (22-117-24 11 0004) *Parcel D (23-117-24 22 0005) TOTALS 2 Acres ~ $3,100.00/AC = 6,200 3 Acres ~ $3,100.00/AC = 9~300 22 Acres ~68,200 *This property is presently owned by the City of Mound EXHIBIT C FILE #7953 15/0 ¢3O 40O/ 7'0~ 'S :'l 4 $~oo i Ct) PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION C~RGE MAPLE HILLS ESTATES SANITARY SEWER Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Sewer Availability Charge 9 Units ~ $292.00/Unit 540 L.F. ~$ 9.04/L.F. 9 Units ~ $125.00/Unit Proposed Total for Sanitary Sewer $ 2,628.00 $ 4,881'. 60 $ 1~ 125.00 $ 8,634.60 WATERMAIN Original Unit AssesSment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Water Availability Charge 9 Units ~ $ 65.61/Unit 540 L.F. ~ $ 4.87/L.F. 9 Units ~ $125.00/Unit Proposed Total for Wa'termain $ 590.49 $ 2,629.80 $ it 125. O0 $ 4,545.29 Proposed Total Utility Charge $12,979.89 EXHIBIT E ~ROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE PROPOSED 22 LOT SUBDIVISION SANITARY SEWER Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Sewer Availability Charge 22 Units ~ $292.00/Unit $ 6,424.00 1320 L.F. 0 $ 9.04/L.F. $ 11,932.80 22 Units ~ $125.00/Unit $ ,,2~750.00 Proposed Total for Sanitary Sewer $ 21,106.80 WATERMAIN Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Water Availability Charge 22 Units 0 $ 65.61/Unit $ 1,443.42 1320 L.F. · $ 4.87/L.F. $ 6,428.40 22 Units ~ $125.00/Unit .$ 2~750.00 F~'oposed Total for Watermain $ 1 O, 621 · 82 Proposed Total Utility Charge $ 31,728.62 EXHIBIT F 1513 INCOME TO MOUND FROM CONNECTION CHARGE5 ~uR FHOFIJS~u I~LAI5 J~N MiNNLII{ISTA MAPLE HILL ESTATES Sanitary Sewer $8,634.60 4~45.29 WatermaJn .$12,979.89 Total - Maple Hills Estates ............................... 22 LOT SUBDIVISION $21,106.80 Sanitary Sewer 10~21.82 Watermain $51,728 6'2 Total - 22 Lot Subdivision .................................. TOTAL INCOME FROM PROPOSED PLATS IN MINNETRISTA ............ $44,708.51 EXHIBIT G McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS May 22, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Mambers of the City Council City of Hound 5341 Maywood Road Hound, Ninnesota 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBJECT: Minnetrista Request for Utilities Maple Hill Estates M.K.A. File Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Mambers: As requested by t'he Council, we have investigated further the affects the proposed watermain extension would have on domestic use and fire fighting capabilities. Under separate cover you should have a report from the Mound Fire Chief, which we assume explains his findings on the existing conditions relating to fire fighting. We will address the question of what the impacts to domestic service would result from the proposed extension serving the 9 .residential lots in Minnetrista. First, We would like to confirm our findings as stated in our letter of April 22, 1986, a copy of which is enclosed. By looping the proposed watermain from the main at the end of Maple Road through the proposed plat to the main at the intersection of County Road 15 and West Edge 8oulevard, th~ 9 lots would be provided with pressure adequate for domestic use. By adequate pressure, we would anticipate a range of 35 to 37 P.S.I. static pressure at the proposed hydrants. This additional demand should not affect the water pressure to any of the homes in .Hound served by the present system. As stated in Don Bryce's letter, currently the pressure drop is very signi'ficant when a pumper is connected to the hydrants in this area, especially the one at the end of Maple Road. The hydrant on County Road 15 at West Edge Boulevard drops from 40 P.S.I. to approximately 20 P.S.I. with a nozzle pressure of 140 P.S.I. from the pumper. We can predict what will happen at these two hydrants and the pro~sed hydrants if a main is looped through the proposed subdivision. The residual pressure on the hydrant at the end of Maple Road would be increased from 0 to 5 or 10 P.S.I. with a fire pumper connected using one 2 1/2" hose. On the other hand, the hydrant at County Road 15 will probably drop to approximately 15 P.S,I. under the same conditions. The residual pressure at the new hydrants in the proposed subdivision will fall somewhere in between. One other item we would like to bring to the Council's attention is the possibility of connecting this section of the water system to the existing 10" main whlch presently ends at the intersection of West Edge Boulevard and Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 22, 1986 Page Two Halsted Lane. This additional main would loop the entire system in the Dutch Lake area with the Highlands water tower, and significantly improve the residual pressure for fire fi9hting and also static pressure for domestic use. At the present time, approximately 2100 feet exists between the ends of the two 10" mains. We would estimate this connection to cost in the neighborhood of $?5,000.00. If the other development proposed in Minnetrista fo~ the area south of County Road 15 and west of West Edge Boulevard proceeds, this watermain loop would be a necessity in order to provide a dependable, domestic water supply. Approximately 650 feet of 10" watezmain would be the requirement of the developers, leavin9 roughly 1500 feet to finish the loop. These are items which should be considered if the second proposed subdivision proceeds. In conclusion, we would recommend that the City of Mound could enter into an agreement to serve the proposed 9 lot subdivision, Maple Hill Estate§; with both water and sanitary sewer without affecting their present operation. If the Council should have any questions, I will. be present at the meeting ~C: khw cc: BiiI Turnblod City .of Minnestrista :Buzz Sykes Very truly you:s, McC. CI~S-KhtJTSDN ASSOCIATES, INC. II LAKE LANGDON WELL N~ z b& // CITY of MOUND S341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, M:NNF-~e,OTA 55354 (612) 472-1155 May 21, 1985 Mound City Council $341Maywood Road I~und, MN 55364 Dear Counci.lmembers: The Mound Fire Department has been requested to comment on the proposed Maple Hill Estates development and associated water main extension 'by John Cameron of McCombs-Knutson. Assoclates, Inc.-We were specifically requested to comment on the water Supply that would result from the proposed water main extension. .. On Wednesday, May 14, 1986, the Mound Fire.Department conducted a series of water flow tests to evaluate the static and residual water pressures at the'hYdran~s that the proposed water main extension would be tied into. The static hydrant pressure is the pressure at a hydrant wi.th no other sources of water in demand. The residual pressure is the pressure re- malning at a hudrant when there is demand, such as a fire truck, which lowers the remaining'available water supply. This concept is improtant in determining .the available water supply for fire fighting. The fire department checked three hydrants in their evaluation. The ~oliowing pressures were found: HYDRANT LOCATIONS Cry. Rd. 15.& Westedge Walnut Road Maple Road STATIC PRESSURE 40 PSi 38 50 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE 20 PSI ~ 140 PSI NozZle Pressure 10 PS! ~ 100 75'1 Nozzle Pressure O0 PSi ~ 100 PSI Nozzle Pressure ~or determining the redidual pressure a 50 foot section of 2½ inch hose was connected to a fire pumper and '~he nozzle pressure noted was the reading on the pumper gauge. · An equal oppOrtumty Employer that ODes not cliscriminate on the basis o! race. color, national origin, or handicapped status ............. *~ ~r t,~tmertt or employment in, its programs and activities. City Council Page 2 Based on these results, it is my opinion that the proposed water main extension will not provide an adequate water supply for fire protection in the proposed Hapie Hill Estates deve)opment. Additiona) water would have to be hau)ed in by tanker to fight a structural fire with the water main extension as proposed. Last, the ISO rating of the City of Hound will. not be affected by this new development, while the new development will have the ISO rating of the City of HinnetriSta. Please fell free to contact me with any. additional questions concerning this matter. cerely~ Don Bryce, Chief Hound Fire Department DB:Is ,JANZ.~ 0. i.A~e$ON. P.A. 'TNO,~AS F. UND£1qWOOD. P.A. WURST, I.AW P£AR$ON, I"[AMILTON, LAR$ON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIRST BANK PI.ACE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA May 7, 1986 Mr. Ed Shukle,.City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MI~ 55364 Re: Minnetrista Water/Sewer Extension Dear Ed: I am enclosing herewith a draft of a proposed agreement between Minnetrista and Mound relating to.the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision. I am sending a copy on to John Cameron, and hope- fully the two of you can review and give me any comments or approval as the final .CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Mr; John Cameron the agreement. Very truly yOuzs, Curtis.A. ?egrson City Attorney AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND. RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO MINNETRISTA PROPERTY OWNERS IN MAPLE HILLS ESTATES SUBDIVISION J THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1986, by and between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal corporation, of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of the County of ~ennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Mound", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Mound has inplace water main and sanitary sewer lines adjacent to the City limits along its boundary with Minnetrista; and WHEREAS, the area in Minnetrista being sUbdivided into the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision is isolated from existing water main and sanitar= sewer in' Minnetrista; and ~ WHEREAS, Mound has indicated that they wi~l allow water and sanitary sewer extensions from Mound inplace lines to be connected with the new construction so that the new construction in the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision in Minnetrista can be served by said extensions; and WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed that it is in the best interest of both parties to provide sanitary sewer and water service from the Mound system to the Minnetrista property owners within the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision, and that Minnetrista and residents of the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision will pay to Mound the following established amounts and will abide by the rules and regulations established for the Mound system and as set fo[th in this Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein described, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows~ Minnetrista shall construct water and sanitary Sewer extensions from above described Mound utilities to serve the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision. All plans and specifications must be reviewed and approved by the Mound City. Engineer. Within the limits established in this agreement, property owners in Minnetrista shall be allowed to connect to and become part of the sewer and water system of Hound, and shall be subject to the.same charges and regulations as property owners of Mound. .. At the time that Minnetrista constructs water and sanitary -Sewer lines in' the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision anO connects to the Mound systems, Minnetrista shall pay to Mound availability and connection charges as follows: Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Sewer Availability Charge SANITARY SEWER 9 Units at $292.00/Unit 540 L.F. at $ 9.04/L.F. 9 Units at $125.00/Unit $2,628.00 4,881.60 1,125 .'00 Total Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment '(60' Minimum) Mound's Water'Availability Charge for Sanitary Sewer WATERMAIN 9 Units at $ 65.62/Unit $8,634.00 $ 590.49 540 L.F. at $ 4.87/L.F. 2,629.80 9 Units at $125.00/Unit 1,125.00 Total for Watermain $4,345.29' Total Utility Charge $12,979.89 In addition thereto, Minnetrista agrees to pay to Mound all costs incurred by Mound for Engineering, Legal, and Administrative expenses. Since no property in Mound will be served by the proposed utility extensions, the entire cost of construction of the water and sanitary sewer extensions shall be borne by Minnetrista. Users in Minnetrista connected to the Mound systems shall be billed usage charges on the basis of the same water and sewer rates applicable to users in Mound, said charges to be billed directly to the user by Mound. Minnetrista shall guarantee payment of these charges, subject to the cooperation of Mound in providing, information to Minnetrista' which will allow Minnetrista to Specially assess unpaid water and sewer use charges against Minnetrista properties. Property owners in Minnetrista connecting to the Mound sys. tems shall be required to obtain connection permits from Mound for all sewer and water connections and shall pay all connection fees in t.h.e same amounts and manner as Mound residents, prior to making any connection to the 'Proposed utility extensions, or for any future extenslon~ of the presently pr6posed lines within the service area described. Mound shall not be responsible to any person, firm, or corporation for damages claimed as a result of backing up 'of sewers in any basement in Minnetrista. Mound'wiil perform all normal maintenance on the above described sanitary sewer andwater main lines within the Mound corporate boundaries. Minnetrista will perf°rm` all normal maintenance on the above described sanitary sewer and water lines within the Minnetrista corporate boundaries. Construction of service lines or new laterals required fo, the service area described above to connect to. the above described Mound utility extensions shall be the 10. 11. responsibility of property owners in Minnetrista ano under the auspices of Minnetrista. Water and sanitary sewer construction by Minnetrista and the property owners 'in Minnetrista shall meet the requirements of Mound,s Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Standard Specifications, and any special provisions deemed necessary by the Mound City Engineer. Mound agrees to cooperate and make available any and all records, plans, specifications, and other materials which may be necessary to allow Minnetrista to specially assess any and all costs which Minne~rista may be required to pay to Mound as a result of these improvements. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto authorized an~ entered into this Agreement upon authority of the 'City Council o£ the City of Minnetrista and the City Council of the City of Mound. In The Presence Of: CITY OF MINNETRISTA BY BY City Administrator- Clerk-Treasurer STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN fore oin instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day The g g .~ _, th~ -'~ .- ' ' · rator-Cle£K-Treasurer os.un= ~-7~.----n . Mayor and C~ty. Adm191st ...... =-~-~ -~ th'e municipal corporation. · 'Minnesota municipal co=~ra=~on, on ~=~,~ ~ - . 'In The Presence Of: CITY OF MOUND BY_ Mayor BY City Manager STATE' OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ., 1986, by Robert Polston and Edward Shukle, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE£RS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS April 22, 1986 Honorable Mayor and Hembers of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Hound, MN 55364 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBJECT: Minnetrista Request for Utilities Maple Hill Estates HKA File #7699 Dear Honorable Wayor and Council Members: Last Fall, the City of Wound was approached by the City of Minnetrista about allowing a connection to Mound's sanitary sewer and watermain, to provide City utilities for the proposed plat, Haple Hill Estates. The Council gave conceptual approval, and we were instructed not to do anyadditional work until .the approval process for the proposed plat was further along. Since that time, the developers have received preliminary approval from Minnetrista and would now like to finalize their projected development costs and gain approval for extending Wound's utilities. one question raised by the Hound property owners in the area is the lack of sufficient water pressure in the Dutch Lake area. We had Wound Public Works take pressure readings at three locations various times of the day, with the following results. The average main pressure at the hydrants on the end of Walnut Road and at the last hydrant on West Edge Boulevard south of County Road No. 15 was 40 P.S.I. The pressure on the hydrant located at the intersection of County Road No. 15 with West Edge Boulevard and at the hydrant on the end of ~aple Road was 50 P.S.I. The difference in pressure is due mostly to the difference in elevation between these hydrants. Theproblem that we foresee in extending the watermain in Maple Road and looping it through the proposed subdiVision to'the main in County Road No. 15 will be the pressure drop within the new plat. Our calculations show the pressure would be approximately 35 P.S.I. at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. A desirable C/ty watermain pressure would be approximately in the range of 50 to 60 P.S.I. We do not see anY disadvantage to the City of Hound in allowing this watermain extension; in fact, Mound would be eliminating 2 dead end watermains. The extension of these mains should not lower the water pressure to any of the existing homes in Mound. We have reviewed the preliminary plat, including the proposed utilities, that was approved by Minnetrista. The proposed sanitary sewer extension meets with our approval since the flows do not end up in any of Mound's lift stations. We do recommend that the City of Mound have the opportunity to review and approve the final utility plans, because we see items missing, such as hydrants, gate valves', etc. As was discussed previously, the nine 7 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 22, 1986 Page Two Residential Equivalency Units (REV'S) will be charged to the City of Minnetrtsta and not come from Mound's allotment. Also, the billing for both water and sewer would come from the City of Mound, but Minnetrtsta would be responsible for the maintenance of both the sanitary sewer and watermain extensions. We have also arrived at a dollar amount which we feel is a fair figure that the City of Mound should charge the developer as a fee to connect to the City's utilities. The amoun~ of $12,979.89 was arrived at by charging the nine proposed lots in Minnetrista the same as they would be charged if they were located in Mound and had never paid a sewer or water assessment. Enclosed is a breakdown of these proposed charges. We assume that the City Attorney will need to prepare an agreement'which includes our recommendations and any additional items that the Council may wish to include. If any Councilmembers should have questions or require additional information, I will be present at the meeting on the 2~th of April, Very truly yours, McCONBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ooh~nCameron~~ · OC: jmj Enclosures cc: 'Bill Turnblad, City of ~tinnetrista SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE MAPLE HILLS ESTATES Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's Sewer Availability Charge Proposed Total 9 Units · $222.00/Unit 540 L.F. 05 9.04/L.F. 9 Units · $125. O0/Unit for Sanitary Sewer $ 2,628. O0 $ 4,881.60 $ 1~ 125. O0 $ 8,634.00 WATERMAIN Original Unit Assessment Original Footage Assessment (60' Minimum) Mound's WaterAvailability Charge 9 Units ~ $ 65.61AJnit 540 L.F. ~$ 4.8?/L.F. 9 Unit~ ~ $125. O0/Unit Proposed Total for Watermain $ 590.49 $ 2,629.80 $ 1~ 125. O0 $ 4,345.29 Proposed Total Utility Charge $12,979.89 D~EL~HR: SU.;V~O..~: EGAN. F;i~L~ & NOWAK. INC. Meridi.-rk T..: E-~'t I~ feet of Govr. nme~t I.~t L :~'-' t Sec'fio~ l~. Tl~vnsh'.~ 117 i'dc .Iff..-'.a-~,: ,4W.:: t the 5~ P.=qci.~l I that this pi'~ w~s prepa:~l by me m my dir~"~ supervision and that I am a duly R~jL,~te~eo L~n~ Surve/or under tne La~: ~ ~,: State~f Min n~,ota. O~t~ ~is4th d~yM FNO u-'..y. 1986. EG AN. F I ELD & N OW A K. , :~ C. ,- Su.veyo.'$ by .... · ... '~.; ' !" · k*,. ::e$ota ,(eg~:t:~tic~ I, ic. 14ay. ItS IoO Sc_ale: l"~ 50' · J BILLS ......... JULY 22, 1986 Batch 864065 Computer Run dated 7/10/86 Batch 864071 Computer Run dated 7/17/86 Batch 864072 " " " Addt'l Checks Lutz Tree Service Steve Coddon--refund of bldg permit Curt Robbins--refund of depot rent Spring Park Car Wash--June washes Joyce O)son--Cab]e Tv -Tape mtg 28,454.21 170,348.33 36,396.98 235,199.52 5,985. O0 1,257.32 25. O0 107.25 33.00 7,407.57 TOTAL BILLS 242,607.09 W u U W I i,i 4f v W U ~J 1583 (/'1 W .I 41 ,m or-,, Z iA. ~J U I I Oo I I I I' W h- W e,,,, U ~d W C~ I-- t=.¢ -J U 'T' U W UU .J.J i,i h I I W Z I I I I I I I~J~j fl) LO LdW Z 0 .I 0 oo U t b.I I X 0 ! I bJ I 41 0 v o o I I W U LdW ZZ W 0 Z I ! 0 Z ,::3 ..~ Z T' .! U bJ~d ZZ I I Ill, f., U i,I 0 0 C30 C~O Z U 0 g I 0 0 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR JuNE 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT JULY 14, 1986 The May tax settlement was received in June. The total settlement was $966,000 and the General Fund share was $430,000. The tax revenue brings the General Fund out of a deficit position. We have reached the half way point and the budgets look good. The Streets Department budget reflects the.purchase of a dump truck in June. Also, the activity in the summer increases the expenditures for the Streets Department. The Water Fund remains over the budget amount, but the expenditures are $15,OO0 below the expenditures at this same time last year. JN:ls An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or empJoyment in, ~ts programs and activities CITY OF MOUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT REVENUES JUNE 1986 5o~ of the budget year BUDGET JUNE YTD REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE PER CENT RECEIVED GENERAL FUND Taxes $ 931,O61 Intergovernmental 719,964 Business Licenses 13,O60 Non-Business Licenses & Permits 114,000 General Gov't Charges 27,750 Court Fines 82,000 Charges to other Departments 23,000 Other Revenue 55,300 431,955 465,515 465,546 - 6,875 713,089 5,745 7,558 5,502 49.2 1.0 57.1 8,825 74,118 39,882 65.0 .1,363 8,020 19,730 28.9 11,591 32,751 49,249 39.9 2,777 15,57.9 7,421 67;7 1,412 11,923 43,377 21.6 TOTAL REVENUE $1,966,135 463,668 622,339 1,343,796. 31.6 Federal Revenue Sharing 45,000 Liquor Fund 820,000 Water Fund 264,000 Sewer Fund 500,000 - 12,405 32,495 69,699 351,869 468,131 24,612 132,220 131,780 48,703 281,350 218,650 27.6 42.9 50.1 56.3 CITY OF ~OUND 1986 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES JUNE 1986 50% of the budget year BUDGET UNEN- ~ YTD CUMBERED PER CENT 'EXPENSE EXPENSE BALANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council $ 36,964 City Manager/Clerk 89,273 Elections & Reg. 10,307 Assessing 43,369 141,420 Finance Legal 80,330 Cable T.V. ---- Contel 20,000 18,585 Recycling Police Protection 568,'199 Planning &.lnsp. 100,333 Civil Defense 3,000 Streets 369,950 Shop & Store 47,096 City Property 83,449 Parks 130,093 Contingency 50,000 Transfers 75,741 2,712 16,422 20,542 44.4 6,667 45,515 43,758 51.0 43 498 9,809 4.8 473 3,846 39,523 8.9' 13,190 69,930 71,490 49.4 5,611 34,316 46,014 42.7 (170) 727 (727) - - 7,380 12,620 36.9 13 5,398 13,187 29.0 52,535 282,281 285,918 49.7 8,170 46,327 54,006 46.2 107 884 2,116 29.5 56,189 219,696 150,254 59.4~ 3,326 22,974 24,122 48.8 2,603 46,332 37,.117 55..5- 15,521 49,050 81,043 37.7 _ - 50,000 -- 7,506 39,065 36,676 51.6 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $1,868,109 Federal ~-~ Sharing 52,000 Area Fire Service 142,802 Sealcoat Program '- --- CBD Assessment --- Liquor 153,450 Water 315,022 Sewer 631,084 Cemetery 3,896 174,4~6 .890,641 977,468 47.7 e 28,738 32,349 19,651 62.2 12,302 69,586 73,216 48.7 11,797 74,880 78,570 48.8 32,753 187,041 127,981 59.4 61,239 296,944 334,140 47.1 779 1,859 2,037 47.7 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 14, 1986 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jansen; Commissioners Wi]liem Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Re.se, Ken Smith and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steve Smith; City Manager Ed Shukle; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner William Thai was absent and excused.. Also present wemthe following interested persons: M-ike Mu. il.r, Phil Lansing, Rick Jacobson and Adrian Johnson. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1~86 were presented for c°nsideration~ Jansen statedshe didn't second the motion on page 2 to reconsider the motion to, table. Ken Smith had seconded the motion. Re. se moved and Ken Smi'th seconded a motion to approve the minutes with that correction. The 'vote was unani mously in favor. - BOARD OF APpEALs 1. Case No. 86-528 Sign Variance for 2240-2242-2244-2246 Commerce Boulevard; Metes end Bound~ Description, Koehle'r's Addition to. Hound; P'ID # 13-117-24 33 0042/0043 · Building owners, Mike Mue]]er and Phil Lansing, and Rick Jacobson of Apex Con- structlon, Inc. were present. The Building Official reviewed the request' for a variance from the prgvlsions of the sign ordinance to construct $ signs on the building (model shown); four facing Commerce,Boulevard and one facing Lynwood Boulevard; each sign to be 3 feet by 12 feet. They are proposing to roof mount them above the roof line over the top of the newly~constructed mansards. The Sign Ordinance allows roof signs if they are an' integral part of. the architecture of the building. The applicant is proposi.ng to'install wood signs'to compliment the exterior of the structure. The .staff recommendation' is.:for approval,~with.conditions if the Planning Commis- sion finds that it is.anoint.gte1 part ~f the architecture of the building. The commi.ssion quest.ioned type-of material mensards would, be/ Jacobson-stated mansard would'be fire retardant lumber and signs.would be wood and have some Of' the colors of fascia and soffit (belgy cream)and shakes (dark brown).' Back- ground, of all :he signs will be the same, C°mmission~s concern With roof signs when ordinance originally discussed was attachment of Signs securely and mainte- nance of them. The Commlss.lon, discussed whether they would be setting a prece- dent with this sjgnage? What w~uld the signage,be on the Lynwood facing sign? It will not include advertising of other occupants. Jacobson stated he took aesthetics into consideration and he'wanted to do something with style and that would compliment the new mall. I.t was asked if there wer~ standards required for mounting signs? Is /? Ken Smith movedand Welland seconded a motion to.accept the staff recommenda- tion. and approve slgnsas requested and shown on Exhibit "A" with a 100 mile an hour'anchor.system. The vote on the.motion was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda for July 22, ]986. Case No. 86-529 Prelim!nary and Final Plat of Land - $8XX Beachwood Road; Lots 17 - 24, 26, 27 and part of 25 and 28, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168; PID Numbers 23-117-24 13 0003/0004/0005/0006/0008 Adrian Johnson was present for Bank'of Minneapolis and Trust Company The Building Official stated this subdivision has come through several times in the last few years. It started out about ]975; about the time Beachwood Road Planning Commission Minutes July 14, 1986 - Page 2 was i'mproved, In 1983, they received final approval; however, someone dropped the ball and let the approval expire, The City Attorney has advised that the present owner would have to 9o through the proceedings again, A public hearing has been set and the notice pre-published for July 22nd, She reviewed the Engineer's report and his recommendations on requirements for approval of the preliminary and final plat of the proposed plat of Langdon View, The Planning Commission .had questions on Why Park Dedication fee was not collected on development as a whole? whether all of the. lots meet the minimum 10,000 square foot lot area.requirement? how woul'd they stop erosion from taking place? Adrlan Johnson stated'he .thought the builder would place retaining walls with plantings.and .trees. to control.the'erOsion, It was mentioned that ]and could be graded easier prior to having construction'started on any of the lots if one developer'took over the project, Weiland moved and Meyer. secondeda motion to recommend granting of the preliminary and final plat of the.subdivision, Langdon View, with the staff recommendations, The vote. was unanimously in favor, Motion carried, The public hearing will be held on July 22nd by the City Council, Chair Jensen read a letter.receiVed from Commissioner Bob Byrnes resigning from the Commission effective July 9th. Me stated he has gotten'into the Minnetonka Clipper 'Barbershop Chorus and their schedule makes it difficult for him to make the Planning Commission meetingS, The Commission discussed that for. the'Julys2$th Workshop.meeting, as there is no pressing business, they would have a boat trip with the m&mbers bringing something to share. ADJOURNMENT Ken Smith moved and Meyer .seconded a motion.to adj'ourn the meeting at 8:07 P.M. All were in favor, so meeting was adjourned, Elizabeth Jensen Attest: July 10, 1986 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone (612) 291-6359 Toi 'Local Government Contact Person The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared preliminary April 1, 1986 population and household estimates for your community. These preliminary estimates together with a fact sheet containing the primary data used to prepare your community's estimates are enclosed. The Council would like to hear your comments or concerns before finalizing the estimates for the State Department of Revenue. The Revenue Department will use the figures to calculate the amount of aid local communities receive under the Fiscal Disparities Act and the local government aid law. The change in estimated population or number of households is a part of the formula used to determine levy limits applicable in 1986 for counties and for cities of 5,000 or more population. The Council also uses the numbers to monitor population and household changes in Metropolitan Area communities. Please address questions concerning the levy limits and local government aids to Rich Gardner, Minnesota Department of Revenue, 296-2286. We need to finalize these estimates by July 30, 1986. To do this we need your comments by July 25, !986. If you have'concerns about the estimates, please contact Michael Munson of the Council's staff at 291-6331 or Kathy Johnson at 291-6392 as soon as possible. We will make every attempt to work with you to make any necessary adjustments in time to be incorporated in the Revenue Department's calculations. Written comments may also be directed to Mr. Munson at the Council's mailing address. For 1986 the Council has employed a method that is somewhat different than in past years. This year's method uses a simplified, mathematical approach. This change was necessitated by the serious illness of the Council's long time demographer, Dorothy Oatman. The methods she employed had evolved over the past 25 years and had significant judgmental components. This allowed Dorothy to use 'a wider range of data--data of the soft'that was not sufficiently consistent, current or accurate to be used in a mathematical model. Using the state demograPher's regional and county estimate~ (which were prepared using more objective, mathematical procedures) as a "control," the Council's more subjective approach was able to provide quite accurate city-level estimates. This is evident from recent special censuses in several cities. But these methods relied on personal judgments gained in working with the various data sets for over two decades. To meet mandatory state deadlines, the Council will use a more conventional, mathematical method that uses data more precisely and objectively. This method is tied to household growth, the most accurate and current of the data used in preparing past Council estimates. In the method employed for this /ss/ear, the household data is used in such a way as to reflect the continuation An Equal Opportunity Employer July 10, 1986 Page 2' of the demographic trends and relationships of the other variables considered by the Council's demographer in the past. As a test, we used Dorothy's method in several cities where the data is relatively good. It did not result .in significant differences in the population estimates from the results using the mathematical approach. The new method also resulted in a reasonable regional total without any adjustment needing to be made. Because the population and household estimates are of great importance to the cities, as well.as to the Council in its planning work, we want to provide estimates that are not only accurate, but treat each city fairly and consistently. Again, if you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sandra S. Gardebring ~ Chair SSG/dc METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE - APRIL 1, 1986 MINOR CIVIL DIVISION (MCD)__..~ _Housing Estimates (April April 1~ 1986 'Estimated Total Including April 1, 1980 Uncompleted Estimated Estimated Housing Type 'Housin9 Units 1985 Permits Completed Occupie,! Single Family _ ~_~q ~0~ ~ ~~ Townhouse 0 ~ _ ~ Multif~ily 7F7 Mobile, Home ~ ~ /~ /~ l~ TOTAL __ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Household Estimates (April 1) 1980 Household Estimate 1985 Household Estimate 1986 Household Estimate Population Estimates (April 1) 1980 Total Population 1980 Group Quarters Population 1986 Population Estimate from Model 1985 to 1986 Change in Group Quarters Population 1986 Population Estimate {includes change in group quarters) Persons Per Household (April 1) 1980 Persons per Household 1985 Persons per Household 1986 Population in Households 1986 Persons per Household HENNEPIN COUNTY Bloomington Brookly~ Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Chanhassen (Pt.) Corcoran Crystal Dayton (Pt.) Deephaven. Eden Prairie Edina Excelsior Fort Snelling Golden Valley Greenfield Greenwood Hanover (Pt.) Hassan Twp. Hopkins Independence Long Lake Loretto · Maple Grove Maple Plain Medicine Lake Medina Minneapolis Minnetonka Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound New Hope Orono Osseo Plymouth Richfield Robbinsdale Rockford (Pt.) Rogers St. Anthony (Pt.) St. Bonifacius St. Louis Park Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Wayzata Woodland COUNTY TOTAL APRIL 1, 1986 POPULATION ESTIMATES April 1 1980 Census 81,831 31,230 43,332 9,006 8 4,252 25,543 4,000 3,716 16,263 46,073 2,523 223 22,775 1,391 653 248 1,766 15,336 2,640 1,747 297 20,525 1,421 419 2,623 370,951 38,683 575 3,236 9,280 23,087 6,845 2,974 31,615 37,851 14,422 380 652 5,619 857 42,931 4,646 1,465 1,354 3,621 526 Persons Per Household April 1, April 1, April 1, 1986 1980 1986 Estimate Census Estimate 84,289 30,267 51,424 11,566 4 4,802 24,628 4,176 3,671 25,991 45,055 2,601 216 21,541 1,504 653 242 1,910 15,211 2,684 1,955 345 30,216 1,622 407 2,867 360,000 42,636 575 3,446 9,742 22,770 7,093 2,801 41,207 36,891 14,212 395 708 5,312 1,053 42,493 4,788 1,474 1,436 3,654 500 2.82 2.60 2.89 2.67 2.84 2.72 3.29 3.16 4.00 4.00 3.42 3.37 2.82 2.67 3.45 3.41 3.02 2.83 3.01 2.56 2.55 2.34 2.15 1.98 3.12 2.71 2.86 2.62 3.46 3.28 "2.79 2.60 3.87 3.72 3.91 3.65 2.12 1.96 3.35 3.18 2.89 2.52 2.72 2.41 3.29 3.13 2.92 2.76 2.59 2.45 3.41 3.22 2.19 2.10 3.00 2.75 3.07 2.61 3.32 3.13 2.74 2.69 2.91 2.66 2.99 2.82 2.66 2.48 2.96 2.72 2.46 2.36 2.46 2.34 3.04 2.97 3.10 2.93 2.90 2.68 3.05 2.79 2.38 2.20 3.13 2.99 1.97 1.87 2.74 2.55 2.25 2.05 2.87 2.79 941,411 973,033 2.51 2.38