The URL can be used to link to this page

1997-04-22AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 22, 1997 t of MOUnd MOUND CITY COUNCIL LOCAI, BOARD OF REVIEW.. TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1997, 7:00 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Larry Miller, from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office will be present. The Council will accept complaints on taxable market value from residents. The Assessor will then review these properties and bring back recommendations at the May 13, 1997, Reconvened Board of Review. The Council will take action on the total assessment at the May 13, 1997, Meeting. 1. OPENING REMARKS: LARRY MILLER, HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. 2. OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW - .-.. _..RF__J3ARDING TAXABLE MARKET VALUE ..................... 1306 OTHER BUSINESS. CONTINUE THIS BOARD OF REVIEW MEETING TO MAY 13, 1997. 1302 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST LANE ACCESS ON DEVON COMMON, THE DEVON LANE ACCES ON DEVON COMMON, AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS ON LAKE BLVD. WHEREAS the Ci- Council has~" rv ' ' , , ty ~..pp o ea on January 28, 1997 the "Multiple-slip Dock Program' as outlined in Dock & Comthons Commission manual under the section entitled "Multiple Docks", and; WHEREAS, one' of the multiple-slip dock objectives is to improve the level of satisfaction with the common's dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of dock sites in front of abutter's homes, and; WHEREAS, The first priority (based on dissatisfaction level as found in the November 8, 1995 tabulation of commons surveys) in implementing multiple-slip docks is Devon Common, and; WHEREAS, the Amhurst Lane, Devon Lane and Fairvi.ew Lane accesses have non- abutter dock sites located in front of abutter's homes, and; purchase of three multiple-slip docks for the 1997 boating season, and; ~ a.- ' WHEREAS, the multiple-slip docks are intended to be a small neighborhood dockV~' system for individuals within walking distance of their homes, and; WHEREAS, the Dock and Commons Commission unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that a multiple-slip docks be placed at the ends of Arnhurst Lane, Devon Lane and Fairview Lane as soon as possible, subject to the following: The docks should be configured in such a manner as to minimize the impact on the abutting property owners at the subject accesses. A meeting with affected abutter and non-abutter dock holders ~ take place,:lyja' e_.,...m.,,~,.~..~:~,_~..:,.vt.. ..-,,"~ ~.,.,'""",. All affected parties 4zh~ be notified in writing of the meeting. ~ The following multiple docks will have a maximum number of boat slips not to exceed 24 feet in length and 12.5 feet in width: a. Arnhurst Lane Access = 4 boat slips b. Devon Lane Access = 7 boat slips c. Fairview Lane Access = 8 boat slips Proposed Resolution New Multiple-slip Docks April 22, 1997 p. 2 Each individual dock site permit holder will be assigned one boat slip within the multiple- slip dock. The boat of record on the 1997 dock application shall be the boat assigned to the boat slip. No additional boats may be added during boating season. On a shared docks, the dock holder of record shall be the dock holder moved to the multiple-slip dock. We will attempt to accommodate the "share" at the multiple-slip dock, but not to exceed the maximum number of boat slips authorized for that multiple- slip dock. ,J I i, ,I, ii, ,, II1~ J, ~ t _....,~,ND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 22, 1997 CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a CounciImember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 8, 1997, REGULAR MEETING ........................... 1307-1317 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 15, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ............ 1318-1324 *C. CASE//9%15: MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID//14-117-24 43 0006, VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING ................. 1325-1394 *D. *E. RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRAND-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS ...... 1395 BID AWARD: 1997 SEALCOAT PROJECT ............ 1396-1397 PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 1398-1410 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 1303 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 22, 1997 o 10. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE t/97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WESTONKA SCHOOLS SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND LICENSED DAY CARE & PRESCHOOL. 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD., PID#24-117-24 12 0059 .............. 1411-1417 CASE//9%16: GARY NACHREINER, 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD, LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-24 34 0088. VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION ................... 1418-1441 DISCUSSION: IMPROVEMENTS TO PHILBROOK PARK BY BABE RUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION .................. 1442-1452 REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF SPRING PARK AND OTHER LOCAL SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS TO PURCHASE AN IRIS CAMERA FOR THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT ...... 1453-1455 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST LANE ACCESS ON DEVON COMMON AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS ON LAKE BLVD ................ 1456-1460 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:. Ao FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MARCH 1997 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ........... 1461-1462 Bo REMINDER: BOARD OF REVIEW IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 22, 1997, AT 7:00 P.M. SEE ENCLOSED SALES RATIO BOOKLET DEVELOPED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY. Co PEGGY JAMES, PLANNING & INSPECTIONS SECRETARY HAS RESIGNED HER POSITION AND HER LAST DAY IS FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1997. WE WILL BE HAVING CAKE AND COFFEE FOR HER AT 2:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THIS RECEPTION FOR HER ON THAT DAY. 1304 AGENDA - MOUND CITY COUNCIL APRIL 22, 1997 Do ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF THE BRAUN/INTERTEC'S REPORT ON ITS PCB TESTING THAT THEY WERE REQUESTED TO DO PURSUANT TO THE PERMIT APPROVED BY THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD). AFTER YOU READ THE REPORT, YOU WILL BE EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE RESULTS. THERE ARE NO PCB'S IN LOST LAKE AND THE LEAD LEVELS ARE LOW! BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN WILL BE ATTENDING THE APRIL 24TH MEETING OF THE MWCD TO PRESENT THE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS. THE DNR IS WRITING THE PERMIT FOR APPROVAL ON THE LOST LAKE PROJECT AT THIS TIME AND SHOULD BE READY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS REVIEWING OUT PERMIT APPLICATION AND WE WILL KNOW MORE ON THIS PERMIT BY THE END OF APRIL ............... 1463-1489 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1997 .............................. 1490-1501 Fo PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 1997 ..................... 1502-1510 REMINDER: ANNUAL RECYCLING DAY/CLEANUP IS SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1997, AT LOST LAKE. 1305 Hennepin County ( )plx)rtunity Employer April 16. 1997 C/O Michael Bo Shun Moy 2458 Fairview Lane Mound, MN 55364 Dear Michael: Re: PID # 24-117-24-12-0056 Per your request, we left several messages to set-up an appointment time but received no response. If you would still like to have a review done, please contact our office at 348-3046 immediately. Without an interior inspection of the property, the 1997 Estimated Market Value appears to be correct as stated in your original notice. Ve~ truly yours, THOMAS J. MAY County Assessor By: Deborah K. Peterson, Appraiser TJM:dkp Hennepin County General Services County Assessor Division A-2103 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 Recycled Paper' April 18, 1997 Board of Review City- of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound. MN 5536.4. ,L lB, ,11~,, ~ia~. & Pafrlcla DeMont ~601 Nordic Drive Edlna, MN 55439 ERA~ - M.B. HAGAN REALTY RAY DeMONT, CR$, GRI i ,~L"'~'~.~~ CERTIFIED RESIDENTIAL SPECIALIST REALTOR'"~SiNCE 1973 Minneapolis Office * 1 I)14 'qamstreet Hopkins, I~N 5~ ~4 ~ (612) 938-T68~ O~ice (612) 938-1102 FAX i (612) 94~-6896 Home (612) 2TO-BUYS RE' 19~ Shorewood Lane - PID 18-117-23-23-001 1 A""o"~ cf 1997 Market Value Dear Council Members and Members of this Board of Review: It has been one year since t appeared in person before you at this forum, to appeal my h!gh assessed valuation on the above subject property. At that time, you lowered the value to $i22.500, Upon appeal to the County Board of Equalization, the value was fu~her Iow'ered to $115,000, I was not satisfied with the remaining large increase from my former valuation of $92,700, but would have been ready to accept the adjusted amount had it not been increased again this year. When ! -- "' ~a. ed the County with this matter, I was directed to Ms. Stephanie L. Nyhus, Appraiser, Ms. Nyhus stated, "We raised the value more than average on your property because the value was lowered the year before, Enclosed, you will find the MLS average sale price of lakeshore property in the City of Mound DECREASED 14% in 1996 compared to 1995, when the big increase in assessed valuations of lakeshore property was done. (You might note lakeshcre pro- perry in the other communities on the lake increased 27% in 1996, compared to 1995). I would submit Mound lakeshore property values were the result of too large of in- crease ~n one year. The result was too many sellers chasing to few buyers for Mound lakeshore property. (You will note the property values dropped from an average sale price ¢ $212,081 down to an average sale price of $183,057. I love the City of Mound and think the people hear are 9'eat. My wife and I would tike to buiid our retirement home on our property. But without Some stability on assess- ing property values, Mound pcoperty values, which are already far behind other Mtka. communities, will cc~qtinue to decrease making for a bad investment. I respect'fully request the assessed value of my property remain at $115,000. at least until 1999, at which time the limited market value I am being taxed will catch up to assessed value. Sincerely. Ray DeMont AREA MARKET SURVEY 03/14/97 11:42 AM SEARCH CRITERIA: MAR=381 TYP=i MC=A OR ST=EXP , SOLD, PEND, COMS ~-~TE=1/1/96-12/31/9D 381 - LAKE MINNETONKA SOLD Price Range $30 000 - $7O 000 - $120 000 - $160 000 - $2O0 000 - $250 000 - $300 000 - $39 999 $79 999 $159 999 $199 999 $249 999 $299 999 $349 999 Listings Avg Days on Mkt 1 95 2 13 10 60 6 75 4 80 3 32 2 42 ~or the 28 properties:~ -- The medZa__~n price is $1~g:O00. ~C~-averaQe price is $183,057~ The highest price is $344,000. The lowest price is $39,000. The average market time is 60 EXPIRED LISTINGS List Price Range $160,000 - $199,999 $200,000 - $249,999 $250,000 - $299,999 $300,000 - $349,999 Listings 2 3 3 1 For the 9 properties: The median price is $249,000. The average price is $244,333. The highest price is $309,900. The lowest price is $174,900. The average market time is 81 Avg Days on Mkt 39 82 125 27 C AREA MARKET SURVEY 03/14/97 11:41 AM SEARCH CRITERIA: MAR=381 TYP=I MC=A OR ST=EXP , SOLD, PEND, COMS MUNICIPALy~"f-MOr~Q.~LAKE WATR Fg/qT=A OFF MARKET ~DA~E=l/1/95-12/31/95~ 381 - LAKE MINNETONKA LIMTINGS~ SOLD Price Range $70 000 - $9o ooo - $100 000 - $120 000 - $160 000 - $200 000 - $250 000 - $300 000 - $350 000 - $400 000 - $450 000 - $79,999 $99 999 $119 999 $159 999 $199 999 $249 999 $299 999 $349 999 $399 999 $449 999 $499 999 # Listings Avg Days on Mkt 1 31 2 45 1 44 11 57 6 62 7 99 6 31 4 21 1 253 1 21 1 20 F~r the 41 properti~ T~-e me~ian price is $197,000. ~ average price is $212,081~ The highest price is $470,000. The lowest price is $71,400. The average market time is 59 EXPIRED LISTINGS List Price Range $120,000 - $159,999 $200,000 - $249,999 Listings Avg Days on Mkt 1 22 3 109 For the 4 properties: The median price is $229,900. The average price is $207,025. The highest price is $229,900. The lowest price is $148,500. The average market time is 87 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL- APRIL 8, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL -APRII. 8, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 8, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark;and the following interested citizens: Herman Quass, Joe Zylman, Valerie Hessburg, Carl Hanson, Mark Jorland, Denise Larson, Pam Myers, Greg Eurich, Keith Putt, Bernice Putt, Bert Haglund, Mark Thiede and Bil Hawks. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Councilmember Hanus asked that the Minutes of 3/25/97, be removed from the Consent Agenda for a minor correction. He asked that the Motion approving the Consent Agenda be amended to read as follows: "MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda ~-a ,~.~ .......... S ..... } ..... as amended above." 1.0 *CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Weycker to approve the Consent Agenda as amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 25, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION I$o? MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. '1.2 RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL CASE //97-05: PHILIJP A. KLEIN, WOODLAND ROAD, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, //13-117-24 11 0146. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. 5010 PID RESOLUTION g97-34 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK V~CE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 5010 WOODLAND ROAD, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 20, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0146, P & Z CASE g97-05 Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. *1.3 RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL CASE //97-13: BRADLEY H. WHITE, 5090. WINDSOR ROAD, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, PID//25-117-24 12 0234. REQUEST: VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK. RESOLUTION//97-35 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5090 WINDSOR ROAD, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, TEAL POINTE, PID//25-117-24 12 0234, P & Z CASE//97-13 Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. *1.4 SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR THE "SETON BLUFF" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. DATE: MAY 13, 1997). MOTION Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. · 1.5 LICENSE RENEWALS: The following licenses were presented for approval: MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 GAMES OF SKU,I, (1) A1 & Alma's Supper Club (2) American Legion Post/?398 (2) VFW Post//5113 POOL TABLES (2) VFW Post//5113 (1) Mound Lanes BOWLING (8) Mound Lanes AMUSEMENT DEVICE (JUKE BOX) American Legion Post//398 VFW Post//5113 RESTAURANT A1 & Alma's American Legion Post//398 Domino's Pizza//1974 Happy Garden Hardee's House of Moy Mound Lanes Scotty B's MOTION Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. Subway Sandwiches VFW Post//5113 '1.6 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Ahrens & Weycker, unanimously. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT. There were none. 1.7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//9%08, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 FOR WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SHIRLEY HILLS PRIMARY SCHOOL). PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND LICENSF. D DAY CARE ~LVD. PID//24-117-14 12 0059. The City Planner explained that this item is before the Council again after previously being tabled. The site plan has changed a little but the use has not. The School District is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct an addtion to Shirley Hills Elementary School to house School District Administrative Offices. The Council did approve the zoning amendment to allow this. The plans call for about a 30,000 square foot addition to the existing 67,000 square foot building. It will house a variety of educational services and pre-school that are now contained within the Community Center on Lynwood Blvd. There is a new playground proposed. The proposed addition will house about 30 staff members for the school district administrative offices and the programs offered within the facility will serve approximately 75 children. The Zoning Code does allow licensed daycare and preschools serving 13 or more children in this district, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. The addition lies north of the building. The Planning Commission and the Staff recommend approval as per the proposed resolution included in the packet. The Mayor asked if there were any questions from the City Council. There were none. DR. PAM MYERS, Supt of Schools, intoduced Mr. Bert Haglund, architect for the school district. BERT HAGLUND, explained the history of how the School District got to where they are. He presented the 4 various scenarios/options that were considered. The Mayor then reopened the Public Hearing. BIL HAWKS, 3465 County Rd. 44 - spoke against the proposed CUP for the following reasons: 1. There is something really big missing in this whole picture. 2. Where is the money coming from for this addition? How are you going to get the money? 3. The School District already got $1.9 million in 1993. 4. He is against the City of Mound doing anything out of their way to help promote something that was already promised when the taxpayers voted the $1.9 million in 1993 for the community center, for the senior citizens center. 5. He is against doing anything until the school district solves the problem with the Lynwood site. 6. He doesn't believe that the School Board owns the Lynwood site, rather the community owns it because the taxpayers have paid for it over and over, time and time again, including some seniors. 7. They are rushing to judgment to sell the Lynwood site. 8. There's a way to go slow on this and let them solve their other problem, which MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 o 10. 11. is going to start on the 15th with the joint meeting of the School Board, and the Cities of Mound, Minnetrista and Spring Park. The solution to this problem is to start out with the $1.9 million and the $14.7 million they have. He asked to see where this is line by line. He wants to see if they are 100% completed. He does not want to see this approved and then the School District runs out of money and comes asking for more money or tries some back door thing like they have tried in Minnetrista. This is not a well thought out proposal. DR. PAM MYERS, asked if the Council would like some information on the dollars? The Council said yes. Dr. Myers stated the following: o o The School District does have the $1.9 million set aside from the bond issue in November 1993. It was set aside specifically for the school programs, school offices, and the functions of the school district that are in the community center. They are planning to provide those spaces with the $1.9 million. In addition, the Lynwood property was up for sale. They had it appraised, and a buyer has come forth to buy the property who offered the appraised rate (a little over $651,000.00). They would take additional dollars out of the bond which is available to them as they are working through the final pay down or buy down of the bond dollars from the $14.7 million from 1993. Therefore, they are able to finance exactly the addition that was presented to the Council tonight. The 30,000 square feet constitutes a reduction to 1/3 of the space that they are using at the community center because they don't have more dollars to provide all the space they are providing in the old high school. They will not be building a gym because the dollars just described are the end of the bond. If it were true that the City of Minnestrista wanted to do a partnership with the school district, to provide a gymnasium in Minnetrista at the high school site, that might be a possibility for replacing that facility but they don't know if the City of Minnetrista is interested in doing that or not. The other functions that are in the old high school, such as the senior center, Wecan, head start, Triax and the dentists will have to find alternative space. The school district is not in a position to build space for those other non-school related functions. 5 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 BIL HAWKS - acknowledged that the school district has the $1.9 million and that it is going to build 1/3 of the building that is there now. They won't have a gym. They won't have a parking lot for the Pond Arena, etc. Mr. Hawks thinks that within the next 5 years it's going to come back around and someone will be standing here saying we don't have a gym anymore. We need one and someone has to pay for it and you have to. There has been too much finger pointing and muscling by the school board to various cities on what you have to do and what you don't have to do. He further stated that he has 3 bids from three different qualified contractors that will bring the old high school up to code, (they will bond it so if it goes over the bid, they will pay for it), for $1.9 million. Mr. Hawks asked, "Where, when, how and why are they going to pay for this new addition? 30,000 square feet at $120.00/per square foot, gets them close, then they will have to resort to the budget for funds and then they will come back and be short. Where is that money going to ccome from. The school district needs to be responsible." Councilmember Hanus asked about the landscape plan and the trees that appear to be part of the ponding area. The Planner stated that most of the trees shown there are part of the church project and have not yet been planted. Councilmember Hanus asked how large the pond would have to be? Dr. Myers stated that they have not heard back from the Watershed District yet. Mr. Haglund stated that the existing pond will be enlarged some. It will not preclude putting some landscaping in that area. He stated they have made application to the Watershed District and hope to be at their Board of Managers Meeting on April 24, 1997. There has been no word from the Watershed District yet. The City Engineer pointed out that this is a dry pond. This will not have water in it all the time. It is only for quantity control. It will fill up in a rain event and gradually drain out. Councilmember Hanus asked what the total cost of the addition will be. Dr. Myers stated it is approximately $3.3 million. She further explained that they have some additional bond funds out of the $14.7 million. Councilmember Hanus asked if the funds gained from the sale of the Lynwood property would have to go toward this addition project? Dr. Myers stated yes. Mayor Polston asked if the grading and stormwater plan has been submitted to the Watershed District? Mr. Haglund stated it has been submitted to the Watershed District. Mayor Polston then asked if the school district's engineer, Schoell & Madsen, are asking for Watershed District approval under Rule B? The City Engineer stated that he doesn't know for sure but that he MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 thinks they are. Councilmember Hanus asked about a letter from the architect, dated March 6, 1997, that refers to stormwater drainage and the possibility that a fee may also be paid to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District if enlarging the existing pond is not sufficient to handle all the new hard surface drainage. Mayor Polston stated that this alludes to the fact that there is a possibility that they are going to be asking that Rule B apply, which is of concern because if Rule B is applied, then in fact, what the City would be doing in the future is accepting all maintenance costs and all treatment costs for stormwater. If that is going to be the case, under the Stormwater Management Plan, there is a question on stormwater treatment. There should be in place a Stormwater Management Plan and if there is a question, then the treatment and the ponding should be required as an intregal part of the project unless the City wants to go online for accepting the responsibility for future treatment. He wants to know what kind of potential costs and ramifications this will have on Mound if Rule B is utilized for this site. Councilmember Hanus also expressed concerns about this. Councilmember Hanus was also concerned with the funding of this project, if the sale of the Lynwood property is required to fund this project. He stated he has a copy of the purchase agreement for this property and he had some problems with the requirement that the City become involved and the way it becomes involved. He stated he does not want to move this CUP forward until after the meeting with the School Board to discuss some of the items relative to the Lynwood property. There are a lot of open issues and unresolved issues that directly relate back to this project. The Council agreed that they did not want to move on this CUP until after their meeting on April 15th with the School Board and the Cities of Minnetrista and Spring Park. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Harms directing the City Engineer to look at the stormwater management plan and the drainage plan and how it impacts the City. The City Attorney to address, particularly, Rule B under the Watershed District's plans and how that impacts the City. Also to continue the Public Hearing on the CUP to April 22, 1997. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council asked that City Staff look into the following prior to considering issuing the CUP. 1. What this Rule B status would require on behalf of the City for stormwater management for the site. What impact TIF financing for the Lynwood site will have on the City of Mound. 1.8 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED STREET RECONSTRUCTION SHERWOOD DRIVF.. The City Engineer explained his addendum to his original Preliminary Engineering Report for the reconstruction of Sherwood Drive. In that report is a revised cost estimate and a revised proposed street assessment for the affected properties. There is about a 1/3 reduction in the cost MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 of the improvements. The proposal eliminates taking the entire blacktop surface out. It would also reduce the width of the strret from 30' to 28' and new concrete curb and gutter would be installed, with concrete aprons. There would be minor repairs due to some of the cracking. The crown would have to be built up and then an overlay would be done on the entire street. The original street was constructed with a 2" bituminous mat over fill which varies in depth from 2 to 8 feet. The fill is comprised of a mixture of sand, silty sand and silt and was placed over naturally-occurring sandy clay. The existing street is 30 years old. The Engineer then explained the City's assessment policy. All affected property owners were notified of this public heating and the proposed assessment. The Mayor opened the public hearing. CARL HANSON, 5501 Sherwood Drive. Stated he thought the administrative costs were high, but was not against the proposed assessment. The City Engineer explained what the administrative costs cover. Mr. Hanson stated that he is not against the project. MARK JORLAND, 5549 Sherwood Drive. In favor of the improvement. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Polston moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #97-36 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF SHERWOOD DRIVE AND ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAKING SUCH IMPROVEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - JOE ZYLMAN, MAPLE MANORS. The City Engineer gave the background of this item. He stated that there are still a couple of things that need to be worked out. One is the Watershed District approval. There are 12 conditions in the resolution for final plat approval. The Council asked about the balance in the escrow fund which is #6 in the conditions. The Staff did not have that information at this time. They also questioned condition #10 which reads as follows: "A new 100 year flood elevation is being created for the stormwater holding pond which applies to units 7 and 8. The City floodplain ordinance requires these units to have a two foot freeboard above the 100 year elevation, and the lowest floor elections shall be revised to be inconformance with the floodplain ordinance." The Watershed District's Rule B also needs to be addressed for this plat. Councilmember Jensen asked about the City Attorney's letter dated 2-20-97, review of the Maple MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL- APRIL 8, 1997 Manors Homeowners Documents. She referred to item #3 of the letter as follows: "There is a provision in the articles that allows the association to be dissolved and, upon dissolution, the common area to be dedicated to the public. If the dedication is refused, the property is transferred to any non-profit corporation, association, trust or organization devoted to a similar purpose. This is noted for your information and, not by way of objection." The City Attorney advised that the Articles of the Association could be revised so the City is out of the loop entirely and the property would just go to a non profit or association or trust upon dissolution. Councilmember Ahrens asked if the dissolution item has to be in the Homeowners Agreement. The City Attorney stated that this section is required by state law and is needed to assure that the common area, upon dissolution of the homeowners association, is not ever sold off separately and developed and the owners of the parcels lose the common areas. The idea is that there be some third party trustee of the common areas that would continue to have them as common areas. Councilmember Hanus asked if this plat will have variances to the hardcover requirements on the lots? He asked the City Planner this earlier and the Planner thought that this was covered in the CUP and the preliminary plat. Staff will check this out. The Council decided that without answers to their questions, they would not be able to approve this final plat tonight. The City Engineer stated that what the Watershed District has done, under Rule B, in the past, is that they will approve the permit conditioned upon, the City entering into a cooperative agreement with the Watershed District which we are in the midst of trying to work out now. It appears that the way it will come down is that there will be regional ponding. The Council expressed concern that then the City would have to pay for the construction of the ponds. The City Engineer stated that a way to fund this would be to take the money that is donated in lieu of building all the little ponds and put that toward construction of the regional ponds. Then the maintenance, which is the big item, is turned over to the City. The acquisition of the property would also be the City's responsibility. What level of participation the Watershed District will participate is unknown at this time. There was discussion about creating a Stormwater Utility so that the City can charge the users and not have the taxpayers get stuck with building treatment ponds at taxpayer expense, when user fees are what should be covering it. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to continue this item until the May 13, 1997, meeting so that aH the issues discussed tonight can be addressed by Staff. 1. Get the balance of the escrow account. 2. The coimnons area and the homeowners agreement. 3. #10 of the conditions in the proposed approval resolution. 4. The hardcover issue. JJ I i, ,J, IJl, ~lli, J, il MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APR1L 8, 1997 5. The agreement with the Watershed District. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Department Head monthly reports for March 1997. LMCD Representative's monthly report for March 1997. C. Planning Commission Minutes of March 24, 1997. Do Letter from Congressman Jim Ramstad re: Mayor Polston's letter to the Dept. of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) on the issue of improvements needed at 2020 Commerce Blvd. (Indian Knoll Manors). Invitation from Mound City Days Re: Mayor and Council's participation in the Mound City Days Parade. If you intend to be in the parade, please complete the Registration Form and return it as indicated. F. Reminder: HRA Board Meeting, Tuesday, April 8, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Reminder: Committee of the Whole Meeting, Tuesday, April 15, 1997, 7:30 p.m. The only item on the Agenda is the discussion with the Westonka School Board on the possible retention of the existing Community Center. Invitations have been extended to the Cities of Orono, Minnetrista and Spring Park to also attend. The Council asked for the following for this meeting: 1. The total cost of the Shirley Hills addition project. 2. The estimates for the renovation of the Lynwood site. 3. A summary of the 2 years worth of work that the Task Force did studying the Community Service Building (old high school). Mayor Polston stated that what he would like to see come out of this meeting is a discussion with the School District on the possibility of salvaging and saving the existing community center and what level of participation that the City can, in fact, do, and maybe collectively with Minnetrista and Spring Park. This would mean keeping the building in its present location. The Mayor stated he has spoken to the State Historical Society and there are some funds available through the bonding bill in the State for buildings of the WPA era. H. Reminder: Tuesday, April 22, 1997, 7:00 p.m., is the annual Board of Review. MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 8, 1997 Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Orono, has invited the Lake Minnetonka Area Mayors to a breakfast on Wednesday, April 9, 1997, 8:00 a.m., Lafayette Club. The purpose of the meeting is to introduce all of the Mayors to each other since many are newly elected and to brief everyone present on the Highway 12 issue. Notice of Public Hearing, by the City of Spring Park to consider an application for an Off-Sale Liquor License - G-Will Liquors, 4787 Shoreline Drive. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 131) MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - APRIL 15, 1997 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Weycker. Also Present: Westonka School Board: Chair Bill Pinegar, Jan De Matteo, Bruce Charon, Sue Peglow, and Bill Hultgren. City Staff: Ed Shukle, City Manager. School Staff: Dr. Pam Myers, Supt. of Schools and Mike Looby, Director of Community Education and Services and Personnel Director. City Representatives: Mayor Ed Gale and Cheryl Fischer, Councilmember, Minnetrista. Bruce Williamson, Spring Park City Councilmember and Pat Higus, City Clerk/Administrator. Other individuals: Gene Adams, Lois Adams Brad Curtis, Peter Meyer, Marilyn Byrnes, Patty Palmquist, Bert Haglund, Jim Kangas Lorrie Ham, Cathy Bailey, Susan Wilkens, Betty Strong, Gladys Johnson, Darryl Frederickson, Paul Andersen, Laurel Sxaubly, Dotty O"Brien, Jerry Longpre, Ben Withhart, Sandy Wing, Linda Shasets, Lynn Severson, Mike Aspelin, Bil Hawks, Len Harrell and Craig Wolfe. Mayor Polston opened the meeting with introductions of the Westonka School Board and City Council and staff. Mayor Polston then read an opening statement regarding the purpose of the joint meeting of the School Board and City Council. Chair Pinegar reviewed the background of the Westonka Community Center project beginning from the November 1993 bond referendum of $14.7 million. He indicated that $1.9 million was allocated for the renovation of the Westonka Community Center. He stated that the School Board established a Community Center Task Force in September of 1994 which was made up of citizens, businesspersons, etc. Their charge was to evaluate how best to spend the $1.9 million. The Task Force provided a recommendation in January 1995 to the School Board. The Task Force provided a plan and an alternate. The first was a plan to demolish the entire existing community center and build a new building on the community center site. With this option, the School Board should work with area cities in developing this plan that would house school district functions and non-school district functions. If that is not possible, the Task Force recommended that the 1938 high school be demolished retaining the gymnasium and remodeling the 1965 pods portion of the building. The School Board then accepted those recommendations and asked the Task Force to continue their work by seeing what could be done by working with the area cities. The Task Force facilitated meetings with the various city councils. They indicated they would like to conduct a professional survey to gauge the level of interest in building a new community center and whether the citizenry in the Westonka area would be willing to pay something for a new community center. The area cities were cooperative and agreed to assist the School District in paying for the professional survey. Pinegar then reviewed the functions in the existing building that were not school district functions. The plan was to take care of the non-school functions that were not commercial plus school functions in the building. Between December 1995 and March of 1996, elected officials from area cities were invited to meet to discuss the community center issue. During those discussions, the issue of how to finance the facility both to construct it and to cover the annual operating costs were 131J Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 2 discussed. Pinegar explained the complexity of the three area cities and the school district trying to resolve this issue. There was a general feeling that because the community center is a school district building, it was up to the School Board to solve the problem. In September of 1996, the School Board went back to the Task Force and asked them to look at Plan B which was to take down the 1938 building, retain the gymnasium and keep the 1965 pods. The Task Force found out that the front wall of the gym was not a weight bearing wall. The gym could not be retained because of this fact which then shed a different light on the issue. That left only the pods portion of the building. The Task Force then came back to the School Board with an estimate to demolish the front part of the 1938 building and renovate the pods to code of $2.7 million which would include demolition of the front part of the building and the gymnasium, taking care of the roof, fire marshal issues, ADA requirements, restoring the site and the mechanical systems. The Board then reviewed other options by looking at eight different sites that the School District owns and reviewed square footage requirements, parking requirements, etc. The School Board selected the Shirley Hills site based upon the above needs. The School Board then decided they would sell the existing building. School Board decided in November 1996 to vacate the existing building. They then held a public hearing in December 1996 on this subject. The School Board then decided at the public hearing to close the building and the building was posted for sale. In January of 1997, an offer of just over $650,000 was accepted from a developer to buy the property. It would be the responsibility of the developer to demolish the buildings and clear the site for development. Plans were prepared for Shirley Hills and have been submitted to the City of Mound's Planning Commission and City Council regarding zoning and conditional use permit issues. The application for the conditional use permit is now before the City Council of Mound. Mayor Polston thanked Mr. Pinegar for his presentation. Mayor Polston asked if any of the visiting mayors or councilmembers from other cities had any statements to make; there were none. He asked if any of the Mound councilmembers or the School Board members had any comments to make; there were none. Mayor Polston then stated that when he became Mayor, he received the January 1995 Task Force recommendations. He went on to state that he was concerned about financial issues related to the City's investment in a derivatives fund. He went on to indicate that the financial issue he was concerned about was resolved in September 1996 and is now a matter of public record. After that, he made contact with School officials and had a meeting with Supt. Dr. Pam Myers and Mike Looby. Polston indicated that the city was now in a position to assist in bonding in saving the community Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 3 center or some other plan to work with the School District cooperatively. Types of bonding were discussed at the initial meeting with the City's Finance Director, Gino Businaro present as well. Polston indicated that Ed Shulde, City Manager had been out of town and when he returned, another meeting was held again with School District officials to discuss the possibilities of providing assistance. Polston indicated he was at the public hearing in December 1995 and had asked if he could be heard at which time he stated that the city was still interested in trying to assist the school district in some way. Polston went on to talk about the Tax Increment Financing issue on the proposed development at the community center site and stormwater management issues at the Shirley Hills site. Polston emphasized that in his discussions with Pinegar to set up this joint meeting, that Pinegar cc " ' " ' is "set in stone" that perhaps can't indicated that thetno'~ng-la~a~ etched m concrete and nothing be changed prior'Xto the "wrecking ball" starting to take down the building. Polston stated that it was his hope that there was some way by working together to preserve the community center that would be economically and reasonably in the best interest of all of the citizens whether they are served by the school district or city. Polston indicated the City of Mound's support for a $1.2 million bond referendum to assist with the development of a senior center. Polston stated that he hoped that the senior center referendum and the money that the school district has could be used to preserve the community center building. Polston went on to talk about the historical significance of the 1938 building and the possibility of that building being eligible for grant monies because it was constructed during the WPA era and has a 300-500 seat auditorium located below the gym floor. Polston indicated that the general public has told him that a community auditorium is important and ought to be considered as part of any community center project. Polston indicated that it is his feeling and hopefully, the rest of the City Council's, that the city is willing and ready to save the existing community center at the least possible cost to the taxpayer. Councilmember Hanus questioned a statement that was published in The Laker regarding the school district giving the city the $1.9 million, land and building if the city would pass a referendum on the other things that needed to be done at the site. Mayor Polston indicated that the school district could not begin negotiating this kind of a deal due to the fact that a bonafide offer had been made on the property by a developer. 13 0 Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 4 Hanus questioned the various cost estimates that had been done on the property in the past. Pinegar responded that E & V Construction had provided the cost estimates on the building. Hanus went onto question the sale of the property and the issue of Tax Increment Financing. Mayor Polston asked if the offer can be cancelled by the developer if the City does not grant TIF. Pinegar responded by saying that the developer could withdraw his offer if he does not get the TIF approved by the City. Councilmember Jensen asked for clarification on the uses of the community center building. She asked Mayor Polston if the school functions that are currently in the building would remain in the building as he sees the preservation of the existing community center. He indicated that that was a correct statement and would also have the other functions in the building would also remain. Polston also clarified that he wants the auditorium in the old high school preserved. Jensen then asked the school district if they would cancel the Shirley Hills project if the preservation of the existing community center moves forward. Pinegar indicated that right now the school district can't move anywhere because the application for the conditional use permit on the Shirley Hills site is before the City Council and has not been acted upon. The TIF issue is also um'esolved and the school district could be out of a sale on the property and that would prevent the Shirley Hills project from moving forward because the community center would not be sold and the district would not have $650,000 to use towards the Shirley Hills project. Pinegar asked Mayor Polston about the City coming up with a plan to help the school district with financing as to what needs to get done as far as the school district is concerned. Polston responded by saying that the City of Mound will do what taxis reasonable and affordable. Councilmember Ahrens asked some questions regarding the school district's original intent on using the $1.9 million. She asked where the estimates came from in preparation for the bond referendum held in 1993 and the fact that the $1.9 million apparently now won't cover the renovation and now the figure is closer to $2.7 million. Pinegar responded by saying that the $1.9 million should cover the code requirements, ADA, etc., to bring the building up to meeting the requirements. He referred back to the Task Force's recommendations regarding the options they had looked at. Ahrens asked if the money planned for Shirle ~,~lls could be used for renovating the existing community center. Pinegar stated that if we--Ia~ up renovating the community center, that can certainly be considered. Ahrens questioned using $3.5 million at Shirley Hills to get ½ the space that is available at the Lynwood site. Pinegar responded by saying that there isn't $3.5 million available to spend at the Lynwood site. Pinegar said that an offer of $1.9 million and the site had been made to the city some time ago if something could be worked out together. Mayor Polston stated that this offer was made during the discussions regarding a $12-13 million facility. Polston Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 5 asked Ed Shukle, City Manager and a member of the Task Force to clarify. Shukle indicated that the offer of $1.9 million and the property had always been considered as part of the Task Force's discussions. He stated that the Task Force always understood the $1.9 million and property was available. Councilmember Hanus discussed the value in terms of money of the community center property. TIF issues were also reviewed as they relate to the community center property. Mayor Polston urged cooperation with the school district and area cities to work towards preserving the existing community center property. He doesn't like the proposed intensification of the use at the Shirley Hills site nor the proposed use at the Lynwood site which, in his mind, will intensify the use in the downtown area to the point where that may, in fact, become unuseable. He stated that the school board is doing what they have to do and are doing this with the options that they have available to them. Polston asked the school board if this project can be reviewed again and see if something jointly can be worked out. School Board Member Sue Peglow indicated that previously the City offered no help and now the City is interested in helping when the school district has its "backs up against the wall." Polston responded by talking about the $1.2 million offer for a senior center when asked about a tax increase at the public hearing held by the school board in December 1995. He also stated that he attended four of the Task Force meetings and was part of a discussion when asked about the city's support for a community center. He was concerned at that time about the issue and remembered Paul Pond's (former Minnetrista Mayor) request regarding a plan and associated costs. Peglow responded that all of the numbers were there and the options were out on the table. Pinegar referred back to where the public bodies are at this time and asked that discussion be focused on now and what direction the group was headed. Board Member Bruce Charon asked what should be included in a community center. Hanus asked what it costs to obtain estimates on a structure like the community center. Pinegar responded by indicating that he did not know. Mayor Polston asked that a committee be established by having representation from the school board and area cities along with appropriate staff to begin meeting on this issue. He stated that he hoped that this could be done and complete the work within 90 days. He indicated that city staff and other consultants would be available to assist and facilitate as necessary. Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 6 The following persons were appointed to serve on this committee: Mayor Polston and Councilmember Jensen (Ahrens, Alternate) - Mound Mayor Ed Gale and Councilmember Fischer - Minnetrista Chair Bill Pinegar and Board Member Bruce Charon or Diane McCurry - School Board Supt. Pam Myers Ed Shukle, City Manager Spring Park representative Bruce Williamson indicated that he had no authority to appoint a representative from Spring Park. Mayor Polston then opened the discussion for comments or questions from the audience. Ron Gramenz, Seahorse Condominiums - proud of the leaders here tonight. Gene Adams, 6215 Bayridge Road - federal and state monies may be available to help in the financing and other financing issues regarding the restoration of the building. Bil Hawks, 3465 County Rd. 44 - Thanked everyone for having this meeting. Said there is a solution to resolving this problem - it can be done for $1.9 million. Dottie O'Brien, 5053 Bartlett Blvd. - Concern about fixing the community center and spending a lot of money on it and what do you have after that. How many years will it last? Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Rd. - Car washes are held at the existing site. His daughter was a member of a soccer club who held a car wash there and the group made $500. He said other fundraising events could be held there along with other events. He also discussed the importance of the old gym and knew the condition of the gym and utilization of the gym by serving on the Task Force. He talked about how a proposed grocery store for the site would compete against the local grocer already in Mound. He discussed the chimney swifts, a bird, that has a large colony that live in that building over the summer; eliminate the building, you are killing the birds. Green space is an issue and a concern. He referred to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how it references the community center site. Talked about the need for a community auditorium for musical performances and glad that the City and School are moving forward on the issue. Brad Curtis, 5967 Idlewood Rd. - Questioned if there was an estimate for the 1938 building and the pods. Asked about involvement by cities in the operating costs of a new community center building. Sandy Wing, 6348 Walnut Rd. - Concerned about the present condition of the community center and that condition on the children who use the building everyday for ECFE and other classes. Jl I 1, ,1, Il, ,llJ,,, I ~l, Committee of the Whole Minutes April 15, 1997 Page 7 Kim Anderson, Lynwood Blvd. - Questioned the amount of property to be sold to the developer who would develop the community center. She stated that for what it's worth, she would tear down the pods and save the old building. Mayor Polston then thanked everyone for attending and asked the committee just formed to set a date for the first meeting. Councilmember Hanus asked that the committee try to meet weekly due to the sense of urgency in resolving this matter. The first meeting was set for Wednesday, April 16, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. at the Westonka Community Center. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. J?~s~ect~lly submitted, EdXdhukle City Manager RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VARIANCE AT 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 43 0006 P&Z CASE g97-15 WHEREAS, the owner, Mark Mulvey, has applied for a street frontage variance in order to allow construction of a new dwelling, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, minimum frontage on an improved public street of 60 feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, this property has only 15 feet of frontage on an improved public road, resulting in a variance request of 45 feet, and; WHEREAS, the development of this property does not preclude the future road improvement from happening, and; WHEREAS, the property will be conforming to all setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 45 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a new conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions: ao The applicant; Mark Mulvey dedicate to the City a permanent easement for utility and street purposes over the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24 as shown on the surxiey. bo The proposed structure be built using this 25 foot easement line to measure for the building setback as shown on the survey. The proposed sewer and water services be installed in such a manner that they could easily be reconnected if or when the City mains are extended. do The proposed grades for the house and driveway be designed to allow some flexibility for future construction of Chestnut Road extension. Proposed Resolution Mulvey, April 22, 1997 P. 2 o o The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: A new single family dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 24, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1997 CASE 97-15: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDN, 14-117-24 43 0006 City Planner, Mark Koegler, referred to the memorandum from the City Engineer which refers to a feasibility study that was done to improve the platted road in front of this property. The variance being requested is a 45 foot street frontage variance. The development of this property does not preclude the future road improvement from happening. Koegler referred to the conditions of approval recommended by the Engineer and noted that staff recommends approval of the variance subject to these conditions. Mueller asked the applicant if he read the report and agreed with the conditions. Mark Mulvey, applicant, stated that he agreed with the conditions. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. 141 September 12, 1990 1.5 CASE NO. 90-931: TOM & 8TACY HINTZ, ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (BOXWOOD LANE/LYNWOOD BLVD. t LOT 23t KOEHLER'S 2ND ]tDDITION, PID ~14-117-24 45 000St VARIANCE: NO FRONTAGE ON AB IMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY The City Manager explained the request and that the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-3) with the city Engineer's recommendations. The applicant asked why he would have to blacktop Boxwood Lane. The City Engineer explained that this would be necessary so the City could maintain the watermain, sewer line and the fire hydrant. The City Attorney pointed out that the City cannot allow privately owned utility services in a platted unimproved right-of-way which is public property. He further stated that the only way the applicant would be allowed to have utility services installed in Boxwood Lane would be in accordance with City standards and then they would have to dedicate the utilities to the City. The City Engineer explained that his first recommendation would be to extend Chestnut Road to the applicant's property and install the utilities in that road. He further pointed out that the if the owner of Lot 24 ever requests a building permit he will have to dedicate a 25 foot right-of-way (the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24) for streef and utility purposes. The Council discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being the better solution to the applicant's problem and also better for the long-term problems that could arise. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90-107 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE EXTENSION OF CHESTNUT ROAD The Council asked that this report be brought back to the Council at the October 23, 1990, meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 186 November 27, 1990 1.6 DISCUSSION___ : CHESTNUT ROAD EXTENSION AND LOT 23, KOEHLER'S ZND ADDITION The city Engineer explained that the owners of Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound have requested a building permit for a single family home on the lot. The property does not have frontage on an improved City street as required so a variance application was submitted and hearings held by both the Planning Commission and City Council. In September, the Council discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being a better long term solution. The city Engineer then presented his Preliminary Engineering Report as requested by the City Council. There are three alternates for the extension of Chestnut Road: Alt. 1. Would make it possible to subdivide Lot 23 into 3 lots and, at the same time, provide the Owner of Lot 24 an option to subdivide his property into 2 building sites. Total Estimated Cost - $73,000.00. Alt. 2. Shows the minimum extension of Chestnut Road to serve Lot 23, with the possible subdivision into 2 lots. Total Estimated Cost - $49,700.00. Alt. 3. Would extend Chestnut Road to the City owned property, Lot 32. This alternate was addressed in May of 1979 and was eliminated as part of the 1980 Street Improvement Project because the necessary easement could not be obtained. Total Estimated Cost - $82,100.00. He further stated that no costs for platting or subdivision were included in the report. That would be the responsibility of the applicant. Costs for acquisition of right-of-way and looping the watermain was not included in the estimated cost. David Willcox, owner of Lots 25 & 26, was present and objected to the improvement. He stated he would not benefit from the road being improved and is not willing to give a right-of-way easement across his property. He stated he had obtained a building permit to construct a garage and several days later was given a stop work order and told he would have to apply for a variance because he did not have 40 feet of street frontage. He stated that it will triple the cost of his garage if he now has to relocate it for a road that may or may not go in. He asked that some compensation be given to him if he has to relocate his garage because he already has about $800 invested. Tom Hintz, owner of Lot 23, stated he only wants to construct one single family home on the Lot and would really like to have utilities and access to his property off unimproved Boxwood Lane. Dick Schieffer, attorney representing the Hintz's, stated he and the Hintzs' have not had time to look at the option of subdividing and would like additional time. Mark Mulvey, owner of Lot 24, stated he wants to keep his lot as one building site, not subdivide into two lots. Nancy Willcox, former owner of Lots 25 & 26, stated she did not want Chestnut Road extended when it was proposed years ago. David Hintz, father of Tom Hintz, stated that they were aware there were access problems when his son purchased the lot but thought there could be a reasonable solution to the problem. The city Attorney suggested that the Council give the Hintz's time to analyze their situation and see if it makes economic sense to go forward or propose some other alternative. The Council agreed and the Hintz's will contact the City when they have made a decision on what they want to do. If they request coming off of Boxwood for access, the people on Lynwood that abut Boxwood should be notified. ,l, i,l , IIJ,,, J, l,i RESOLUTION ~/97- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AT 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD PART OF LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0088 P&Z CASE g97-16 WHEREAS, the owner, Gary Nachreiner, has applied for a front yard setback variance of 8 feet in order to construct a nonconforming 36' x 28' two story garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and; WHEREAS, Currently the property is conforming in all aspects and there is no garage on the site. The proposed addition is setback 22 feet from the front property line where a 30 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 8 feet, and; WHEREAS, there is a fairly steep hill on the west side and the general topography of the site favors the location as proposed. Due to the topography of this site it would be difficult to place a detached garage that would be conforming to setbacks, and; WHEREAS, the City has, in past variance cases, supported the construction of garages to provide for storage and eliminate clutter, however, any variance or encroachment must be minimal and meet the criteria set forth in Zoning Code Section 350:530. The proposed garage is rather large in this case, and if the depth were reduced somewhat the situation would be closer to meeting the minimum situation as outlined in the ordinance, and; WHEREAS, there is approximately 13 to 15 feet of boulevard between the curb and the property line, so with a 28 foot deep garage the addition would still be about 35' from the curb, and; WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and impervious surface coverage are conforming, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of a 4 foot variance in order to allow construction of a 24 foot deep garage addition, with the finding that although there appears to be some practical difficulty and limiting topography in this case, the applicant's proposal of a 28 foot deep garage does not represent the minimal situation in order to alleviate the hardship. A 24 foot deep garage addition is more representative of a minimal situation and would afford the owner reasonable use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Proposed Resolution Nachreiner, April 22, 1997 P. 2 The City does hereby grant a 4 foot front yard setback variance in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 36' x 24' two story garage addition located 26 feet from the front property line. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: 36' x 24' two story garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The Southeasterly 112.5 feet of Lot 7; The Southeasterly 112.5 feet of Lot 6, except that part of the Northeasterly 10 feet of said Lot lying Northwesterly of a line drawn at right angles to the Northeasterly line at a point distant 120 feet Southeasterly fi.om the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 6; all in Block 9, "The Highlands", according to the recorded plat thereof. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1997 CASE 97-16: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION GARY NACHREINER, 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD P/LOTS 6 8,: 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0088 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 36' x 28' two story garage addition as noted on the attached survey. Currently the property is conforming in all aspects and there is no garage on the site. The proposed addition is setback 22 feet from the front property line where a 30 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 8 feet. There is a fairly steep hill on the west side and the general topography of the site favors the location as proposed. Due to the topography of this site it would be difficult to place a detached garage that would be conforming to setbacks. It is the applicants intent to add square footage onto the dwelling, and the attached garage with the addition above makes sense from the prospective of how it all fits on the site. The City has, in past variance cases, supported the construction of garages to provide for storage and eliminate clutter, however, any variance or encroachment must be minimal and meet the criteria set forth in Zoning Code Section 350:530. The proposed garage is rather large in this case, and if the depth were reduced somewhat the situation would be closer to meeting the minimum situation as outlined in the ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. Although there appears to be some practical difficulty and limiting topography in this case, the proposal does not represent the minimal situation in order to alleviate the hardship. Staff suggested the applicant and the Planning Commission may wish to consider a garage addition that is reduced in depth and that would be more representative of a minimal situation. Applicant, Gary Nachreiner, presented photographs to the Planning Commission and emphasized the need for the garage and the topographical problems of the lot due to the steep slope. He expressed a need to use 12 inch block in order to retain the hillside behind the garage, and therefore needs a deeper garage due to the space lost by the 12 inch block. Nachreiner also stated that construction of the addition in this location will help correct drainage problems on the lot. The Commission expressed a concern about the size of the garage and noted that it is not a minimal request. The applicant stated that he needs and would be satisfied with a 26 foot deep garage. Mueller clarified with the applicant that there is approximately 13 to 15 feet of boulevard between the curb and the property line, so with a 28 foot deep garage addition it will still be about 35' from the curb. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Mueller commented that a 24 foot depth would be more acceptable. Sutherland commented, from a staff perspective, that a 24 foot deep garage would be supported and suggested a motion could be made denying the 28 foot depth and suggesting that a 24 foot deep garage would be acceptable. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend denial of a 28 foot deep garage addition, but would recommend approval of a 24 foot deep garage addition as it constitutes a minimally sized three car garage. Clapsaddle stated that he would prefer to table the request to allow the applicant time to rework his design. Clapsaddle suggested that the garage could be designed to be constructed to the side of the house. Michael expressed a concern that they are making a recommendation for something that was not presented. The applicant emphasized again that he would be happy with a 26 foot deep garage. MOTION carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Burma, Glister, Mueller, Reifschneider, Voss, Weiland, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle and Michael. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of April 14, 1997 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Building Official ~ Jon Sutherland, Variance Request Gary Nachreiner 97-16 6056 Cherrywood Road Part of Lots 6 & 7, Block 9, The Highlands, PID 23-117-24 34 0088 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 36' x 28' two story garage addition as noted on the attached survey. Currently the property is conforming in all aspects and there is no garage on the site. The proposed addition is setback 22 feet from the front property line where a 30 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 8 feet. COMMENT: There is a fairly steep hill on the west side and the general topography of the site favors the location as proposed. Due to the topography of this site it would be difficult to place a detached garage that would be conforming to setbacks. It is the applicants intent to add square footage onto the dwelling, and the attached garage with the addition above makes sense from the prospective of how it all fits on the site. The City has, in past variance cases, supported the construction of garages to provide for storage and eliminate clutter, however, any variance or encroachment must be minimal and meet the criteria set forth in Zoning Code Section 350:530. The proposed garage is rather large in this case, and if the depth were reduced somewhat the situation would be closer to meeting the minimum situation as outlined in the ordinance. ®printed on recycled paper Staff Report Nachreiner April 14, 1997, P. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. Although there appears to be some practical difficulty and limiting topography in this case, the proposal does not represent the minimal situation in order to alleviate the hardship. The applicant and the Planning Commission may wish to consider a garage addition that is reduced in depth and would be more representative of a minimal situation. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. ,i, iI, ~l~,, I, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 PAID MAR 21 1997 ITY OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: q ":~ Distribution: ~ -'7...i-'q"]City Planner ~[ City Engineer ~! Public Works LEGAL Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R~-~5 R-iA R-2 R-3 B-1 PROPERTY Name G q OWNER Address ~ Phone (H) q APPLICA~ Name (IF OTHER Address THaN Phone (H) .(W) OWNER) Case No. q'-'/-- I (O DNR Other Block Plat # G / ~ / 0 B-2 B-3 (M) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, t~t no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ( N~)E W ) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE ft. fl. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. fl. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. fl. ft. ft. fl. sq fl sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq fl Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ]~,), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ¢~) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify describe: (Rev. 1/14/97) 1.5 CASE NO. 90-931: 141 September 12, 1990 TOM & 8TACY HINTZ, ADDRESS UNASSIGNED (BOXWOOD LANE/LYNWOOD BLVD., LOT 23. KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID ~14-117-2~ 43 0005, VARIANCE: NO FRONTAGE ON AN IMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY The City Manager explained the request and that the Planning Commission recommended approval (6-3) with the city Engineer's recommendations. The applicant asked why he would have to blacktop Boxwood Lane. The City Engineer explained that this would be necessary so the City could maintain the watermain, sewer line and the fire hydrant. The City Attorney pointed out that the City cannot allow privately owned utility services in a platted unimproved right-of-way which is public property. He further stated that the only way the applicant would be allowed to have utility services installed in Boxwood Lane would be in accordance with City standards and then they would have to dedicate the utilities to the City. The City Engineer explained that his first recommendation would be to extend Chestnut Road to the applicant's property and install the utilities in that road. He further pointed out that the if the owner of Lot 24 ever requests a building permit he will have to dedicate a 25 foot right-of-way (the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24) for streef and utility purposes. The Council discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being the better solution to the applicant's problem and also better for the long-term problems that could arise. Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90-107 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT ON THE EXTENSION OF CHESTNUT ROAD The Council asked that this report be brought back to the Council at the October 23, 1990, meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 186 November 27, 1990 1.6 DISCUSSION: CHESTNUT ROAD EXTENSION AND LOT 23, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION The City Engineer explained that the owners of Lot 23, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound have requested a building permit for a single family home on the lot. The property does not have frontage on an improved City street as required so a variance application was submitted and hearings held by both the Planning Commission and city Council. In September, the Council discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being a better long term solution. The City Engineer then presented his Preliminary Engineering Report as requested by the City Council. There are three alternates for the extension of Chestnut Road: Alt. 1. Would make it possible to subdivide Lot 23 into 3 lots and, at the same time, provide the Owner of Lot 24 an option to subdivide his property into 2 building sites. Total Estimated Cost - $73,000.00. Alt. 2. Shows the minimum extension of Chestnut Road to serve Lot 23, with the possible subdivision into 2 lots. Total Estimated Cost - $49,700.00. Alt. 3. Would extend Chestnut Road to the City owned property, Lot 32. This alternate was addressed in May of 1979 and was eliminated as part of the 1980 Street Improvement Project because the necessary easement could not be obtained. Total Estimated Cost - $82,100.00. He further stated that no costs for platting or subdivision were included in the report. That would be the responsibility of the applicant. Costs for acquisition of right-of-way and looping the watermain was not included in the estimated cost. David Willcox, owner of Lots 25 & 26, was present and objected to the improvement. He stated he would not benefit from the road being improved and is not willing to give a right-of-way easement across his property. He stated he had obtained a building permit to construct a garage and several days later was given a stop work order and told he would have to apply for a variance because he did not have 40 feet of street frontage. He stated that it will triple the cost of his garage if he now has to relocate it for a road that may or may not go in. He asked that some compensation be given to him if he has to relocate his garage because he already has about $800 invested. Tom Hintz, owner of Lot 23, stated he only wants to construct one single family home on the Lot and would really like to have utilities and access to his property off unimproved Boxwood Lane. Dick Schieffer, attorney representing the Hintz's, stated he and the Hintzs' have not had time to look at the option of subdividing and would like additional time. Mark Mulvey, owner of Lot 24, stated he wants to keep his lot as one building site, not subdivide into two lots. Nancy Willcox, former owner of Lots 25 & 26, stated she did not want Chestnut Road extended when it was proposed years ago. David Hintz, father of Tom Hintz, stated that they were aware there were access problems when his son purchased the lot but thought there could be a reasonable solution to the problem. The city Attorney suggested that the Council give the Hintz's time to analyze their situation and see if it makes economic sense to go forward or propose some other alternative. The Council agreed and the Hintz's will contact the city when they have made a decision on what they want to do. If they request coming off of Boxwood for access, the people on Lynwood that abut Boxwood should be notified. COPIED KOEGLER 4/4/97 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone Engineers 612/476-6010 Planners 612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer April 3, 1997 Variance Request - Case #97-15 MFRA #11642/4909 As requested, we have reviewed the latest proposal to develop Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound which needs a variance to the street frontage requirement and have the following comments and recommendations: Background Our files on this particular lot and possible extension of Chestnut Road go back 26 years to 1971 when the owner at that time requested he be allowed to build a home. Enclosed is a letter from the City Engineer, William Mills, dated May 7, 1971 and a Council Memorandum No. 71-112. Evidently, nothing happened at that time. Then in 1975 a new owner became interested in building and requested permission to connect to the ends of the existing watermain and sanitary sewer. Enclosed are copies of their letters, CoUncil Memorandum No. 75-175 and 75-182 and Resolution No. 75-269. Again, nothing was done. In 1979, the City ordered a Preliminary Engineering Report for street and utility improvements for the extension of Chestnut Road, a copy of which is attached. The intention was to include this construction with the large street projects scheduled for that year. The project did not proceed because the necessary easements could not be obtained. An Equal Opportunity Employer Jon Sutherland April 3, 1997 In 1985, another owner of Lot 24 came forward with a desire to build. See my letter dated April 23, 1985. Again, nothing resulted fi.om this request. The present owner, Mark Mulvey entered the picture in 1988 and paid the deficient assessments for sewer lateral, the in-place sewer service and the water area charge, the total of which was $898.63. The owner of the property in 1965 when the sewer and water system was installed in chestnut Road, had contested his assessment and it was removed from the assessment rolls. Attached are copies of both documents. Then in 1990, the owners of Lot 23, which is the next lot east of Lot 24, filed a variance application requesting utility service and driveway access from Lynwood Boulevard in order to build on his property. This resulted in the City ordering another feasibility study to provide utilities and street access for the entire undeveloped area. A copy of this Preliminary Engineering Report is enclosed. Neither the variance or the proposed project were ever approved by the City Council. The Wilcox's who own and have a residence on Parcel (46), Lots 25 through 28 have since purchased Lot 23. Comments And Recommendations Because of all the past history and the present ownership of the lots in this area, we are recommending approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant; Mark Mulvey dedicate to the City a permanent easement for utility and street purposes over the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24 as shown on the survey. 2. The proposed structure be built using this 25' easement line to measure for the building setback as shown on the survey. 3. The proposed sewer and water services be installed in such a manner that they could easily be reconnected if or when the City mains are extended. 4. The proposed grades for the house and driveway be designed to allow some flexibility for future construction of Chestnut Road extension. Enclosures e:Lmain:\l 1642~suth4-3 MAR 2 0 1997 GITY OF MOUND ,I, II,. ~, Il, ~,l CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Appli. cation Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ,~-~14"'] City Planner DNR ~ City Engineer Other " Public Works SUBJECT Address 5 c] OC) LEGAL Subdivision ~h I~ Ct~ ~~ ~ ~ .. DESC. PIDg14- 1 -2 ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ~&(K ' I Phone(H) APPLICA~ Name (~ OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M). OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. I 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): er. 1/14/97) I~m~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zonine district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reas( for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N(.~,E_ W ) ~O ft. 3~., c[ ft. IXJ~,t .ft. Side Yard: ( N S (l~W) ~ 0 ft. I~/, 0 ft. t)o~ ~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E(~) tO ft. 5].O Y ff. ~o,,,¢ ft. Rear Yard: ((.~S E W ) tS- ft. + }00 ft. ~}ot~ ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ~[.~- ft. ft. ft. · (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~0 ft. 15- ft. ~/~- ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape describe: ./ soil existing situation other: specify (Rev. 1/14/97) Variance Appncation, P. 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No)KO. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~X~. If yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No'04. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ff]~ (~ ff~)~ Date~_ZC~_Q'--~ Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 1/14/97) L~~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: ~'k LOT AREA ~/~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA'~ ~00 SQ. LOT AREA SQ. 17;0o0 *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X : X : X : TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... Zo© TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OVER (indicate difference) PREPARED BY 6t.l~ ~k)'(~ NOR~TH F__ t EYATIO~ VENT BEV£LtD LAt~ $1D!NG ULLVLY c.O(J,TH E L£V~'TIO~ '/~": I'-0" ' T LAP W~_CjT HE(H./~o~- I:FE ~P EL lop FDId 'IH"= I'-0" 3-~'-fl7 ~L~LV£Y /~OUt,J ~ T~;) o~ ,~ L,o~,E T ~ IDa'-D" LIVING RO0/~ FFE ~00'-0" b MU. LVE¥ RLS/D~hiC~ ~OUH[3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN I/j= I'- 0" $-~-fl7 3HL~-~ 2..,..i 0m ASPHALT q~" .,'D'X ..r~Jm, IN%gL B&[~:k£ ('''' ~ ' '* ' ~$ B'/' O~NEP', 6£v£cEP L,,qP ~u.,¢ER, -I'¥p. FLOOR, COUSTR- 7-~l~ 2 s~'r~, t -~]~,~, 5- 2~'(~ SILL 12" C0~'JC· BL. '/z= ~-~-~ 7 [q L LV LONG LAKE, MINN. 55356 PHONE: 473-9883 Mr. Leonard Kopp Village i¢~nager Mound, Minn. Dear Mr. Kopp, May 7, 1971 Re: M~. Duane NorberE Sewer, water service It is understood that Mr. Duane Norberg intends to construct a residence on Lot 24, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound. It is also understood that Lot 24 was never assessed for sewer although there is a stub out of a manhole at the east end of ~_~ Lane. There is no sewer or water for lot 23. Lot 32 is served along Lynwood Blvd. only. It seems that the most logical way to serve lot 23 and the central part of lot 32 which is considerably lower than Lynwood Blvd., is by extending the sewer northeasterly along the south side of lots 24 and 23. There would also be some benefit in extending the water main and street to interject with Langdon Lane. Lots 26 through 31 are on low ground that would require substantial fill to be buildable. It may be expedient at this time to allow Mr. Norberg to connect to the sewer and water as best he can~ charging the deferred assessment. It is suggested that this act should not preclude the possible future extension of the sewer, water and street as described above. It is suggested that the necessary easements be required of Mr. Norberg at this time. It is my opinion that the most efficient method would be to construct the sewer, water and street at this time, however this may not correspond with the present needs of the other affected property owners. Wlllla~ T. Mills WT~.! AGE OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 10, 1971 COJNCT~_ MEMO~ NO. 71-112 TO: The Honorable Mayor and Village Council FROM: The Village Manager SUBJECT: Sewer & Wa%er extension Chestnut Lane Lot 24Koehler's 2nd Add. to Mound Fir. Duane Norberg has requested information as to p~ocedures for build- lng on Lot 24 Kochler's 2nd Addition to Mound. ~ 1. En~qineer Mills was requested to make suggestions. A copy of his suggestions are attmched. 2. A copy of the "As Builts" show a stub to this lot for the sewer. 3. There is no street in front of the lot. 4. Water stops at the end of the street although Lot 25 has water. 5. Lots 25-26-27-28-29-30-31 have sewer available along the rail- road and were so assessed. 6. Lot 24was assessed for sewer (not water). The owner appealed the assessment (see copy of appeal at%aahed) and his appeal was approved hy the Council so it has not paid an assessment. 7. Future plans for water call for water to go frmu the end of Shady Lane across to Langdon Place. Ail the right~of~ay has been acquired except from Lots 24, 25 and 26. 8. Lots 30, 31 and 32 are tax forfeit. : The following is recommended for water, sewer and stre~t~fo~ Lot 24. 1. Sewer be furnished as originally planned and Lot 24 assume the original assessment. 2. Lot 24 dedicate 25 feet for extension of Chestnut Lane. Inasmuch as not interest'.~uas:been charged on Sewer assessment the land for street should be given the Village. 3. Water - Lot 24, at their own expense, extend the water main to the :easterly edge of Lot 24. If Lots 25 and 26 have not in the past paid a water assessment then the Village could assess this extension. (Lots 25 and 26 should also dedicate 25 feet of right of way) C(IINC~. MEMfRANDUM NO. 71-112 Page 2 h. After the Utilities are installed Lot 2h should improve the road by the installation of ~ inches of pit run 9ravel which should be cempacted and then cover the pitrun with two 3~' inch lifts of class 5 grmvel prior to the Village maintaining the road. 5. Although the wster main should be looped to Langdon Place it is~. not recommended this he done at this time. Respectfully sukmitted, Leonard L. Kopp Retyped 6-20/75 . , .-.. ..... ... -.,?.: , · . .. :'. '~.. L'.:.':.'.". ~':'.~"'. : ' ":'" · ,':~...'...~.~.',...<2'.., ' · .'. ~,(;." · · .' ' · ¢0NVE~ANCE FA~ TEE STATE OF CERTAIN LAN~$ . .'.. ':':' (Nly 34 feet of Lot-30, Ecehler's 2nd ~.- . ~Nly 34 feet of Lot 31, Koehle='e' 2nd · '.': (Part of Lot 31, Xoe~ez:'s 2nd Described) · .~-~? ..... '. forfeit~ az~ .. . ........ · '. "-::i ....... '..~ '\ ' · .:.,.. · '.~.-.~.~2~.,.~,~.,(~.:......~ , '. . . ,:.... ·: ..,.: .:.::: ..-.. .,-. · ".-' '?. '" · .,'..:'~.~.~..I;o Hou~dt and .. .... · - ' : ' X'o~hler* s 2nd Ad~Ltion t° Mo~d, . · '-". ':. i?'.g"':: Paz~'e~:'8o20 ~eeCribed Ae:'~o~lo~s~ i' ' ' . i'"~:; ?":' .... ' '"' ' '" ' :' "- · ' ° .' .... ''~r.;. ' '' ' - - .. ~: th NEly along the Sly line sd Lot 2~.extended ...... to the pt o~ intersection with the W line of · '"' Lot 32 Koehler's 2nd Addn - such pt being the ': actual pt of beg. th NEly along the Sly line .... of Lot 23 to a pt in the E Line Lot 32 to a pt '"', which is 7~ ft N of'the SW cor Lot 10 Mack's ..... '~"": Ad&n, th S alon~' .the E line' Lot 32 Koehler's" "~: 2nd Addn 15 ft, th'SWly along.~ line par with the h-Ely descr line 95 ft, th $ 35 ft, th S~ly ...: '- to a pt in the W line of Lot 32 to a pt which : ~. ... is 50 ft S of the actual pt of' beg. th N to B. eg. _,'.: :'....~: ..~ ... ....- .~ ~: · . ,.:. ..... ';'' ' ' ' ' '~' ' ' ' '- ; " :'...2': ,. ~, ':. · .,, ,e .-.., . Mound, Minn. June 12, 1975 Leonard L. Kopp 'l'~'w ~ 7~ Village Manager Village of Mound Office Dear Mr. Kopp, In regards to lot 24, Koehlers 2nd Addition to Mound, please furnish us with the following_ information; Confirmation that upon our granting the easement for the roadway South of this property line, that the Village will extmnd or make av~.ilable water and sewer to service this property. We ~11 grant this easement upon being gusranteed that the assessment of $992.62 ,agreed upon per records we bo~h h~ve, will be the complete charge for wste~ and sewer availability to us. Sincerely, _ ~ ----, / ~ Eugene and Mildred Hodge June 20, 1975 COUNCIL NE~OWA_;~Dt~ NO. 75-175 TO= FRC~= The Hono~ab!e Nmyc~ a~d Cit~ Couuoil The City ~,m~ge= Lot 24, Eoehler's 2nc~ Additiom The owner of Lot 24~ Koehle~'s 2n~ Ad~i~zion is in%ereote~, in b~.ildi~ on ~hie i05. At p~e~en~, there is no r~ or road right-of=way for -~.he pr. opex~-, ~ud .~w~r ~n~ wate~ h~ve not been inst~lled. At%ached is a copy off C~uc~_l ~emoran~um ~Oo 71-112, dmte~ F~y 10, 1~, which 1971 is t~t ~ Oi~ ~s acqui~d the ~nd colored ~'een on ~ ~'~c~ ~p as The long-~n~e water ~stem pla~ sho~:s ~h~t ~.he ,.~a~cem"~ain should he "looped" to caunec~ the dead end ~t ~he end off ~T. 1~ Block 2~ to L.~=~lon Lane. This tm~ermain shoul~ ~e loope~ ms soon as possible. In 1971 the 0o~ncil mpproved 2.,he ~ecomm~n~ations ~s listed in Council ~o. 71-112. I2 is ~a~g~sted ~ha~ 2h~ Council oor..sider, looping the ~ater~ain owner would 2. ~r - As~ a ze~ ~tem~l ~oees~ off !02.72 feet-~ ~b) ~ tbs Cecil ~-~i~ rather ~ee ~ 24 co~c~ ~o ~li~ ~-~her~ ,~mter is no~ ex+~ed wo~d app~ a fee of ~..~ per fron'~ foot plus in'e~ll~ i~ e~ende~ to ~$on ~ne. (oontinued) "The i~m'kalt~ion of 4 inches of pit ~zu g~avel ~,:hich ~houl~ be com~c~ ~ then c~e~ the pi~ ~ith 'h-~o ~h~e~..in~h lifts of clasm ~ g.z'avel prior '~o '~hm City ~in~ t~. ~d." This ~rill be lis%e~ 'fo_~ discussion on Jm..e 24. cc I~v. Euge~ Eod~e COBI~CIL i~F~{GR&NDUM SO. '.'0'o s2~eet %o be co~st=ucte'd at this time, lm2 25 .f~% or .... t 24 ~o be ~ed~cst~ ~Pr street ~t-of-~, ~nd .:,ol;~ 25 mud 26 he ~equested to dedicate 25 fee~, ,~,ole A-!9 I/~o~-din~-:the a~ses~t ~e ~id ............ ~ ..... his se~vics a~ ~ ~di~i:'on to a!l co~e~tion c~s l:~ ~.00 ~ ~o~t foot · . ~ - ~. ,. It is .~eco~',u~eE '~,,:e.m~,'' ~he Co~uciI ,~-k~. the ~b~ve s~pu~a'$ions fo_~m as foll.~- s: 75-269 7- -75 RESOLUTION NO. 75-269 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO LOT 24, KOEHLER, S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND, AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Lot 24, Koehler' s 2nd Addition to Mound has neither water nor sewer service and does have a road right-of-way past the property, and WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing the following stipulations are met: e A 25-foot right-of-way for street and utility purposes be dedicated to the City of Mound. The right-of-Way to be the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 24. Lot 24 pay a sewer lateral assessment of $728.58 and be allowed to connect at service from Manhole A-19. (An asc~ss~ent of $63.04 is to be made for the s,rvice if it exists.) Se Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the watermain at the end of Chestnut Road providing they install %heir own services pay all connection charges and an addi- tional $4.00 per front foot. If the water- main is extended easterly along Chestnut Road at any future date, this property shah be subject to a special assessment under the formula used to assess that project less a credit for the $4.00 per foot previously paid. Adopted by the council this 8th day of July, 1975. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT For City of Mound, ~innesota Chestnut Road Improvements Sewer, Water & Street Construction May, 1979 I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5/2/79 ~- .~. . Reg. No. 7411 May 2, 1979 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject' Preliminary Engineering Report Chestnut Road Improvements Gentlemen' As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for a sewer and water extension and street improvements on Chestnut Road, from the end of the existing road to approximately 500 feet East. If you have any questions on anything in this Report we would be pleased to discuss this with you at your convenience. Yours very truly, LS:jl Enclosure ~cCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Swanson, P.E. GENERAL The owner of Lot 24, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound has requested a building permit. There are problems regarding sewer and water availability and street access to this property. The City Council authorized this Preliminary Engineering Report to investigate these problems and to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to Lot 32, the southerly portion of which is City owned land. The City also owns Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. SEWER Nap No. 1 shows the location of existing sewers in the area. There is a sewer on the railroad right-of-way and at the end of the existing road. The sewer along the railroad right-of-way was laid on piling and the sewer as-built drawings show up to 10 feet of peat under the pipe. This sewer is at too high an elevation to be extended along the right-of-way abutting Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The sewer at the end of Chestnut is also at too high an elevation to be extended along the existing right-of-way of Chestnut abutting Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. -1- There are three possible ways of serving the properties involved with sewer. The first is to haul in large quantities of fill to raise the grade of the street and the adjacent lots. We do not believe this is feasible because the property to the north is heavily wooded and a number of large trees would have to be removed. It would also be virtually impossible to blend Lot 32 into the new street grade. The second alternative would be to construct a lift station and pump the sewage to the existing sewer. The small number of lots which would be served by this lift station makes this economically not feasible. The third alternative and the one we recommend would be to shift the alignment of Chestnut Road as shown on Nap No. 2. The new alignment would allow the extension of The existing sewer on Chestnut as shown. This will require a replatting of the properties involved, however, it will also provide gravity sewer to all buildable properties in the area. WETLANDS Map No. 2 shows the approximate location of the ~and below elevation 933 which is the 1965 high water level of Lake Langdon. -2- We would recommend that this property be retained by the City as wetlands. WATER Map No. 1 shows the proposed watermain construction. The watermain should be a 6 inch line which would be looped between Chestnut and Langdon Lane. The easement between Lots 9 and 10, Macks Addition, has previously been acquired by the City. Langdon Lane will not be disturbed by this construction because the watermain was stubbed to behind the curb with the 1978 Street Construction. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Right-of-way for the street, as proposed herein, will have to be acquired across Lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and 32, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound. STREETS Width - the proposed street will be 26 feet wide, plus one foot on each side for surmountable curbing for a total of 28 feet which will be centered on the right-of-way. -3- C Drainage - drainage of the street will be the wetlands on the City owned property. Two (2) catch basins and a small length of storm sewer will be required. Typical Section - the attached drawing shows the proposed typical street section. The street surfacing will consist of S-l/2 inches of bituminous base and 1-1/2 inches of bituminous wearing course. Concrete Curb and Gutter - a surmountable concrete curb and gutter with driveway aprons will be constructed at the edge of the street surfacing. A typical section of curb and gutter and driveway aprons is attached to this Report. COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of the work is as follows: Sanitary Sewer Watermain Street and Storm Sewer $15,000 18,000 28,000 The estimated cost includes estimated 1979 construction cos~ plus 20% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. The cost given do not include any costs for right-of- way acquisition. -4- 0 ° ASSESSMENTS If the sewer and watermain were assessed on a front foot basis to the buildable property the assessment per foot for sewer would be $16,000 , 580 feet = $27.58/feet and for water $18,000 + 680 feet = $26.47/feet. If it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 is one unit and that Lots 27 and 28 are another and if Lot 23 were divided into 3 units and Lot 32 into 2 units there would be 7 units, 156,600 S.F. and ll60 feet assessed for streets with this construction. On the basis of 40% of the cost being assessed on a unit basis, 30% on the area, and 30% on front footage - the assessment for this project, if not combined with another project, would be: Unit $1,600 Front Footage $ 7.24 Square Footage $ 0.054 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. The proposed construction requires acquiring right-of- way from ~our property owners. We would recommend that if this project does not go forward that the minimum requirements £or issuing a building permit on Lot 24 be - that the sewer and watermain be constructed to the easterly edge of the lot and that a $0 foot right-of-way adjacent to Lot 24 and over- lapping the existing SO foot right-of-way on Chestnut be given to the City. COST ESTIMATE Chestnut Road ITEM Street and Storm Sewer Tree Removal Excavation Bituminous Base Bituminous Surfacing ESTIMATED QUANTITY LUMP SUM 1900 CYD 340 TON 145 TON Concrete Curb and Gutter 1200 L.F. Driveway Aprons Catch Basins Storm Sewer ContinEencies 100 L.F. 2 EACH 130 L.F. ESTIMATED UNIT PRICE $ 2.00 15 O0 17 00 4 50 5 00 6 00 14 O0 Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost TOTAL $ 1,000 3,800 5,100 2,465 5,400 500 1,200 1,820 2,115 $23,400 4,600 $28,000 -7- Item 6" Watermain Fittings Service Groups Service Pipe Gate Valve Hydrants Contingencies Estimated Quantity 750 L.F. 500 LBS. 7 EACH 175 L.F. 4 EACH 2 EACH Estimated Construction Cost Estimated Unit Price $ 12 oo 1 oo 100 O0 7 oo 200 oo 700 O0 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer 8" Sewer - 0 - 10' Deep Manholes Foundation Material 8 x 4 Wyes 4" Sewer Services Contingencies Total $ 9,ooo 500 7O0 1,225 800 1,400 1,375 $15,000 3,000 $18,000 530 L.F. 16.00 8,480 2 EACH 750.00 1,500 50 TONS 7.00 350 7 EACH 50.00 350 200 L.F. 7.00 1,400 1,220 Estimated Construction Cost Engineering Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost $13,300 2,700 $16,000 -8- ' LYNWOOD BLVD. (CO. RD. 15) I I ~ ~ , I 1221 ~ ~2 -J'z ~ I I __ I I , ~ ' ~ R,-I co z-O- KOEHLI' S .... ~ o--s ~ , ......io ~ ,"~ -I== TER.RA (;E~ :,5 ~~..~.--~ . , fi-- 2oo' ~A~ NO. ~ BOOK I PAGE ~:,. ............... OM~S KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER B WATERMAIN I co.~.L ,.~ ~..~.[[.s · ~.~ suav[~o.~ · ~t~[ ~..[.~ ~,~ .o. CHESTNUT ROAD ..... ~ MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON.MINNESOTA 4909 J ,IlL J L ,L Ii, illL It ~ - LYNWOOD BLVD. (CO. RD. 15) I I I 13 Z i I I I I I I i I I ---~ C/) Z KOEHL, S .... ...... ~-- I PROPOSED 32 f,~ ~ · · STORM SEWER-~ I0 ~ 4 ! ' MOUN [ L..::: TERRA (,E, ~ ' '~ - ___ ; ] ~,,= MAP NO. .oo. .~ PROPOSED STREET ALIGNMENT OMBS KNUTSON ASSOCIATES :';~;. : ~ MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON.MINNESOTA 4909 I~O-W R-O-W VARIES I~Z"MHD 2~41 BITUMINOUS SURFACE ~z"MHD 2351 BITUMINOUS SURFACE SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE TYPICAL SECTION 3,~j [M¢COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, IN(:. i''c°'<' I'''~I '~ESIDENTIAL STREET [. ))))j,,,,)),,, ~ ,o.~,,,,,.~,.:,.,,.,.,...,...,,~.,..,,,,....,., i~,.o] " ' CITY OF MOUN ICAL I I, ~ 8"_MIN'_ I - L .... CURB SECTION 11 SLOPE VARIES 6" '- I0 x I0 W.W.M. TYPICAL APRON SEC'rlON~ MOUND , MINNESOTA McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTIN(; ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS April 23, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plyrnouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Hr. Oon Elam City Hanager City of Hound 5341 Haywood Road Hound, Hinnesota 55364 Subject: O~estnut Road - Street & Utility Improvements Hound, Hinnesota #49O9 Dear Oon: I met with Dennis Danger on Honday April 15, 1985 at his lot on the end of Chestnut Road. It was difficult to tell where the property lines where since no property corners were visible. He did not like the proposed location of the street extension because of the amount it cut into the buiidable portion of his lot. I quess I would have to somewhat agree with him. He would not sign the easement that was prepared back in 1979 for these improvements. Pe has furnished me with some topography of the area and I have redesigned the road by using a flatter curve off the end of the existing street. This will help his situation somewhat, but it will require a larger easement from Hr. Willcox, the property owner to the south. Hr. Danger lives close to our office so I will have him stop in to review my sketch and then meet at the site if he is willing to go along with the new alignment. I still see the sewer and water as a problem. I had Dee check for any past assessments and the only one she could find was a sewer unit charge of $292.00, which means this lot is deficient in a sewer lateral charge and water charge. It appears these two would total approximately $1000.00. There are a number of ways that this property can be served with sewer and water. The most ideal from the City's standpoint would be to require that the mains, 8" sanitary sewer and 6" water, be extended by the property owner across his property. Enclosed is an estimate that we had previously prepared for this method. The big problem with this alternate is that the City does not have either a street or utility easement across Lots 25 and 26 which would be required for construction of the utilities. The simple solution is to let Hr. Danger connect a 4" sewer service and l" water service where the mains presently terminate. If this is done he should be charged the deficiencies which exist from past assessments. pr,hied on rec,¢c~ec~ ~on Elam April 23, 1985 Page Two Which ever method is used for serving this property with utilities we should get a signed easement from Mr. Danger and let him build his driveway to the end of the existing bituminous. If this street is ever extended with curb and gutter then this property could be assessed for an equal share of the street improvements at that time. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Sincerely, McCCMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. 3C:j John Cameron COST ESTIMATE UTILITIES IN CHESTNUT ROAO LOT 24, KOEM_ER'S 2~ ADDITION TO MOU~ 110 LF 8 12.00/LF = 1 EA 8 350.00/EA = 1 EA 8 iO0. O0/EA = 20 LF 8 9.00/LF = 150 LBS ~ 2.00/LB = WATERMAIN 6" D.I.P. Natermain 6" Gate Valve l" Service Group i" Copper Service Pipe Fittings Contingencies TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR WATERNAIN $ 1320. O0 350. O0 100. O0 180.00 300. O0 250.00 $2,500. O0 SANITARY SEWER 8" Sewer - O' Foundation Naterial 8 x 4 Nye 4" Sewer Service Contingencies - 10' depth - ilO LF 0 16.00/LF = 10 TN ~ 8. O0/TN = 1EA ~ 80. O0/EA = ~0 LF · 12.00/LF = TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR SANITARY SEWER $ 1760. O0 80. O0 80. O0 360. O0 220. O0 $2,500.00 FILE #490B 41BI85 -...C.- .- ...~' ~ ' /' - _.,-' - - ... "i,...,"h/ _ - - ~. , . '/~ /.,,, ,-/,.- ....-..-~ !..-. ..__ - .- , . / '/,' ....z'- ..':T /. - , .. - _ - - - ,. .- ,. ,. - / ., ,. ,. -'/,.,/- ... ,. .-.... -.. ~.. - - _ - - - - / / / ~. " I ~..~_/ /I/ "-'. /' ..."'C'-. ~_ "-' : - .... - /, .' .¢;---"5/-. / .,';:-o~...:~"._- -- - 7 .... ,' / ...' . '/'. '/.; ' >:.-..H/,. . '. - / " - ' -,'"'/ --'-'.' /', ~'"' .'--".'>;' . ../ / " .-'/ / ~ / -., -- : / --~ ... '" - ~".'T"~":' ..... -' ,.-' / /& ./ / / / .- , -. - % _...._ ~ -- . "/ " . \. // .- / ' / / / -L .- .- /- , ,\_-/- , ,/, / _-,-~-~.. ,..: . '.- - -'.'kd.-.- ,' X,' / .-. "~-.. ,,- ",,',-/,-. / , /.,.,,..,-... / ! / · ./ // ./ / ,. · / / , / / / ~ / "-, / ', , / , / ,. / _- / ~ %.. ,. , / ,/. // / / .' / '-,../ -. ,,/ / , / /' / / '% ', ./,-,, ,/,' / ,, ,' ~..,,,_ -. / , / I /, / / / .'~"' '-, / · ! /I I" / / '%, .' I ' /' ' 7/ 7' : II1 I i, ,L I,g, ~llJ,,, I1, ,i,; ,il I ~sc. & 0~ne~ 2nd Addition of Lot ~ G · Cox Lot 22 Lars on Lot 22 :0 Larson 23 Nordstrom Krause I o Kllrvers 26 I o Kurvers 27STATE LAND 108.6 .' 65 / I ~ 0 1972 en Io Kurvors '::~8 STATE LAND Bn I, Kurver~ 29 STATE LAN D :n Io ~urvers 1972 1 51o36 ,' , Total 5~.o36. Do Newell 5~,36 292000 :292 o 0o// I 292e00 292 o00 292 o00 292.00 31 E o Newell of Lot 32 Andersen Lot' 32 p. Soderlund of Lot 32 & Swed!und Corp. of Lot 34 . C0 Anderson of Lot 34 Jo Erickson 0 of Lot 34 ~ar Ledin 100 ;. of Lot 34 Kepke Jr~ lO0 1-57 876.00 The Village Council Village of Mound Mound, Minnesota Subject: Report of Grievance Date: ~111~ l~; 1965 I. I/we, the undersii;ned, am/are the fee owners of the following described property. I/we have examined the proposed assessment roll for utility improvements on file in the village office and feel a§i;rieved as hereinafte~ stated. 2. The lc§al description of my/our property is: Lot Lot 1630 Lot 24 Parcel No. 3220 ·Paroel lqo. ~200 Parcel No. 6200 Plot 61870 Block Plot 61670 Plot 61670 Subdivision Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound · m a ,, 4m mm ii mm 3. I/we respectfully request the Villa§e Council to re-examine the assessment roll with a view toward satisfying the ~rievance outlined below: (State each fact that you claim shows the unfairness of the proposed assessment.) Lot # 30 is a part of the original siz~ed lot and only 129.68 feet wide by 100 feet deep. It is reduced to this size because of granting the Village permission to extend a roadway from Mound Shores into the Breokton area. This leaves the square-footage at only 1296.80 or approximately 1300 square feet. This can be no more than ONcE building site and should be charged witl only one connection charge. The proposed charge for this lot is $1300.37, which includes TWO connection charges; this ougI~ to be reduced by one co~uectlon charge, (~65.00 less) to a figure of $123.$.37. There is provision for only one oo_~nection on tills lot. a Lot # 16 lstlot with a front footage of approximately 64 feet. According to the charges proposed for this lot, the basis of 80 front feet, basext, o~ l0 000 a uare-foot zoning, has been applied to make the charge $787.23 iwhio~ , ~ ~U~ ~ S Q ~h ~ ~ 6 m~ . 00 cO ~ ~ O ~ ~ O~ char g ~). W ~ believe thi. s l?t shoul.d ~n-~he exact front footage of 64 feet _&nd the price re~uoe~ approxsma~e~ $1~3 · oo. Lot ~ 24 is a lot with no road platted or water or se~er lines in it. This land should not be assessed at this time for any front footage rates. This assessmen$ should be deferred u~tll the roadw%y is developed. The oharge of 992.62 should be held un, il later. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-.6010 612/476-8532 FAX September 4, 1990 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Jon Sutherlaud Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Variance Application Case No. 90-931 MFRA #4909 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced variance application and have the following comments and recommendations: Background The more recent history on this lot and adjacent properties dates back to 1979, when a Preliminary Engineering Report was prepared on the extension of Chestnut Road. A copy of said report is enclosed for your review. Evidently, plans and specifications for the project were ordered by the City, because they were included with the bidding plans for the 1979 Street Improvement Project. The project was never completed, because the necessary easements could not be obtained from the property owners. Enclosed are copies of these final plans. In 1985, the project was again brought up by Mr. Danger, who, at that time, owned Lot 24. Enclosed is a letter from our office to the City, with revised cost estimates and sketches of the proposed street extension. Again, the project did not get off the ground. In February, 1990, I started receiving calls again from a number of people and, soon afterward, found out that Lot 23 was up for auction on February 20, 1990. The present owners and the applicants for the subject variance purchased the property at that auction. I have also had a number of discussions, dating back to 1988, with Mr. Mark Mulvey, the present owner of Lot 24. Comments I would still like to see this property developed, with the access and utilities from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, because of the past history and the same problems, such as lack of easements and cooperation of adjacent property owners, existing today, I do not see how this is possible. It appears the only logical way for this property to be served with utilities and access is by way of Boxwood Lane, as the applicants have suggested. An EQual ODDortunity EmDtoyer ~1~7~ Mr. 3on Sutherland September 4, 1990 Page Two Outside of Lot 24 and possibly Lots 27 and 28, the remainder of the property in this ~rea is unbuildable because of the large wetlands. This is probably why the City of Mound owns Lots 29, 30 and 31 south of Lot 23, and also parcels 18 and 19 east of Boxwood Lane. Enclosed are aerial photos with the plat map overls/d, which gives a very good view of the area. I have reviewed the proposed water and sewer services with GreE Skinner of Public Works and both of us have a number of concerns. First of all, if the sewer service is installed with a cleanout and only a wye at the main, the City would not be responsible for any maintenance. For this line to become City-owned and maintained, there must be a manhole built over the existing main on Lynwood and also where the clean-out is shown on the survey. The situation with the water would be pretty much the same, whereas it would need to be a 6" DIP if the City is to maintain it or 1-1/2" copper if the line is to be private. If the two lines are to be installed as close to each other as shown on the survey, certain requirements of the State Health Department must be met. Greg and myself would like to see at least the sanitary sewer installed to City standards, but if the applicant insists on a private service, that would be acceptable. The driveway would also be acceptable if approved by the Fire Department, which I do not think will happen, unless some type of turnaround is provided. They may also want an all-weather surface, such as blacktop. Recommendations We are recommending approval of the variance request, subject to the following conditions: Fire Department approval of the driveway; Utility construction p~rmit .approval' from Hennepin County; Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services; No further subdivision of property, unless public access and utilities are extended from Chestnut Road. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC. JC:jmj Enclosures John Cameron Preliminary Engineering Report For Chestnut Road Extension Fo~ The City of Mound, Minnesota November, 1990 November 20, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Preliminary Engineering Report Chestnut Road Extension MFRA #4909 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for the extension of Chestnut Road, including sanitary sewer and watermain extensions and street improvements from the end of the existing street easterly to provide access for undeveloped property. If you have any questions regarding the information enclosed in this report, we would be pleased to discuss them at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMB$ FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmj Enclosures II1 I l, ,I, il, ,11~, Ii, i,l GENERAL The owners of Lot 23, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound have requested a building permit for a new home on their property. Because the property does not have frontage on ~un improved City street as required by the City's zoning ordinance, a variance application was submitted and hearings held by both the Planning Commission and City Council. /~ne City Council, at their meeting on September 12, 1990, discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being the better solution to the applicant's immediate problem and also a possible long-term solution. Therefore, the City Council authorized this Preliminary Engineering Report to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to the east. The ownership of the properties affected by the street extension are as follows: Lot 23 (14-117-24 43 0005) Tom & Stacy Hintz Lot 24 (14-117-24 43 0006) Mark Mulvey Lots 25 - 28 (14-117-24 43 0007-10) Dave and Julie Wilcox Lots 29 - 43 ~ (14-117-24 43 0012, 0013, 0018 & 0019) City of Mound Parcels *~ (14-117-24 43 0011, 0014 & 0017) City of Mound Tax forfeited property taken for park purposes Tax forfeited property taken for road purposes Attached to this report are three (3) alternates for the extension of Chestnut Road. Alternate No. 1 would make it possible to subdivide Lot 23 into 3 lots and, at the same time, provide the Owner of Lot 24 an option to subdivide his property into 2 building sites~ Alternate No. 2 shows the minimum extension of Chestnut Road to serve Lot 23, with the possible subdivision into 2 lots. Alternate No. 3 would extend Chestnut Road to the City owned property, Lot 32. This alternate was addressed in a Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in May, 1979, from which final plans were prepared and bid as part of the 1980 Street Improvement Pro3ect. This street extension was eliminated from the pro3ect when the necessary easements could not be obtained. The two advantages this alternate has over the others are that it would provide access to City - 1 - property and allow for a short loop to connect two watermains and eliminate deadend mains on both Chestnut Road and Langdon Lane. This alternate would also allow for the subdivision of Lot 23 into a minimum of 3 lots. Any division of the existing lots as they are presently platted must meet the City's Platting and Subdivision Regulations as spelled out in Section ~0.00 of the City of Mound Ordinance Code. UTILITIES (Sanitary Sewer and Watermain) As indicated on the attached drawings, all three alternates would require extension of both sanitary sewer and watermain from the existing mains at the present termination of Chestnut Road. It would still be possible, but more expensive, to loop the 6" watermain to Langdon Lane under either Alternate 1 or Alternate 2. An easement between Lots 9 and 10, Mark's Addition, was previously acquired by the City and the watermain stubbed to approximately 10 feet behind the curb during the 1978 Street Construction. This would allow for a connection with minimal disruption to the area. STREETS Right-of-way for the street extension would be required from Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 in all three alternates proposed in this report. We are suggesting a deviation from the City's requirements of a 50' right-of-way and 100' diameter cul-de-sac to a 40' right-of-way and 80' diameter cul-de-sac. This would still allow for the standard 28' wide improved street measured from back to back on the concrete curb. The improved portion of the cul-de-sac would be reduced to 70' diameter which would still be sufficient. This reduction in right-of-way width is recommended to help minimize the amount of private property required for this project. The street construction would consist of 1-1/2" bituminous wear course, 2" bituminous base course and a 6" gravel base. A 4" high surmountable concrete curb and gutter would be constructed at both edges of the street surfacing. -2- Alternates 1 and 2 would not require any storm sewer because the proposed street ~rade would allow for drainage in the gutters westerly to the existing catch basins. Alternate No. 3 would require the construction of storm sewer consisting of one catch basin and an outlet to the City's wetlands to the south. COST ESTIMATES Included with this report are estimated costs for each of the three alternates. These estimates are based on projected 1991 prices and include 10% contingencies and 35% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. The estimated project costs do not include any costs for right-of-way acquisition. The cost to extend a 6" watermain to Langdon Lane has not been included but will need to be addressed if this project should proceed. The total cost for each alternate is shown as follows, with a complete breakdown included in the exhibits at the end of this report. Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 73,000.00 49,700.00 82,100.00 ASSESSMENTS For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 are one unit and Lots 27 and 28 are another unit. Lots 27 and 28 have not been included in the calculations for the proposed assessments, as there may be a question whether topography restricts this parcel from being a viable building site. If this project should proceed, then additional investigation will need to be done to determine whether the parcel formed by Lots 27 and 28 is buildable. If said parcel is declared buildable, it should then share in the cost for the watermain and street improvements, but not the sanitary sewer. Under Alternate No. 1, Lot 24 would be considered to have 2 units; Lots 25 and 26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 3 units. In Alternte 2, Lot 24 would be 1 unit; Lots 25 and 26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 2 units. For Alternate 3, Lot 24 would be 1 unit; Lots 25 and 25, 1 unit; Lot 23, 3 units; and the City property, Lot 32, 1 unit. -3- Lot 24 and the parcel comprised of Lots 25 and 26 have paid previous assessments for sanitary sewer and watermain; therefore, we cannot recommend they be assessed for utilities as part of this project. The one exception would be for Alternate No. 1, which shows Lot 24 divided into 2 building sites. If this should occur, then Lot 24 would be assessed 1/4, or $7,925.00 of the cost for utilities. Because these Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 have never been assessed for any type of street improvements, they will be treated the same as any other parcels using the City's street improvement assessment policy adopted under Resolution No. 76-77. That assessment criteria is as follows: 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on front footage. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be on a unit charge. Using the previously mentioned criteria, the enclosed proposed assessment for street improvements were calculated for each alternate. Lot 23 would be responsible for the total cost of utilities, except for Alternate No. 1, as previously mentioned, where Lot 24 would pay a share of the utility extension. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Any one of the three alternates presented in this report would accomplish the main objective of providing utilities for Lot 23 and an improved street for the entire area. Alternate No. 3, which provides access to City owned Lot 32 appears to be the most advantageous to the City of Mound, but is also the most expensive, particularily to the Owners of Lot 23. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can be accomplished as described herein. -4- COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 1 Description Est. Qty. Unit Price STREETS Clearing & Grubbing Grading Erosion Fence Seeding Concrete Curb & Gutter Class 5 Gravel Bit. Base 2331 Bit. Wear 2341 Contingencies (10%) LUMP SUM 1,600 C.Y. 5O0 L.F. 1/3 ACRE 730 L.F. 500 TON 160 TON 115 TON $ 4.oo/c¥ $ 1 50/LF $ 1,500 O0/AC $ 6 O0/LF $ 9 00/TN $ 27 O0/TN $ 30 O0/TN TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - S/IREETS Fmgineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS Est. Amount 3,50o O0 6,400 O0 750 00 500 oo 4,380 oo 4,500 00 4,320 O0 3,450 O0 2,800 00 $ 3o,600.o0 10,700.00 $ 41,3o0.o0 SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' Manholes Manholes, Extra Depth 8" x 4" Wyes 4" Sewer Service Granular Foundation Material Contingencies (10%) 300 L.F. $ 18.00/LF 2 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA 5 L.F. $ 80.O0/LF 5 EACH $ 80.00/EA 200 L.F. $ 8.00/LF 80 TON $ 8.00/TN TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain Fittings Hydrants 6" Gate Valve 1" Service Groups 1" Copper Service Pipe Contingencies (10%) 330 L.F. $ 20.O0/LF 200 LBS $ 2.00/LB 1 EACH $ 1,000.00/EA 2 EACH $ 400.00/EA 5 EACH $ IO0.00/EA 200 L.F. $ 8.00/LF TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,400 00 2,000 00 4O0 00 400 00 1,600 00 640 00 1,060.00 $ 11,5oo.oo 6,600.00 4O0.00 1,000.00 800.00 500.00 1,600.00 1,100.00 $ 12,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES $ 23,500.00 $ 8,200.00 $ 31,7oo.oo TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 73,ooo.oo -5- COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 2 Description Est. Qty. Unit Price STREETS Clearing and Grubbing Grading Erosion Fence Seeding Concrete Curb & Gutter Class 5 Gravel Bit. Base 2331 Bit. Wear 2341 Contingencies (10%) LUMP SUM 1,200 C.Y. $ 4.50/CY 250 L.F. $ 1.50/LF 1/4 ACRE $ 1,500.o0/ac 480 L.F. $ 7.00/LF 300 TON $ iO.O0/TN 100 TON $ 29.00/TN 70 TON $ 32.00/TN TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS Est. Amount 2,5O0.00 5,400.00 375.00 375.00 3,360.00 3,000.00 2,9oo.oo 2,240.00 2,150.00 22,300.00 7,80O.OO $ 30,100.00 SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' Manholes Manholes, Extra Depth 8" x 4" Wyes 4" Sewer Service Granular Foundation Material Contingencies (10%) 165 L.F. $ 20.O0/LF 1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA 2.5 L.F. $ 100.O0/LF 3 EACH $ 90.O0/EA 100 L.F. $ 9.00/LF 30 TON $ 9.00/TN TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER 3,300.00 1,000.00 250.00 270.00 90O.00 27o.00 61o.00 $ 6,60O.00 WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain Fittings Hydrants 6" Gate Valve 1" Service Groups 1" Copper Service Pipe Contingencies (10%) 190 L.F. $ 22.00/LF 100 LBS $ 2.00/LB 1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA 2 EACH $ 400.00/EA 3 EACH $ 120.00/EA 70 L.F. $ 9.00/LF TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN 4,180.00 200.00 1,000.00 800.00 360.00 63o.00 730.00 $ 7,9oo.oo TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES 14,500.00 5,100.00 $ 19,6oo.oo TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 2 49,700.00 -6- COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 3 Description Est. Qty. Unit Price STREETS Clearing and Grubbing Grading Erosion Fence Seeding Concrete Curb & Gutter Class 5 Gravel Bit. Base 2331 Bit. Wear 2341 Catch Basin Storm Sewer 12" RCP 12" Concrete Apron Rip Rap Contingencies (10%) LUMP SUM 1,9oo c.Y. $ 4.oo/cY 500 L.F. $ 1.50/LF 1/2 ACRE $ 1,500.O0/AC 910 L.F. $ 6.00/LF 585 TON $ 9.00/TN 177 TON $ 27.00/TN 125 TON $ 30.00/TN 1 EACH $ 800.00/EA 25 L.F. $ 30.O0/LF 1 EACH $ 350.00/EA 2 C.Y. $ 50.O0/CY TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS Est. Amount 2,500.00 7,600.00 750.00 750.00 5,460.00 5,265.00 4.779.OO 3,750.00 800.00 750.00 350.00 100.00 3,286.00 $ 36,140.00 $ 12,66o.oo $ 48,800.00 SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' Manholes 8" x 4" Wyes 4" Sewer Service Granular Foundation Material Contingencies (10%) 380 L.F. $ 16.00/LF 1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA 6 EACH $ 80.00/EA 200 L.F. $ 8.00/LF 100 TON $ 8.00/TN TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER $ 6,080.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 480.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 8OO.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 10,96o.o0 WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain Fittings Hydrants 6" Gate Valve 1" Service Groups t" Copper Service Pipe Contingencies (10%) 410 L.F. 300 LBS 1 EACH 2 EACH 6 EACH 160 L.F. TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN $ 20 00/LF $ 2 00/LB $ 1,000 00/EA $ 400 00/EA $ 100 00/EA $ 8 O0/LF 8,20O O0 6OO 00 1,000 O0 8oo 00 6oo oo 1,280 oo 1,220 O0 $ 13,700.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES $ 24,660.00 $ 8,640.00 $ 33,300.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 3 - 7 - $ 82,100.00 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT SPREAD Alternate No. 1 STREETS $ 41,300.00 TO BE ASSESSED 40% of 41,300 = $ 16,52o.00 30% of 41,300 = $ 12,390.00 30% of 41,30o = $ 12,390.o0 Unit Charge Frontage Area 16,520 - 6 units = $2,753.00/unit 12,390 - 680 L.F. = $ 18.22/L.F. 12,390 - 104,200 S.F. = $ O.119/S.F. LOT 23 3 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit 285 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. 48,200 S.F. @ $ 0.119/S.F. TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 23 LOT 24 2 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit 295 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. 29,000 S.F. @ $ 0.119/S.F. TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 24 LOTS 25 AND 26 1 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit $ 100 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. $ 27,000 S.F. @ $ 0.119/S.F. $ TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 25 & 26 TOTAL ASSESSMENT - STREETS $ 8,259.00 $ 5,193.00 $ 5,736.00 $ 5,506.00 $ 5,375.00 $ 3,451.oo 2,753.00 1,822.00 3,213.00 $ 19,i88.00 $ i4,332.00 $ 7,788.00 $ 41,308.00 UTILITIES $ 31,700.00 TO BE ASSESSED LOT 23 LOTS 24 Units @ $ 7,925.00/unit 1 Unit @ $ 7,925.00/unit TOTAL ASSESSMENT - UTILITIES $ 23,775.00 $ 7,925.00 $ 31,700.00 J / / / / / / / / / / I / / , "~11 // J / /~'""~ / '/ ' '/ // / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / J / J j/ ./ / J'/- j J J J j .J / j J J J / J J / J / J J J McCombt Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineem Ptymouth. MN 55447 Ptanners 612/476-6010 Surveyors SCALI~ Fli. E NO. / J / J / J J ~ JJ J ~J j J / / / / / / / / / / / / / / F II,.E NO, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX November 26, 1990 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Chestnut Road Extension Addendum to Preliminary Engineering Report MFRA #4909 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Additional information regarding the above referenced project has been furnished to our office, which has a bearing on how some of the assessments should be spread; in particular, the watermain extension. Enclosed is a copy of Resolution NO. 75-269, dated July 8, 1975, which addresses water service for Lot 24. The present owner of Lot 24 has paid an amount as suggested under Item No. 3 of the resolution; therefore, if the watermain is extended as proposed in our report, Lot 24 should be assessed part of the cost, less a credit for what has already been paid. Enclosed is a suggested method of spreading the cost of the watermain between Lots 23 and 24. We have also enclosed, as additional information, estimated costs for each alternate to loop the 6" watermain from the proposed cul-de-sacs to Langdon Lane. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. JC:jmj Enclosures Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. -! John Cameron An EQual Oooortunity Employer \ \ /I I / / \ \ \ / / I I / / I I / / / / / / I I I / ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALTERNATE NO. ! Lot 23 = 3 units Lot 24 = 2 units Because Lot 24 has 2 units under this alternate, some of the cost for sanitary sewer must be charged as well as the watermain. Sanitary Sewer Total Cost $15,500.00 - 4 units = $3,875.00/unit Watermain Total Cost $16,200.00 - 5 units = $3,240.00/unit Lot 23 Sanitary Sewer = 3 units @ $3,875.00/unit = $11,625.00 Watermain = 3 units @ $3,240.00/unit = $ 9,720.00 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 ~ = $21,345.00 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = 1 unit @ $3,875.00/unit = $ 3,875.00 Watermain = 2 units @ $3,240.00/unit = $ 6,480.00 SUBTOTAL $10,355.00 Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 * = $10,062.80 These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS Lot 23 = 2 units Lot 24 = 1 unit ALTERNA~ NO. 2 Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer cost under this alternate. ~. Watermain '~"~'?' Total Cost $10,665.00 - 3 units = $3,555.00/unit Lot 23 Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $ 8,935.00 Watermain = 2 units @ $3,555.00/unit = $ 7,110.00 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 ~ = $16,045.00 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00 Watermain = 1 unit @ $3,555.00/unit = $ 3,555.00 SUBTOTAL $ 3,555.00 Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 * = $ 3,262.80 These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALTERNATE NO. 3 Lot 23 = 3 units Lot 24 = 1 unit Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer cost under this alternate. Watermain Total Cost $18,500.00 - 4 units = $4,625.00/unit Lot 23 Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $14,800.00 Watermain = 3 units @ $4,625.00/unit = $13,875.00 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 3 ~ = $28,675.00 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00 Watermain = 1 unit @ $4,625.00/unit = $ 4,625.00 SUBTOTAL $ 4,625.00 Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 3 * These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ESTIMATED COSTS TO LOOP WATERMAIN FROM PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC TO LANGDON LANE Alternate No. 1 Clearing and Grubbing 6" Watermain Fittings Restoration Sod Seed Contingencies Lump Sum 620 L.F. ~ $ 20.O0/LF 400 LBS ~ $ 2.00/LB 300 S.Y. @ $ 2.50/SY 1/q AC ~ $2,000.00/AC TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 1,200.00 $ 12,400.00 $ 800.00 750.00 500.00 1,550.00 $ 17,200.00 $ 6,0O0.OO $ 23,200.00 Alternate No. 2 Clearing and Grubbing 6" Watermain Fittings Restoration Sod Seed Contingencies Lump Sum 560 L.F. @ $ 20.00/LF 400 LBS @ $ 2.00/LB 300 S.Y. @ $ 2.50/SY 1/q AC @ $2,q00.OO/AC TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 1,200.00 $ 11,200.00 $ 800.00 $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 15,900.oo $ 5,600.00 $ 21,500.00 Alternate No. 3 Clearing and Grubbing 6" Watermain Fittings Restoration Sod Seed Contingencies Lump Sum 340 L.F. @ $ 20.00/LF 300 LBS @ $ 2.00/LB 300 S.Y. @ $ 2.50/SY 1/8 AC @ $2,400.00/AC TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 7oo.oo $ 6,8oo.oo $ 8oo.oo $ 750'.00 $ 300.GO $ 950.00 $ 10,100.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 13,600.00 RESOLUTION NO. 7S-269 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND, AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Lot 24, Koehler' s 2nd Addition to Mound has neither water nor sewer service and does have a road right-of-way past the property, and WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF.MOUND, MOUND~ MINNESOTA: That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing the following stipulations are met: A 25-foot risht-of-way for street and utility purposes be dedicated to the City of Mound. The ri~ht-of-way to be the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 24. Lot 24 pay a sewer lateral assessmmnt of $728.58 and be allowed to connect at service from Manhole A-19. (An assess~ent of $63.04 is to be made for the s,.-vice if it exists.) me Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the watermain at the end of Chestnut Road providing they install their own service, pay all connection charges and an addi- tional $4.00 per front foot. If the water- main is extended easterly along Chestnut Road at any future date, this property shall be subject to a special assessment under the formula used to assess that project less a credit for the $4.00 per foot previously paid. Adopted by the council this 8th day of July, 1975. Iii I ,L I1~ ~ IIJ,,, ii ~,l CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET -[ :* Bi 7,500/0 'E].A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 SURVEY ON FILE? 6,000/40 B3 i0,000/60 14,000/80 LOT OF RECORD? sEg ORD. I! 30,O00/100 EXISTING LOT SIZE: ~o ooo LOT WIDTH: tOO e- LOT DEPTH: 500 VARIAN~ HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W ,&O / lO' N S E W 50' C?R ~0' (9,: w N S E w N S~ E) W 4' OR 6' .~_~S E W 4' NS E W 50' R 30' .^ROCOVER 3o~ o/4o~) /~ / This Zoning Information Sh/et oMv summ~i~s a portion of ~e requiremen~ outlined in ~e City of Mound Zo~ng Ordin~ce, For ~r~er information, contact ~e City of Mound , / I I ~ , ~'o.~' -- ~ ', ; i~ ~ '1 I ~z ,, .,. . .~; ~ . , ~ ~ ~u . '" ,tl~ I~ .... I~ ' ' ~ ' ' :'- ; (,5} ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~) ~ .... ~.. :;--*~-.. ~ ~ (Z2) : I~ (s) , , 20) I RESOLUTION NO. 97 - RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota did on February 12, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-30 entitled, "Resolution Authorizing City Sponsorship in State Grant-In-Aid Snowmobile Trail Funds"; and WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources is requesting that the City again reaffirm its sponsorship of the State grant-in-aid snowmobile trail funds; and WHEREAS, the Southwest Trails Association have requested the City of Mound sponsor grant-in-aid snowmobile trails through the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, is willing to act as a sponsoring unit of government in applying to the State of Minnesota for the grant-in-aid funds for snowmobile trails that will be maintained by the Southwest Trails Association. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota Trail Assistance Program on behalf of the Southwest Trails Association; and The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and approve contractual agreements for this grant. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 61 2/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors April 11, 1997 RECEI'¢E /-,?R I 4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound 1997 Seal Coat Program MFRA #6173 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received on Thursday, April 10, 1997, for the 1997 Seal Coat Program. Bids ranged from a low of $29,072.00, submitted by Allied Blacktop, Inc. to a high of $37,800.00. The Engineer's Estimate for this project was $32,300.00. Public Works is pleased with the work done in the past by Allied Blacktop; therefore, we are recommending that Allied Blacktop be awarded a contract in the amount of $29,072.00. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:pry Enclosure e :~nain :\6173\j rc4-11 An Equal Opportunity Employer o ~ ; d 8888. 888° 88 8 o 8888 BILLS April 22, 1997 BATCH 7042 total bills $235,686.22 $235,686.22 L~ L Z 0 C) Z I II I ol McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors April 11, 1997 RECEIVEB ;,PR I 4 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound MCWD Rule B MFRA # 10293 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Enclosed is a copy of Rule B "Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Plans for Individual Projects" from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules which were adopted February 22, 1996 and revised June 13, 1996. This is the section that requires stormwater facilities to regulate the rate of stormwater run-off and also the water quality treatment for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site. There are some exceptions to this rule which are listed under Section 6, but none of these exceptions would apply to either project presently in front of the Council. The portion of the rule which allows a monetary contribution in lieu of providing the necessary on-site facilities is explained under Section 3(d). You will note that this contribution is only allowed if there is an agreement for a regional facility in-place with the municipality. The City of Mound has been provided a draft copy of a cooperative agreement, which staff, including the City attorney, have reviewed and made a number of suggested additions and or revisions. These will be discussed with the MCWD staff and a revised draft copy provided for your review. Both projects, the School District CUP and the final plat of Maple Manors are affected by Rule B3(d), since neither project has sufficient area to provide enough ponding to meet the water quality requirement. However, they do meet the District's requirement for rate control of stormwater runoff. The permit application for Maple Manors has been in front of the Board of Managers and was tabled because the City of Mound has not signed the cooperative agreement. The School District has submitted an incomplete application, therefore, the MCWD office will not schedule their project for a meeting until the additional material is received. The earliest meeting they could be scheduled for is May 8th. If the cooperative agreement is not signed by that time, the School District will either be pulled from the agenda or the Board will table their application. An Equal Opportunity Employer WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS ~NDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 277 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ° MOUND. MINNESOT^ 55364 4/22/97 FROM: Ed Shulde, City Manager, City of Mound ~ Para Myers, Superintendent, Westonka Schools '~c[lau,-,.~__~ Request for continuation of the hearing on Westonk'a ~;choo--ls' application for a Conditional Use Permit for the Shirley Hills Primary School site Given that the Mound City Council wants to reconsider renovation of the "old high school" at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, and Given that a task force has been formed with membership from the City Councils of Mound and Minnetrista and from the Westonka School Board, Given that this "90-day" task force has set a completion date for its research of June 30, 1997, and Given that the Mound City Council may be reluctant to support the Westonka Schools' plans to move school programs to the Shirley Hills site until the research regarding possible renovation is completed, therefore, On behalf of the Westonka School Board, I request that the City Council continue the hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application which is on the agenda for action on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, until the "90-day" task force reaches its conclusions or the July 8, 1997 City Council meeting, whichever occurs first. c. Bill Pinegar, Chair, Westonka School Board CUP request to table, 4/22/97 Mound City Council Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 11, 1997 Page 2 Hopefully, this gives you an overview of the District's Rule B and their permit procedure. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ed or myself. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure e:\main:\10293\mound410 RULE B STORMWATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (a) Require stormwater facilities to be constructed on individual sites where practicable and effective. (b) Manage stormwater and snowmelt nmoff on a regional or subwatershed basis and . promote natural infiltration of mnoffthroughout the District to: 1) provide effective water quality treatment and where possible provide such treatment prior to discharge to surface waterbodies'and wetlands; and 2) so that furore peak rates of mnoff into major surface water bodies are less than or equal to existing rates; (c) Require preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for construction and land development activities. 2. REGULATION. Except as provided in paragraph 5, prior to commencing construction, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway uses shall submit a storrnwater management plan and an erosion control plan to the District in conformity with the requirements of this role and secure a permit from the District approving the stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan. A stormwater management plan and an erosion control plan are required for new development, redevelopment or additions to an existing site. The managers will review a stormwater management plan and the erosion control plan only after the applicant demonstrates that the project has received preliminary approval from the municipality indicating compliance with existing municipal plans. 3. DECISION CRITERIA FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS. Stormwater management plans shall comply with the following criteria: (a) The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result of the proposed development. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing peak rates are not exceeded. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events of critical duration with remm frequencies of 1, 10 and 100 years in the subwatershed in which the site is located. (b) Natural existing Iow areas will be used for detention of runoff to comply with rate control criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be used for design of detention areas and outlets. [ ~RULE REV 6/13/96 (e) Wet detention basins shall be required on-site and designed in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 0V[PCA) design recommendations published in sections 4.1-4 through 4.1-5 ("Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas 1991"), and its future revisions. These design criteria were developed based upon the results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)~SEPA, 1983). Total site area and any contributing off-site drainage area shall be used to calculate permanent pool volume. Structural outlets shall remove floatables from ponded runoff for a 1 year event. (d) If a development or redevelopment site is less than 40 acres and the Board of Managers determines that the wet detention and/or stormwater storage requirements would be better addressed on a regional basis, the applicant may instead contribute to a dedicated District water quality/stormwater storage fund in lieu of providing the necessary facilities on-site. The fund will be used in planning, constructing, and maintaining regional detention basins/wetlands. Contribution to the above fund will only be allowed if an agreement for a regional facility is in place with the affected municipalities, if there is an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility within the same subwatershed; or if the Board of Managers determines that another facility in a different subwatershed is of a higher water quality priority and would better serve the public health and welfare and the purpose of the watershed law. The District will utilize funds collected within the same subwatershed, provided that the Board of Managers may allocate contributions to the dedicated fund for a different subwatershed if the Board determines that a regional stormwater facility within the same subwatershed is not feasible, or that a facility in a different subwatershed is of a higher water quality priority and would better serve the public health and welfare and the purpose of the watershed law. The contribution will be equal to the cost of the land, basin construction and basin maintenance. Land value will be based on the tax assessed value and basin costs of $20,000 per acre foot of required pond volume. At the discretion of the District, the stormwater wet detention and storage requirements for a given site may be split between on-site facilities and contributions to the District water quality/stormwater storage fund. Site specific Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required on all sites, regardless of contribution to the water quality/stormwater storage fund. Contributions to the District water quality/stormwater storage fund for additions to existing sites are based on the area of the new addition and not the total site area. Contributions to the above fund for new development or redevelopment are based on the total site area. If a site drains to an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility, the applicant is required to contribute to the water quality/stormwater storage fund as stated above. (e) Waterborne sediments shall be prevented from entering existing drainageways to prevent sediment transport off the site during and after construction. (f') The proposed project shall not adversely affect water levels off the site during or after construction. (g) Runoff draining onto the site must be accommodated in the analyses and design of new stormwater management facilities. MCWD RIFLE REV 6/13/96 8 (h) The volume of site runoffmay not increase due to the project when the receiving area of said runoff is landlocked, and not capable of handling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant shall either own or have proper rights over the landlocked property to handle water from the development. (i) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the projected 100-year flood elevation for the site and within drainage, utility and/or flowage easements to provide access and to prevent future alteration or encroachment. (j) Stormwater Management Plans under this Rule shall be in conformance with approved Municipal Stormwater Management Plans. (k) The outfall structures within wetlands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a stilling-basin, surge-basin, energy dissipater, placement of ungrouted natural rock rip rap or other devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreline and bed resulting from peak discharges. (1) All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional structures shall be constructed such that all door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation of nearby surface waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins. 4. DECISION CRITERIA FOR EROSION CONTROL PLANS. Erosion Control Plans shall comply with the following criteria: (a) An Erosion Control Plan prepared by a qualified individual, shall show proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of construction and shall show how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated after construction. (b) The erosion control plan shall be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (revised July 1991) and its future revisions. (c) Silt fences shall be removed after all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized. (d) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible soils may require a cash deposit to ensure performance and any necessary remedial action. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the District is required for all construction activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the disturbance of ten or more acres of land. I MCWD RULE REV 6/13196 llll I II [ II 5. REQUIRED EXIqlBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application. One set - full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of 11" x 17". (a) Stormwater Managemem Plan. A Stormwater Management Plan, certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, shall include the following: (1) Property lines and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant. (2) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site, and proposed and existing subwatersheds on-site. (3) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment and elevation. (4) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland and/or floodplain (5) Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year water elevations on-site. ({5) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two foot intervals, related to NGVD, 1929 datum. (7) Construction plans and specifications of all proposed stormwater management facilities. (8) Stormwater mnoffvolume and rate analyses for the 1, 10 and 100 year critical events, existing and proposed conditions. (9) All hydrologic, water quality and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed stormwater management facilities. (10) Documentation indicating conformance with an existing municipal stormwater management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist, documentation that the municipality has reviewed the project. (11) Delineation of any towage easements or other property interests dedicated to stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or judicial ditches. (12) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit fi'om the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) if required by the MPCA. Erosion Control Plan. MCWD RULE KEV 6/13/96 10 (c) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatmem ponds, outlet structures for such ponds, culverts, outfall structures, and all other stormwater facilities. This maintenance agreement shall specify the methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimm, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Form. A Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the applicant for use by the applicant as a maintenance agreement or as guidance if the applicant desires to draft a separate maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement must be recorded with the county within 10 days of the issuance date of the permit. (d) Soil boring results if available. EXCEPTIONS. (a) If the District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a municipality, or for a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements in paragraph 3 of this rule which are not met by the municipal plan shall be deemed satisfied upon showing of compliance by an individual developer with the municipal plan. (b) The requirement of paragraph 3(a) above shall not apply to a project where the total site area is less than one-half acre. (c) Residential developments where the total site area is less than two acres and contains four or fewer living units, and where the total off-site area contributing runoff to the site improvements in less than one acre, do not require a permit under this rule. Approved erosion control measures must be properly installed, however, and maintained throughout the construction process and until all disturbed areas are fully stabilized. ! ! ! MCWRULEKEV 6/13/96 Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. o Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date 'Rev. I/14/97) ~8. Z~ I The ~olltl], Lot £ee~ 7: mh~ of tu' 20 SO~d'l~? Nor ~aSte~.zStar, Corneal.v f r~ ordi~g ~ t/]e.re~f-.o the Certj f.icate of Sur~oy and 7, ll~ock 9, "Th~ Ili~hl~nd:~- Ilennc,/)in County, Minnesota ~ega 1 Descr~ii)t ion Tho ~outheasterly 112.5 feet Lot 7; The Southeasterly ] 12.5 fe(~t o£ Lot 6, except that of the Northea~;terly 10 feet said l;ot ]VJlkq Northwesterly a ] i ne dl ~twn at right ang]es to the Northeasterly ]i~le at a point distant 120 feet South- easterly from the Northeasterly ¥'~ corn~Jr of said ],or 6; all iii \ ...--' % Block 9, "The' lliqh]ands", /icc- \ ~-'' z~.' ~ ~rdinq to ti]ce re~ordocl % % C Wg " · : Jrol] marker found o : Iron marker set Bearillqs shown are to aries of the above dencribed [~roperty. [[ do~¢; riot purport to si]ow any other Leqal Description The .~ol~theasterly 112.5 feet of l,ot 7; The Southeasterly 112.5 fet!t of l,ot 6, except that part of the Northeasterly ~0 feet of said hot ]vJnq Northwesterly of a line drawn at right angles to the Northeasterly line at a point distant ~20 feet South- e;~sterlv from the Northeasterly aorn~r of said l,ot 6; all in ltlock 9, "The' liighlands", acc- ording to tha recorded plat 'l'hi~; ~;urv(w sh¢)ws the location of an existing hollse in relation to the bound- aries of the above described property. It ¢to(~.s not purport to show any other PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA LOT AREA il oq O LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% SQ. FT. X 40% SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE ~ ~ X ~-~ = X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) SQFT g~O /oo {~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are 30--, x .~o: X : X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X X X /oBO /o 8.0 not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I %0 ~/~ I ~OVER d~'f'~nce) . .,~, ............................ I '3~ , (indicate PREPARED BY ,,,~,~ ~/ / ¢_6~,-~,¢.-.b DATE 'F¢~.? C~ ~'-~? >-~oZ 6 ©© O 0 0 7' 0 T Z n z 0 LL Z 0 LL rY (D Z 0 n~O.~ £D d 0 \ . Hennepin __ Hinnesota o! th~ Gountlt ol ............................... ann State o! .................................. pa~-y_ ..... o! f;,m ~;..~ ~.4 ..,~ Hark A. Pletsch single ;i7Jb7&Y;;}--~-y~-~EE~.P~C~-~IJ~s7~;-;}~Z~Z~Z~(q~i~9Z~ZZ~Z'' part.Y_ ..... o! the eeeond WITNESSETH, That tI~p e6(d ~a~f~_~ ..... of the ;~rt part, One Dollar and other vaiuaoze consloera~ion, ........................................................................... -_-~_-~_~OLLARS, to ..... ~bE_m ......... is i~nd paid by the said part__~ .... o! t~ k~eby ~wJedged, do ..... h~eb~ ~ant, Bargain, ~, a~ C~v~ un~ the aa~ ~_E_ ......... o] the a~ ~ .......... ~dra a~ ~dg~, F~v~, ~ the t~t .... or ~ b~g i~ the C~F of ..... ~&a~9~ ............ a~ S~z The Southeasterly 112.5 feet of Lot 7; The Southeasterly 112.5 feec of Lot 6, except thac part of the Northeasterly 10 feet of said lot lying Northves~erly of a line dravn nt right angles to the Northeasterly line a~ a ~ distant 120 fee~ Southeasterly from the North- easterly co.er of said ~ 6; ~1 ~ Block 9, "~e Hi~ands", accord~g tO the recorded pla~ ~hereof, Subject to easement for utility purposes over the Northeasterly 10 feet of the Southwesterly 37 feet of the Southeasterly 112.5 feet of said Lot 7. Together vith an easement for utility purposes over the Southwesterly 10 feet of the Northeasterly 20 feet of that part of aaidLot 6 lying Northuescerly of ~he Southeasterly 112.5 feet thereof. State Deed Tax Due Hereon ~'0 HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together ~fth aE the kereditaments and a~~ th~to begging ~ ia any~ a~in~g, to t~ sa~ ~_~_ .... o~ the zea~ ~ ............ kdrs a~ ~g~, F~. A~ the su~_~.[9~_ ¢~ ~th the la~ ~_~___of the 8¢c~ ~,_ ..... h~ra and ~, ................. t~t they are a~ed in fee o/the ~ a~ ~ af~a~, and ~-Y~___good ~ght to ae~ a~ c~ey the ~an~ a~ I~ a/~a~, a~ t~t the ta~ art Iree [rom ~ in~mbra~, And the abo~e bargained and granted lands and premize~, in the quirt and peaceable post.sion o! the ta~ ~__~_ ...... o/ the sec~ ~ ........................ hdrs a~ ~dg~, agai~t ~ ~w/~y c~ming ~ to ~im the w~Je or an~ ~ th~eo/, ~bj~ct to in~mbra~, i/ any, btl~z m~t~ed, th~ ~aM ~__y ..... o[ the ~rst ~ ~1 Wa~nt a~ De/~. 1N TE~IMONY WHEREOF, The sa~ ~ ...... o/the ~rst ~ ~ ve h~n~ ~et their ....................................... ........................................... THE II ""~',..), B 14 + \ 6O ~ * 17 \ W 0 0 D HiGHLANDS 2 0 4 151 0 I$ M.H. ON ~- EXTEN' .... WET ....... T H E HI GHLA CHERRYWOOD ~AD (HAWTHORNE DRIVE) .......... BR'Y' .............. ,......970' ,...SE 6 ' ? RESOLUTION NO. 78-249 RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE DIVISION OF PROPERTY Lot 7 and Part of Lot 6, Block 9, The Highlands (Plat 61610 Parcel 3485 and 3500) WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Com- mission and the City Council, and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property owners, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: 1. The request of Frank Niesen for the waiver from the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres is hereby granted to permit divi- sion of the following property in the following manner with the stipulation the deficient assessment be picked up: Parcel A: That part of Lot 7 lying Northwesterly of the South- easterly 112.5 feet thereof; that part of Lot 6 lying Northwesterly of the Southeasterly 112.5 feet thereof, except the Northeasterly 10 feet thereof; all in Block 9, The Highlands Parcel B: The Southeasterly 112.5 feet of Lot 7; the Southeaste~Ty 112.5 feet of Lot 6, except that part of the Northeasterly 10 feet of said lot lying Northwesterly of a line drawn at right angles to the Northeasterly line at a point distant 120 feet Southeasterly from the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 6; all in Block 9, The Highlands. 2. It is determined that the foregoing division will constitute a desirable and stable community development and is in harmony with adjacent properties. 3. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show com- pliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. Adopted by the City Council this 23rd day of May, 1978. 78-249 5-23-78 CITY OF MOUND -AZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: ~" ] . ~ /.~ ~ ~/ ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: SURVEY ON FILE? S N R2 6,0oo/40 B3 10,000/60 ~ R2 14,000/80 R3 S~ O~. Zl 30,0OO/100 ~o~o~.~o.~ ~.~ , ~o EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE E W 15' ~I s E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF OR OT~I~DETACHED N~)E w NS E W NS E W BU,LD."OS D O~C 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER ~30% (~R% ~ / ~O.~o~,~o:/~ ,3.o,, '-~.~; V~-~ I~^~> _B-~{-q'7 ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ d 'n * Ci, of Mound Ordin~ee. This Zoning Informant o~v summ~i~s a portion of ~e requlremen~ outline t e y Zo~ng For ~er information, con.ct ~e City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. · \ Paul H. Brown 6134 Clover Circle Mound MN 55364 % 4w City Dew "~ Jh~i. ~aseoah season is not fa..r ' ' ;r, ' i - the As we think .of scfina coming, the' ' ': oen,,.¢. _~,st summer, ' ' '" -~--"; .... recei'~ed appro',~ai from tF.,e ,:ark bcar.~ .and .-.ltv Wes,.~n(~ 8aUe Ruth ~ ~ - , ,,,,u,,..4 ? .... oJ;fy -~' ~""~'~' P~,-k at C~ove* Circle .'.o acsommedate our t.; ye.:~' "~d basegai! teams. We aiso understood that ,the Cit'.¢ wou~d :e wii',ing tch, eL::, w;:.n some of" "' ' in ..'.he rencvatie~. Biil' :~ ,i:r,,_=,=~:¢=,-, and ' ' ~ ' ~ ~ike '- 2;eet ,qth .zcu :~.':,3n ~,. ieague ....... . ...... ~u..., .- ' ..., '-* ~r ........ u ~e mat~-:ais. -- ' ': specifics regaling the Ccc!eot. we .,,~¢~'~,- expect ~ welcome sn~,nq tr:e ;ac.~. ff you ,, =.~ _ ~c ~.e!s. to .*r;:te s~.ecff~c wfyk ,:~"d~' for the Our needs :or the field inciude s,tr!p.cin.~ the scC ::ack ..'rom the %?cot base'.:,ne ~.c a ?5- foot baseline, dice, ina down the s~'ipoed ~ea scmewhai and fiilir..g i~ '~.,4tn ag '~ime. insta~iing base st,~s'with covers sc that ¢emo',.,abie bases car, be p~ac.e c,n the stems · ' ,.~,,,n the ::,, s~ base a,'d "-;~'~ base sides of tk= for qan-,~es. ~nstalhnc ~¢"~";"'"' half ,/;ay .4 ....... . .... ,,, fiei~ iat Oronc s insistence fc.r safety), and movirg the ::',aye.~s' beeches back sev.er~! feet ,:sinc~ they are now wh~..e the fencing wcuid be ;nst~i!ed!. Orono was concerned ac, out having ¢;ayers' bencr.,es on the field line. and recuested they be p;aced back behind a 'once. ¢.',,.- bacx. stco. '""'-'~' + .... 1,4 ;~..., our ?undo a!iow, we w,-.ui,-! i~,~e to add :~ ov~nar:c ..... =.4 iocker at the ':¢"~ perhaps behind '"- backstco, to store bases, rakes nave tnauded '=t"*': so that we make definite c..lans and ~? uc, ~ schedule. ' ' ' %.~,~,s. can · ..... ~,,,, tr.e season cam, es starting the ~ ~ ' of May. ,,,~e :,~i~, r, eed an action ~an $00~. Minutes - Mound Ci~ Council July 23, 1996 1.8 REgUEST FROtM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE BASEBALL I, IELD AT PHILBROOK PARK._ TO MODtI~-Y 'I'H~; City Manager Ed Shukle stated the City had received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Phi/brook Park, at their expense, to allow continued use of the field. Jim Fackler, Parks Director, agreed but requested a plan be presented to him before and modifications occur. He also stated the Babe Ruth League has used the park for a long period of time and no mis-use has happened. blOTION by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously to approve the modifications of Philbrook Park'by the Babe Ruth Baseball Leag'ue at their own expense and subject to the Parks Department approval. PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING JULY 11, 1996 REQUEST FROM BABE RUTH BASEBALL LEAGUE TO MODIFY THE BASEBALL FIELD AT. PHILBROOK PARK We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. The program is for 13 year olds and is a new opportunity for youth participation. At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the backstop for foul bails, bathrooms, a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the neighborhood should also be considered. Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors. Bob Shidla, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League was present. Casey asked if the neighbors were notified. They were not. Mr. Shidla explained that they plan to install 20 to 30 feet of fencing down each path line, and asked if maybe they could have the backstop from Stenson Park transferred to this park. He commented that the length of field is adequate. They plan to expand the infield by cutting back the grass another 15 to 20 feet, which is back to its original size. This work will be all volunteered and they will pay for the improvements with money from fundraisers. Ahrens questioned proiected use. Shidla stated that they foresee two games per week. The Secretary indicated that before the new Lions fields were completed, both the men and women leagues utilized this field on Monday and Wednesday evenings. Byrnes commented that they should do anything they can to improve this town for the youth, especially 13 year olds who need organized activities, and we should encourage sports. Fackler stated that he would like to be notified prior to any work commencing on the field. Meyer agreed with Byrnes that the City should support their youth. Meyer would like to see the City help the Baberuth association in restoring the field, and maybe they can include money in a future parks budget for a new backstop. Fackler commented that the satellites are already supplied by the City at this park, and there is a drinking fountain. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the request to make improvements to the ball field at Philbrook Park, subject to the League working with the Parks Director and subject to the approval of the Parks Department. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND Memorandum 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 27, 1996 Park and Open Space Commission Jim Faclder, Parks Director '(~:~,;'-""~" Philbrook Park We have received a request from the Babe Ruth Baseball League to make modifications to the baseball field at Philbrook Park, at their expense, and to allow continued use of the field. Currently. the Babe Ruth League is utilizing the ball field at Philbrook Park on Tuesdays and Thursdays, May through July. The program is for 13 to 15 year olds and is a new opportunity for youth participation. At this time, I feel that the use can continue, but a plan is needed to address specific changes they are planning. This request also raises concerns about the need for: protective fencing for players on the bench and for spectators, an overhang on the back stop for foul balls, bathrooms, a home run fence, and parking. How these improvements and increased usage will affect the neighborhood should also be considered. As I noted before, the Babe Ruth League has already been using the Park, and to-date I have not seen any mis-use of the area or received any calls from the neighbors. JF:pj CC: Lorraine Pinter, Secretary of Babe Ruth Baseball League Bob Shilda, President of Babe Ruth Baseball League To: Ji~l Fackler, City of Mound From: Lorraine Painter, Secretary of Babe Ruth Baseball League Date: May 15, 1996 Request: The Babe Ruth Baseball League requests the use of Philbrook Park for two 13-year oM baseball games per week, arid approval to modify the field at its cost. The sd ~edule for the field is open for the dales needed, per Westonka Community Services. Background: In past years the Babe Ruth program for 13-15 year olds has lost pr~rticipatien as boys ~r~ove up and are intinfidated by the larger field size. The Little t..eague field is O0 feet between bases, a~.l tt~e Babe Ruth format is 90 feet. During tt~e 19'.)5 seaso~ tl~e league added a ,levelul,~e~ta113-year level with three teams to lflay u~ a tra~sitio~al size field. Tile ~egulutiu~ size for this format is 75 feet between bases 'l't~ese teai~s I.)a~ticil:)ated in the Oro~o 13-year "Prep" league, and the program was very popular among the players. Wtfile Orono allowed the Mound teams to join them tl~e first year on their field to see t~uw well it would go, tt~ey requested ttlat Iv~o~a~d provide a field if they wanted to c,.~tii~ue tl~e joint t)rugrar" Tt~e [vloLll~d po~ti,)~ would be two games per week from M;-~y tt~ough ilfid-.July. A field witt~ a deeper outfield than softball requirements is needed to accommodate the extra le~gtt~ il~ baseli~e, a~:. t still have adequate fielding distance. A local field was sougt~t ti ~at could conli~ue tu be used for softball, but accommodate the larger field size as well. Since tl~e P~et) prograph does not rer_F~ire a pitching mound, this would be l~)ssible if a field was large el~ougl~. Plfilbrook Pa~k: 'l'l~e Ptfilbrook Park fieM has enough distance diagonally to be used for ti ~e 7G-foot baseline and be adequate for ti'~e outfield. It has a backstop and local pa~ki~g. Wtfile benct~es there are not shielded from the infield, neither are they at the Babe Ib_ltl~ or high schoo! fields or some ortner pa~ks used by Little League baseball. Modification: The Babe Ruth league offers to remove the sod to extend the infield to tile I~.~l~ger baseli~e, and provide app~oxi~m.~tr:ly $1,000-1,200 in ag lime in the infield to i)r~l,¢lly l.,iovide for' play. 'fhe GO-foot basulil~e for softball will be maintained. During ttlis seasur~ a tenipora~y fel~ce from the backstop down toward the first and third bases could be i~stalled for additional safety to tile players on the team benches. Next year the league could provide additional equipment, such as a permanent fence fl om the backstop past the benches, and an overhang for the backstop. Philbrook Par'~/vYg Proposed Development Picnic Shelter 123 Philbrook P,ark Proposed Development Picnic Shelter 123 We the undersigned residents of the Brookton Addition have some serious reservations about plans being made to modify the nature of Pltilbrook Park to accomodate Babe Ruth baseball. Since there has been no dialog with residents about these modifications, by our signatures we request that any proposed or planned changes be placed on hold until a more open agreement has been negotiated between ali interested parties. Mound, MN. 4/16/97 · PRINTED NAME SIGNATURE 17,_C Jcc~ ADDRESS We the undersigned residents of the Brookton Addition have some serious reservations about plans being made to modify the nature of Philbrook Park to accomodate Babe Ruth baseball. Since there has been no dialog with residents about these modifications, by our signatures we request that any proposed or planned changes be placed on hold until a more open agreement has been negotiated between all interested parties. Mound, MN. 4/16/97 PRINTED NAME //e SIGNATURE , ADDRESS We the undersigned residents of the Brookton Addition have some serious reservations about plans being made to modify the nature of Philbrook Park to accomodate Babe Ruth baseball. Since there has been no dialog with residents about these modifications, by our signatures we .equest that any proposed or planned changes be placed on hold until a more open agreement has been negotiated between all interested parties. Mound, MN. 4/16/97 PRINTED NAME i4',7 ' CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM April 18, 1997 TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FUNDS - IRIS CAMERA Mayor Polston contacted me regarding a call he had received from area service organizations concerning a contribution towards the purchase of an ultraviolet iris camera for the Mound Fire Department. The camera is a special instrument that can detect human beings in a smoke infested building that the firefighter may or may not be able to see. The City of Spring Park had sent a letter to us previously asking for a contribution towards this camera. A copy of that letter is attached. I also was contacted at Rotary and by a local businessperson about the City contributing towards the purchase. The camera is $25,000 and through local donations and other area city contributions the amount raised is currently $18,000. Mayor Polston asked if the City of Mound could contribute. I told him what ! told the local businessperson who called me about this matter. I indicated that the City typically would receive a request like this through the budget process from the fire chief. If the request seemed reasonable, it would be placed in the budget and would be listed with the rest of the capital outlay for approval by the City Council of Mound and the other city councils in the fire district. Although the request is reasonable, I told Mayor Polston that the process would dictate that we consider this for the 1998 budget. He asked if there are any funds available now and I said there were but you would be buying them outside of fire department funds. It is my understanding that the groups that are involved with this project want to buy the camera now. printed on recycled paper Multiple-slip Dock Progra~ Conceptually Approved by the Council on 1-28-97 Reflects Changes Recommended by Park Commission on 1-9-97 Be Review of underlying objectives for Commons Dock Program. 1. Maintain total number of boats participating in the commons dock program. 2. Keep nonabutter boats within wal'k/ng distance from their homes. 3. Recognize that some commons have more problems than others due to topography and/or tight quarters. Work to improve abutter's "sense of privacy" without affecting nonabutters use of the lakeshore commons. Multiple-slip dock objectives. To improve the level of satisfaction with the commons dock program by reducing or eliminating the number of dock sites in front of abutter's homes. Reduce nonabutter cost by providing permits for boat slips that do not require them to have their own docks. Improved shoreline appearance and reduced congestion. m is to be fully funded with current Dock Fund es. Criteria for considering an area for a multiple-slip dock. 1. High level of dissatisfaction with current commons program. Use November 8, 1995 tabulation of commons survey satisfaction levels as a basis for proceeding. First priority (based on dissatisfaction level) is Devon Commons. Shoreline dock congestion. Topography/tight quarters: Houses close to the water and/or at eye level with the water. Multiple-slip Dock Program Approved 1-28-97 p. 2of3 A significant percent of dock site holders interested in or willing to try a multiple-slip dock. Existence of a logical location for a multiple-slip dock in that area: a. Convenient access. b. No undue burden on adjacent abutting homes. Implementation steps. 1. Relocate dock holders to a commons user-fee supported and maintained multiple-slip dock. This will be accomplished by placing multiple docks at the ends of fire lanes, street ends, and other locations that are not directly in front of an abutter's property. 2. The City will be the trustee and manager of the multiple-slip dock system. 3. Being that the Pembroke multiple dock pilot project was a successful program in 1996, make the Pembroke multiple dock a permanent program with a suggested long-term goal maximum of seven twenty-four foot dock slips. 4. When an individual dock site permit holder moves to a multiple-slip dock, that individual dock site will no longer be used as a dock location. 5. The multiple-slip dock is to be used for ingress and egress by the dock permit holders and their guests only. This is needed for boat security and user safety for the permit holders. 6. Where possible, leave room for a visitor boat. Visiting would be limited to three days. 7. Measure the outcome: Measure dock holder's satisfaction with dock program, dock spacing between docks, privacy, etc. 8. An time a multi le dock is ro osed all individuals affected will be notified -- in writin of a meetin and if needed a notice will also be ublished in the a er a ublic hearin will be held and all those affected will have the ability to vote and the maiority will rule. Use Plan for Public Lands issues to review that will affect the multiple-slip dock. 1. what is the total number of boat storage units that the system needs to and can support: throughout the program. In this area? Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council Page 2 I completely understand that but I still think that since the Fire Department is the Mound Fire Department wh/ch is part of the City's annual budget, and the City of Mound is being requested to assist in financing this item, it ought to follow the normal budget process. The request could have been made through normal channels, and the fire district could pay for the item and save the area service organizations and/or individuals the money they are contributing. It is up to you if you wish to contribute the remaining amount needed or a portion of that. It should be noted that Mound's portion of the fire department budget is approximately 50%. Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam 471-9515 Counc|lmembers Wm. D. Weeks 471-7285 MaryAnnThurk 47 ~ -9286 Richard Dietz 471-7799 Bruce Williamson 471-1029 RECEIVED February 6, 1997 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 To Mayor & City Council, The City of Spring Park is very appreciative to have the good fortune of having the excellent Mound Volunteer Fire Department and their dedicated professional firefighters as part of our community. We would like them to have the latest technology to increase their efficiency. The City of Spring Park would like to initiate funding for an Iris Camera. The camera would allow the firefighters vision in a smoke filled room to recover a person that may have been overcome. This equipment would cost approximately $25,000. The City would like to raise the money for this item through donations or have it considered as a budget item. The City Council of Spring Park would like a response from you as to how this could be accomplished and would like to know if your city would be interested. '.,/Mayor Minnetrista Shorewood cc: Mound Orono Minnetonka Beach P.O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384-0452 ° Phone: 471-9051 · Fax: 471-9055 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 April 21, 1997 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK CORRECTED PAGES 1310-1313 - MINUTES 4-8-97 Please replace the above pages in your packet. with those pages. The new set will make a lot more sense. ~o~y. Oo~ 4? I don't know how, but something is out of wack printed on recycled paper H e n n e p i n (2 o u n t y ,An Equal Opportunity Employer Jeff Spartz, County Administrator April 15, 1997 RECEtvF_.f.1 18 The Honorable Bob Polston City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Polston: The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution 97-3-222 concerning welfare reform legislation as contained in Public Law 104-193 the "Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Act of 1996" The legislation eliminates Aid to Families with Dependent Children and replaces it with the Temporary Assistance to Need Families (TANF). At this time the Minnesota Legislature is designing the State's plan to implement welfare reform. We anticipate passage of that legislation by early May of 1997. Following the Governor's signature of this legislature, the implementation of this welfare to work effort will begin in earnest. The size and scope of this process and its impact upon our residents requires broad community participation. The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners is requesting that the City of Brooklyn Park appoint one elected official to serve on the Policy Oversight Committee for the development and implementation of the TANF program. The appointee from your community will be serving on the Policy Oversight Committee with three Hennepin County Commissioners and elected officials from five other cities in Hennepin County. The first the meeting of this committee has been scheduled for May 5, 1997 from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon, at the Hennepin County Government Center, A-2400. Thereafter, the committee will meet once a month on the first Monday of each month for approximately six months. I have included a copy of the Hennepin County Board Resolution and we have made plans for the orientation of elected officials in the area of welfare reform. Hennepin County Administration A 2303 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0233 (612) 348-7574 FAX (612) 348-8228 Recycled Paper I would like to thank you in advance for your City's participation in this important endeavor. If you have any questions, please contact me at 348-4447 or William Brumfield, Director of Training and Employment Assistance at 348-5203. Sincerely, County Administrator C: Commissioner Andrew Commissioner McLaughlin Commissioner Steele o0oas0 RESOLUTION NO. 97-3-222 The following resolution was offered by Commissioner Steele, seconded by Commissioner McLaughlin: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS-HENNEPiN COUNTY RESOLUTION DEFINING DIRECTION AND IDENTIFYING RESPONSIBILITIES FOR WELFARE REFORM WHEREAS, the Federal government passed landmark legislation, PL 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1'996, which is a major piece of legislation overhauling "welfare" in America; and WHEREAS, the legislation eliminates A~DC a with TANF (Temporary, Assi ....... L . nd replaces it Food ~ =L=nce no Neeay Families), changes the Stamp Program, restricts the definition of disabled for children receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and makes several changes in benefits available to non-citizens, drug and alcohol addicted persons and drug felons; and WHEREAS, the legislation has strict work requirements which must be achieved by the State and Counties to avoid monetary sanctions; and WHEREAS, the legislation grants States the authority to develop a State Plan which assists participants in the transition from welfare to work; and WHEREAS, based on the requirements and provisions included in the State plan, Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis, working cooperatively, will develop an employment and training system to assist welfare recipients meet the goal of self sufficiency; and WHEREAS, over 85% of the people who will be affected by these changes in Hennepin County, reside within the Cities of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Bloomington and Mound; and WHEREAS, County and City of Minneapolis Elected Officials have adopted the Hennepin County Welfare Reform Principles which provide a framework and direction for County and City staff; and WHEREAS, a key element of any successful welfare reform is the active participation of the private sector business community and adequate funding for transit child care and job placement assistance. ' MA[{ 1 ? 199 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, the Minneapolis City Council and Mayor of Minneapolis agree to cooperatively develop a welfare to work plan that provides the greatest opportunity for individuals to obtain employment which will contribute to their self sufficiency; and BE IT FLTRTEER RESOLVED, that County and City of Minneapolis staff be directed to develop strategies for involving the metropolitan business community in identifying job opportunities, training programs and work experience for TANF recipients; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that County and City of Minneapolis staff shall create a working committee with representatives from private sector human resource departments to begin identifying training/job opportunities for public assistance recipients; and BE IT FLTRT~ER RESOLVED TFZAT the Policy Committee created by the Hennepin County Board and including Hennepin County Commissioners be expanded to include one elected official appointed by the cities of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Bloomington and Mound and two members from the business sector. The purpose of this expanded Policy Oversite Committee will be to guide the development and implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and to ensure that adequate resources are available for child care, transit, employment opportunities and business incentives. The question was on the adoption of the resolution and there were Sev~n YEAS and __No__NAYS. as follows' COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF COUNTY COMHiSSIONERS Mike Opat Mark Stenglein Mark Andrew Peter McLaughlin Mary Tambornino Penny Steele Randy johnson. Chair YEA X X _ × NAY OTHER RESOLUTION ADOPTED. ATTEST' of the ~nty Board MAR 1 7 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City on April 22, 1997, at 7:00 PM. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and leah Weycker. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Larry Miller, and Hennepin County Appraiser Bill Davy. Mayor Polston opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1997. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene Tuesday, May ~t~8, 1997, at 7:00 PM and bring back their final decision on each property. Larry Miller, from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office will be present. The Council will accept complaints on taxable market value from residents. The Assessor will then review these properties and bring back recommendations at the May ~, 1997, Reconvened Board of Review. The Council will take action on the total assessment at the May ~1~, 1997, Meeting. The following persons responded to the call to be heard either in person, by calling and asking to have their name submitted, or by submitting their concerns in writing. They all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 1. PID//13-117-24 32 0083 - D.R. HOLMS, 5421 CHURCH ROAD 2. PID//14-117-24 41 0053 - ROBERT GOVE, 5789 ELM ROAD o 9. 10. PID #19-117-23 34 0073 - J.L. VORIS, 3030 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE PID #14-117-24 14 0010 - NORMAN SIMONDET, 5690 GRANDVIEW BLVD. PID #23-117-24 23 0015 - DAN & SUE ARETZ, 6228 WESTWOOD CIRCLE PID #19-117-23 33 0106 - ALLEN WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD PID #19-117-23 24 0080 - KATHLEEN SHERIDAN, 4407 WILSHIRE BLVD., #302F PID #14-117-24 14 0017 - JOHN ESSE, 5773 GRANDVIEW, BLVD. PID #13-117-24 23 0027 - FLOYD PALM, 1910 COMMERCE BLVD. PID #19-117-23 13 0123 - ROBT. NYGAARD, LAKEWINDS CONDO. May ll, 1993 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 1.0 PID#23-117-24 440002 - JEFFREY BERGMANN, 3032 HIGHLAND BLVD. PID #13-117-24 41 0035 - DONALD SWEEN, 2028 ARBOR LANE PID #24-117-24 43 0034 - MELVIN ZUCKMAN, 5012 TUXEDO BLVD. PID #25-117-24 21 0102 - WILLIAM JOHNSEN, 5300 PIPER ROAD PID #23-117-24 23 0106 - WALTER LARSON, 2631 SETTER CIRCLE PID #13-117-24 31 0073 - CLARK PETERS, 2146 NOBLE LANE PID #19-117-23 13 0025 PID #19-117-23 13 0129 PID #19-117-23 24 0060 - TED FOX, 4363 WILSHIRE BLVD. (LAKEWINDS CONDOMINIUMS) MOTION made by~~seconded , by~~'- to reconvene the Local Board of Review on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, at 7:00 PM, in the City Council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES REGULAR MOUND CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 22, 1997. The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 22, 1997, at ~0 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Mark Koegler, and City Clerk Fran Clark. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1.0 APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. 2 May11, 1993 *CONSENT AGENDA: *1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 8, 1997, REGULAR MEETING. '1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIl. 15, 1997, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. *1.3 CASE//97-15: MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'?. 2ND ADDITION, PID//14-117-24 43 0006, VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING. May 11, 1993 RESOLUTION//97-37 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AT 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID //14-117-24 43 0006, P & Z CASE//97-15 *1.4 RESOLUTION REA~G AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRAND-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS. RESOLUTION//97-38 RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS *1.5 BID AWARD: 1997 SEALCOAT PROJECT. RESOLUTION//97-39 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE 1997 SEALCOAT PROJECT TO ALLIED BLACKTOP IN THE AMOUNT OF 29,072.00 '1.6 PAYMENT OF BILL~. 1.7 1.8 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE//97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WESTONKA SCHOOLS SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PUBLIC SCHOOL & ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND LICENSED DAY CARE & PRESCHOOL 2450 WILSHIRE BLVD. PID#24-117-24 12 0059. May 11, 1993 1.9 CASE//97-16: Ga Nachreiner 6056 Cherr wood Road Lots 6 & 7 Block 9 The Hi hlands PlD//23-117-24 34 0088 Variance for ara e addition. ,,.._9 ~.,~~_ ~- a~.'~ ~ ~_T!ON TO APPROVE A~_~[~ONT YARD ~O~At ~0sddfii~-~vwooi~ 1.10 DISCUSSION: IMPROVEMENTS TO PHILBROOK PARK BY BABE RUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION. 5 May 11, 1993 1.11 REOUF~T FROM THE CITY OF SPRING PARK AND OTHER LOCAl. SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS TO PURCHASE AN IRIS CAMERA FOR THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT. 1.12 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF MULTIPLE-SLIP DOCK SYSTEMS AT THE AMHURST LANE ACCE~qS ON DEVON COMMON AND AT THE FAIRVIEW LANE ACCESS ON LAKE BLVD. ........ ~RESOLUTION~97- RESOLUTION APProVING THE ~LEMENTATION OF ~T~LE SLIP DOCK SYSTEMS AT A~ST LA~ ACC~S ON DEVON COLONS, ~E DEVON ACCESS ON DEVON CO~ON A~ AT ~E FA~VIEW LA~ ACCESS ON LAKE BLVD. 1.13 A. Bo INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS.. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR MARCH 1997 AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR. REMINDER: BOARD OF REVIEW IS SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 22, 1997, AT 7:00 P.M. SEE ENCLOSED SALES RATIO BOOKLET DEVELOPED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY. May 11, 1993 Co PEGGY JAMES, PLANNING & INSPECTIONS SECRETARY HAS RESIGNED HER POSITION AND HER LAST DAY IS FRIDAY, APRIL 25, 1997. WE WILL BE HAVING CAKE AND COFFEE FOR HER AT 2:30 P.M. ON THAT DAY. YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND THIS RECEPTION FOR HER ON THAT DAY. Do ENCLOSED IS A COPY OF THE BRAUN/INTERTEC'S REPORT ON ITS PCB TESTING THAT THEY WERE REQUESTED TO DO PURSUANT TO THE PERMIT APPROVED BY THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD). AFTER YOU READ THE REPORT, YOU WILL BE EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE RESULTS. THERE ARE NO PCB'S IN LOST LAKE AND THE LEAD LEVELS ARE LOW! BRUCE CHAMBERLAIN WILL BE ATTENDING THE APRIL 24TH MEETING OF THE MWCD TO PRESENT THE REPORT TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS. THE DNR IS WRITING THE PERMIT FOR APPROVAL ON THE LOST LAKE PROJECT AT THIS TIME AND SHOULD BE READY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS REVIEWING OUT PERMIT APPLICATION AND WE WILL KNOW MORE ON THIS PERMIT BY THE'~ END OF APRIL. E. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 14, 1997. F. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 1997. REMINDER: ANNUAL RECYCLING DAY/CLEANUP IS SCHEDULED SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1997, AT LOST LAKE. FOR Multiple-slip Dock Program Approved 1-28-97 p. 3of3 Does the topography of this particular area require any restrictions on nonabutter boat sizes, or other things that would unduly impact abutting homeowners and/or nonabutting dock holders? Installation and transition issues. If a minority of nonabutters don't want to move to the multiple slip dock: a. Keep changes on a voluntary basis. b. Keep nonabutters within walking distance of their homes. Solutions: Move the permit to the multiple-slip dock when the permit holder leaves the program, and no longer use that individual dock site. If a "share" exists, they cannot assume that dock site. Attempt to accommodate that "share" at the multiple-slip dock. What if a dock site holder has more than one boat and therefore wants more than one slip at the multiple-slip dock? a. The multiple-slip dock can only financially support one boat slip per permit holder. Solution: Leave the permit holder at his/her own dock site. When the permit holder either chooses to join the multiple-slip dock, or leaves the program, then move the dock site to the multiple-slip dock and no longer use the individual's dock site. Secondary benefit: Limiting the multiple-slip permit holders to one BSU gives more flexibility for allowing the remaining permit holders to have more than one boat while still maintaining the number of participants and stay within LMCD BSU limits. When an area is targeted to have a specific number of BSU's at the multiple- slip dock, yet some of the targeted dock site holders don't move to the multiple-slip dock, do as follows. Create the multiple-slip dock with slips only for those that move to it from targeted dock sites. Then expand the number of slips over time as the remaining dock sites are consolidated onto the multiple- slip dock. Dock fees: No surcharges are recommended based on the commons dock fund financial projections, the proposed multiple-slip dock system is fully funded with current Dock Fund fees. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT March 1997 25.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments March 1997 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,266,460 0 6,250 740 121,800 11,177 968,210 623 51,100 855 65,000 11,732 43,300 151 43,500 0 10,000 967 0 (1,266,460) 0.00% 1,642 (4,608) 26.27% 25,848 (95,952) 21.22% 40,713 (927,497) 4.20% 2,601 (48,499) 5.09% 21,938 (43,062) 33.75% 639 (42,661) 1.48% 0 (43,500) 0.00% 2,733 (7,267) 27.33% TOTAL REVENUE 2.575.620 26.245 96.114 !2.479.506} 3.73% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 336,020 37,873 108,320 5,034 1,525,000 105,212 430,000 26,689 880,000 70,272 4,100 0 73,800 13,493 114,180 (221,840) 33.98% 15,256 (93,064) 14.08% 302,043 (1,222,957) 19.81% 94,571 (335,429) 21.99% 243,526 (636,474) 27.67% 0 (4,100) 0.00% 69,737 (4,063) 94.49% 04114197 rev97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT March 1997 25.00% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers March 1997 BUDGET EXPENSE YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 69,370 9,053 31,360 38,010 45.21% 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% 800 0 100 700 12.50% 193,470 15,964 46,729 146,741 24.15% 2,100 96 1,759 341 83.76% 59,480 226 357 59,123 0.60% 168,960 12,181 37,647 131,313 22.28% 23,550 94 7,365 16,185 31.27% 114,460 5,863 19,739 94,721 17.25% 924,350 51,163 206,570 717,780 22.35% 4,100 2 676 3,424 16.49% 172,870 12,999 34,058 138,812 19,70% 405,270 33,927 121,083 284,187 29.88% 82,840 5,875 19,664 63,176 23.74% 148,550 9,134 27,913 120,637 18.79% 36,200 0 0 36,200 0.00% 20,000 0 4,467 15,533 22.34% 161,390 12,870 38,608 122,782 23.92% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,591,760 169,447 598,095 1.993.665 23.08% Area Fire Service Fund 336,020 Recycling Fund 118,950 Liquor Fund 289,020 Water Fund 429,300 Sewer Fund 1,020,460 Cemetery Fund 8,100 Docks Fund 68,440 16,292 63,084 272,936 18.77% 982 24,298 94,652 20.43% 13,622 53,650 235,370 18.56% 32,140 85,391 343,909 19.89% 95,469 304,717 715,743 29.86% 65 877 7,223 10.83% 415 5,635 62,805 8.23% Exp-97 04/14~97 G.B. RECEIVE[3 APR 113 ~ Sediment Sampling Lost Lake Canal Prepared for City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Braun Intertec Corporation BRAUN INTERTEC April 17, 1997 Braun Intertec Corporation 1345 Northland Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120-1141 612-683.8700 Fax: 683-8888 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Sediment Sampling, Lost Lake Canal In accordance with your authorization, Braun Intertec and Geosphere Midwest have completed the sediment sampling and geophysical analysis of the eastern part of the proposed dredge area of the captioned project. In summary, no landfilled material was observed in the proposed dredge area and no PCBs or mercury were detected in the sediments. Lead concentrations were less than previously observed and do not indicate that there is a significant difference between the surficial sediments and those that will remain in place following completion of the proposed dredge. The details of the work are contained in the attached report. I have forwarded a copy of the report to Judy Mader at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and to Bruce Chamberlain at Hoisington. If you have any questions concerning the report, please feel free to call me at (612) 683-8752. Sincerely, Richard M. Johnston Project Manager, Principal Attachment: Report C.' Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Judy Mader, MPCA kafl, n:\babx\94\819\819-r01.wpd Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................. 1 2. Background ............................................... 1 3. Methods ................................................. 2 o Results .................................................. 2 Geophysical Survey .......................................... 2 PCB Analysis ............................................. 3 Metals Analysis ............................................ 3 Inorganic Analysis .......................................... 3 5. Summary ................................................ 3 6. References ............................................... 4 1. Introduction The City of Mound was required to collect sediment samples for analysis for PCBs as a condition of the dredge permit recently granted by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The work was to be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements and the results submitted to MPCA for their review and approval. In addition, the City of Mound requested that the sediment samples collected for PCB analysis also be analyzed for lead and mercury. This report presents the results of that sampling and laboratory analysis. 2. Background The City of Mound is proposing to redredge an existing channel referred to as the Lost Lake Canal from Lake Minnetonka to the downtown area of the City of Mound. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. Braun Intertec sampled and analyzed sediments from the project area in 1995 according to a work plan reviewed and approved by the MPCA (Braun Intertec, 1994). The results of that work and a brief description of the project are presented in a report (Braun Intertec, 1995) which was submitted to MPCA for their review. During the subsequent public participation process for environmental review and permitting, concern was raised regarding the potential for the presence of PCBs in sediments in the project area due to an adjacent disposal area. No evidence of the disposal of PCBs in the adjacent area was presented. PCB testing had not been required by MPCA. In addition, concern was raised regarding the potential to excavate dumped material during the dredging process as well as concern that the previous sampling and analysis had focused on the sediment that would be excavated and had not considered the quality of the sediment that would remain in place and would be exposed to the water column. Pursuant to the MCWD requirement for PCB testing, a work plan was prepared (Braun Intertec, 1997) and submitted to the MPCA for their review and approval. MPCA approved the work plan on February 26, 1997. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Page 2 3. Methods Two geophysical surveys were conducted; an electromagnetic conductivity survey using an EM31 and a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey. The geophysical surveys were conducted by Geosphere Midwest in and adjacent to the east side of the proposed dredge area to evaluate it for the presence of landfilled material. The survey area included part of the wetland and 20 to 30 feet of the upland area on the east side of the project. The Geosphere Midwest report is attached as Appendix B and is summarized below. Braun Intertec sampled the sediment on March 11, 1997 in accordance with the MPCA approved work plan. The work plan is included in this report as Appendix C. The elevation of the ice surface in the project area was obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the morning of the field work. The elevation was 929.06 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Sediment samples were collected at previous sampling locations #5 and #6, which were designated locations #5-2 and//6-2. Two discrete samples were collected at each location. One sample was collected at each location from the upper foot of sediment (designated samples 5-2-A and 6-2-A) and one sample was collected at each location from the foot of sediment between elevations 923.6 feet and 922.6 feet AMSL (designated samples 5-2-B and 6-2-B). The latter interval is the upper one foot of material which will remain in place following completion of the proposed dredging. 4. Results Geophysical Survey The electromagnetic (EM) conductivity survey was conducted in the area along the east side of the dredge area including approximately 20 to 30 feet of the upland area adjacent to the former disposal area. According to Geosphere Midwest, the results of the EM survey indicated that "This leads to the conclusion that no landfills are present within the limits of the investigation." Minor anomalies were observed in two areas during the EM survey. Therefore, a GPR survey was conducted in those areas. Following completion of the GPR survey, Geosphere Midwest concluded that "The radar data did not detect any features in the sediments that would indicate landfill material." Several bent 2-inch diameter pipes were observed by Geosphere Midwest field personnel sticking up through the surface, but they did not detect additional material beneath the surface. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Page 3 The details of the Geosphere Midwest results are in their report (Geosphere Midwest, 1977) which is attached in Appendix B. PCB Analysis PCB analysis was performed on the four samples collected. No PCBs were detected in the samples above the reporting limits. The results are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory report is in Appendix A. Metals Analysis Lead was detected in three of the samples at concentrations ranging from 5.3 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg or parts per million) to 21 mg/kg. Lead had previously been observed at concentrations of less than 2.6 mg/kg, 17 mg/kg, 48 mg/kg and 93 mg/kg, which the MPCA had indicated was within acceptable concentrations for this project. The lead concentrations do not indicate a significant difference in concentration between the soils currently exposed to the water column and those which will be exposed following completion of the proposed dredge. Mercury was not detected during this sampling event at detection limits ranging from 0.13 to 0.44 mg/kg. Inorganic Analysis Total solids of the samples ranged from 9% to 30%. The total organic carbon content of the samples ranged from 4.7% to 6.1%. 5. Summary No landfilled material was detected on the east side of the proposed dredge area. No PCBs or mercury were detected in the sediment samples. Lead was detected at concentrations ranging from 5.3 mg/kg to 21 mg/kg. Based on previous discussions with MPCA staff, these concentrations are within acceptable limits. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Page 4 6. References Braun Intertec, 1994. Work Plan for Sediment Collection and Analysis in Support of Individual Dredge Permit Application, Lost Lake Canal, Mound Minnesota, December 19,1994. Braun Intertec, 1995. Soil and. Sediment Sampling and Analysis, Report in Support of Individual Dredge Permit Application, Lost Lake Canal, Mound Minnesota, May 23, 1995. Braun Intertec, 1997. City of Mound, Lost Lake Canal Project, Letter to Ed Shukle from Richard Johnston, February 24, 1997. Geosphere Midwest, 1997. Geophysical Investigation of the Lost Lake Site, Mound Minnesota. Geosphere Midwest, March, 1997. MOUND QUADRANGLE MOUND, MINNESOTA NW/4 LAKE MINNETONKA 15' QUADRANGLE '-- -- " ' - ~ ' , - -- , ( ~ ' ' - - .~.~ ' .~.~.,. ~ ·, , ~ / ~~~ ~ ~' ::"~':~ ~ ~ ~'/.~/:{ I ~', Point -~~,,~.-..~ ~.:, .. - -,, _ ..~,.,. --':~D, · ~ .-~-- .- . - ,~---~ ,~ . , ~ ., ...... . ~-~-~ ~ . ~._ .... ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ -_~_ -, . ~ ~ / ........ - ..... ,_~, ....... ~ , .3 . ,- ..... ~ ~ '. ', , , ., , t ~ ',~ ~ ~~~/~: Uo ' ," slahd/~~,~T~l~n~- X ~ '~ 'x / ~ ~/~ -' ,- " ' ~-'-~'2 ' / ~ ¢~,' _ ~ardscrabble ' ' ' 1000,, 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 ~ET ~ I QUADRANGLE LOCA~ON INT RE~ON SHE~ LOST LAKE CANAL APP'D By: RJ 2-23-95 CI~ OF MOUND JOa No. BABX-94-819 I NTE RTEC .o~.o, MINNESOTA ~D~. No. AD4OBlgL [HSURE NO. 1¥7a ~ I~ DAKOTA RAILROAD 150' 0 300' ' I ' / SHORELINE BLVD.o~ SCALE 1"=300' ~ ]] "' AUDITORS ~ 5-2 I'" ~ PUBLIC ',~,~ 11 /" ~ - i WORKS '~\ ,, _p f ,, % / ~ '-.... ,¢ // / / ,;~ ~/ ,,, ~o~ ,,; /I? / / /'~ EDGE OF LAKE z / t Il ~{ / / ," ~ / II h~ / / / ~ J / , II 'q II k l Ill ] ' RLJ~H ROAD ~ ' ~ ~//- ~ SAMPLE POINT INT RE.SION SHEET 2~~ ~' SAMPLING LOCATIONS DRA~ BY: KMR 2-03-95 LOST LAKE CANAL APP'D CITY OF MOUND JOe NO, BABX-94-819 I NTERTEC .o..~, DWO. NO. AB40819 FIGURE NO. SCALE 1"= 300' 2 Table 1. City of Mound - Lost Lake Canal Project No. BABX-94-819 Compound Concentration (1) Sample No. 5-2-A 5-2-B 6-2-A 6-2-B mg/kg mg/kg mglk_q mglk~ Polychlorinated Biphenyls PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 ,,PCB 1254 PCB 1260 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 iPCB 1248 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 <0.01 <0.02 <0.02 <0.04 h ;!PCB 1268 ~illnorganic iiSolids, Total , 15% 30% 15% 9% i!Total Organic Carbon 4.7% 6.1% 4.7% 4.8% '.iMetals [!Lead 5.3 21 21 , <17 i'.Mercury <0.13 ' <0.27 <0.27 <0.44 (1) Results are reported on a dry weight basis. mg/kg = miligrams per kilogram: parts per million < - less than kafln:\babx\94\819\819-T01 .WK4 BRAUN INTERTEC Braun Intertec Corporation 6875 Washington Avenue South P.O. Box 39108 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439-0108 612-941-5600 Fax: 942-4844 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments~ April 8, 1997 Report 97-0695 (Revised) Project BABX-94-819 Mr. Rick Johnston/MH Braun Intertec Corporation Re: City of Mound Lost Lake Canal Project Braun Intertec Corporation received your analytical request on March 11, 1997. Analytical results are summarized on the following laboratory report. The results for PCBs, Lead, and Mercury are reported on a dry weight basis. Routine Braun Intertec Corporation QA/QC was followed. Quality control data have been reviewed. When possible these samples will be held by the laboratory for 14 days from the date of this report. The process of disposing or returning the samples will occur at that time. Arrangements can be made for extended sample storage by contacting us at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to meet your analytical needs. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please call Wallace Zick at 612-942-4946. Sincerely, Technical Manager Attachments Chain of Custody Laboratory Results Cliem: City of Mound Log-in: 97-0695 Project Number: BABX-94-819 PO Number: Cffenf Reference: Matrix: Solid Lab Sample ID: 97-0695-01 Client Sample ID/Description: 5-2-A Laboratory: Braun Intertec Corporation Lab Contact/Phone: W. Zick/612-942-4946 Sampler: Braun Intcrtec % Moisture: 70% MI)L: Method Detection L/mit RL: Reporting Limit Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Reported: Page: I Compound F.,~ract Method Extract Date Analysis Analysis Dilution Method Date Factor MDL Sample Re~ Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 PCB 1268 Inorganic Solids, Total Total Organic Carbon Metals Lead, Total Mercury, Total $W-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 03/12/97 03112197 03/12/97 03/12/97 03/12/97 03/12/97 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 0.01 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 0.01 EPA 160.3 04/04/97 1.0 EPA 415.1 03/27/97 1.0 0.10 0.10 SW-8466010 03/13/97 1.0 1.5 5.0 SW-846 7471 03/13/97 1.0 0.04 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 3O 4.7 5.3 <0.13 rng/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg rog/kg mg/kg rog/kg rog/kg (Repo~ continue, Client: City of Mound Log-in: 97-0695 Project Number: BABX-94-819 PO Number: Client Reference: Matrix: Solid Lab Sample ID: 97-0695-02 Client Sample ID/Description: 5-2-B Laboratory: Braun Inter~c Corporation Lab Contact/Phone: W. Zick/612-942-4946 Sampler: Braun Intertec % Moisture: 85 % MI)L: Mcthod Detection Lhnit RL: Reporting Limit Date Sampled: O~ Date Received: O~ Date Reported: O~ Page: 2 Compound Extract Extract Analysis Analysis Dilution Method Date Method Date Factor MDL Sample Resni Polychlorinated Bipbenyls (PCBs) PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 PCB 1268 Inorganic Solids, Total Total Organic Carbon Metals Lead, Total Mercury, Total 5W-846 3540 03112197 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 5W-846 3540 03112197 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03118/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 5W-846 3540 03/12/97 5W-846 8081 03/18/97 5W-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 1.0 0.0033 1.0 0.0033 1.0 0.0033 1.0 0.0033 1.0 0.0025 1.0 0.0025 1.0 0.0025 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 EPA 160.3 04/04/97 1.0 - - EPA 415.1 03/27/97 1.0 0.10 0.10 SW-846 6010 03/13/97 1.0 1.5 10 SW-846 7471 03/13197 1.0 0.04 0.27 < 0.02 mg/kg < 0.02 mg/kg < 0.02 mg/kg <0.02 mg/kg < 0.02 mg/kg <0.02 mg/kg < 0.02 mg/kg <0.02 mg/kg 15 % 6.1 21 mg/kg < 0.27 mg/kg (Report continued Client: City of Mound Log-in: 97-0695 Project Number: BABX-94-819 PO Number: Client Reference: Matrix: Solid b Sample ID: 97-0695-04 Client Sample ID/Description: 6-2-B Laboratory: Braun Inter~c Corporation Lab Contact/Phone: W. Zick]612-942-4946 Sampler: Braun Intcrtec % Moisture: 91% MDL: Method Detection Limit RL: Reporting Limit Date Sampled: Date Received: Date Reported: Page: 4 03! 11/97 o3/11/97 04108197 Compound Extract Extract Method Date Analysis Analysis Dilution Method Date Factor MDL Sample Result Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCB 1016 PCB 1221 PCB 1232 PCB 1242 PCB 1248 PCB 1254 PCB 1260 PCB 1268 Inorganic Solids, Total Total Organic Carbon Metals Lead, Total Mercury, Total SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 3540 03/12/97 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0033 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 SW-846 8081 03/18/97 1.0 0.0025 EPA 160.3 04/04/97 1.0 EPA 415.1 03/27/97 1.0 0.10 0.04 0.04 0,04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 SW-846 6010 03/13/97 1.0 1.5 17 SW-846 7471 03/13/97 1.0 0.04 0.44 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 < 0.04 <0.04 <0.04 <0.04 9.0 4.8 <17 <0.44 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg % % rog/kg rog/kg (End of Report) Jl I I, ,L Il,. ~ IJJ,,, J ii GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATION OFTHE LOST LAKE SITE Mound, Minnesota for Braun Intertec March 1997 GEOSPHERE MIDWEST Brooklyn Park, Minnesota GEOSPHERE INC 1748 sw 24th street miami florida 33145 tel: (305) 856-8022 fax: (305) 858-8235 3800 gettysburg midland michigan 48640 tel: (517) 832-8626 fax: (517) 832-8631' GEOSPHERE MIDWEST 8616 xylon avenue north suite G brooklyn park minnesota 55445 tel: (612) 493-3596 fax: (612) 493-3597 Geophysical Investigation Of The Lost Lake Site Mound, Minnesota for Braun Intertec March 1997 Geosphere Midwest Project No. 97-516 GEOSPHERE MIDWEST GSM 1 INTRODUCTION The Lost Lake Site is located south of Shoreline Boulevard and east of the post office in Mound, 1Wmnesota. The area investigated covered both above and below the bank of Lost Lake, along the west side of the public works storage area. The objective of the investigation was to identify areas of buffed debris within a zone to be dredged during development of the area. The EM31 conductMty investigation was performed on March 17, 1997. Three ground penetrating radar (GPR) traverses were also surveyed at that time, with additional GPR traverses performed on March 25. The west pan of the survey extended over Lost Lake. At the time of the survey the lake was frozen over which allowed the geophysical operator to collect data on foot. Clumps of reeds and cattails are present over much of this pan of the site. A 2-foot bank is present at the edge of the lake, along which several trees and bushes are present. East of the bank, snow covered most of the surface. 2 GEOPHYSICAL METHODS Two geophysical methods were used at the Lost Lake site. These were electromagnetic (EM) conductivity using a Geonics EM31 ground conductivity meter and GPR using a GSSI SIR-3 ground penetrating radar system. EM conductivity was the primary investigative method at the site. It was used to identify areas of anomalous conductivity that might indicate the presence of fill material. GPR data were collected over areas where the EM31 indicated the possible presence of fill. ELECTROMAGNETIC CONDUCTIVITY METHOD The EM method determines electrical conductivity of earth materials by inducing electromagnetic eddy currents in the ground. The magnetic field due to the eddy currents (secondary field) is measured along with the field due to the transmitter (primary field). After compensating for the primary field (which is determined from the coil orientation and separation), both the magnitude and phase of the secondary field are determined. These measurements are then converted to components in-phase and 90 degrees out of phase (quadrature phase) with the transmitted field. The quadrature component is converted to apparent ground conductivity, which is an estimate of the average conductivity of the ground in the proximity of the instrument. The in-phase measurement is related to the conductivity, but requires higher conductivity than found in normal soil to respond. Because of this, it is a good tool to map the distribution of metal (which is highly conductive) and is often called the "metal detection" mode. The depth of investigation of the EM31 is typically 15 to 20 feet. GEOSPHERE MIDWEST GSM GROUND PENETRATING RADAR Ground penetrating radar is used to locate features in the subsurface materials. The radar method determines subsurface conditions by sending high frequency radio waves into the ground from a transmitter antenna located on the surface. Subsurface structures cause some of the wave energy to be reflected back to the surface, which is picked up by a receiver antenna. These signals are then processed and plotted in a distance versus time-depth display. This creates a continuous cross- sectional "picture" of subsurface conditions as the radar antenna is slowly towed across the surface. The technique is analogous to the common water depth recorders which use an acoustic transducer instead of a radar antenna. The radar responses are caused by wave reflections from interfaces of materials having different electrical properties; they include many natural conditions such as bedding, cementation, moisture, clay content, voids, fractures, and intrusions as well as man-made objects. Depth of penetration is very dependent on conditions found at each site. Radar waves are attenuated (absorbed or scattered) by certain properties of the site's soil; the most important of which is the electrical conductivity of the material. Generally, better overall penetration is achieved in dry sandy soils; lesser penetration is achieved in moist, clayey, or conductive soils. Considerable depth may be attained in saturated sands or through lake water if the specific conductance of the water is low. Radar penetration is excellent in massive dry materials such as granite, limestone and concrete. 3 DATA ACQUISITION The area investigated is shown in Figure 1. It extends 240 feet from just south of the sidewalk on the south side of Shoreline Boulevard to about 30 feet south of survey stake number 47. The width of the survey was 70 to 100 feet. A grid was established over the site prior to data collection. Grid distance units are feet. Grid north was defined as a line extending from survey stake number 49 to a telephone pole at the side of the sidewalk. This line was arbitrarily assigned grid coordinate 200 East. The telephone pole was assigned grid coordinates 200 East, 300 North. EM31 conductivity data were collected at intervals of 2 1/2 feet along east-west grid lines 10 feet apart (Figure 1). Conductivity and in-phase values were stored along with grid coordinates in a digital data logger and periodically transferred to a computer for review while at the site. After data collection with the M31 was complete and the data reviewed, an area was identified that was investigated with GPR traverses. Further review of the data at the office identified other areas that warranted follow up with the radar. C-pr data were collected with 2 different antennas: 300 MHz and 900 Mhz. The 900 Mhz antennat provides higher detail, but less depth of investigation. The 900 Mhz data is identified as "Detail" in Appendix A. The locations of the GPR traverses are also shown in Figure 1. A field log book was maintained concurrently with data collection. The log book was used to record the locations of site features, which were used to prepare a base map of the site. GEOSPHERE MIDWEST GSM 4 RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION Contours of EM31 conductivity and in-phase values are presented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. The GPR data are shown in Appendix A. On the conductivity map, the yellow contours indicate areas of relatively high conductivity and the blue areas indicate lows. The yellow areas on the in-phase map indicate areas of anomalous measurements, probably due to metal. The conductivity and in-phase variations observed across the site cover a significantly smaller range than normally encountered during landfall surveys. This leads to the conclusion that no landfills are present within the limits of the investigation. In order to identify any features in the data, Figures 2 and 3 were created with closer contour intervals than typically used for landfill mapping. This has resulted in exaggerating relatively subtle features. The interpreted results of the investigation are shown superimposed over contours of EM31 in-phase values in Figure 4. The features shown on the map are a composite interpretation of EM31 conductivity and in-phase data. A feature has been identified in Figure 4 as an area of subsurface material, based on anomalous EM conductivity and in-phase values. This area is located along the bank south of grid line 120 North. The anomalies defining this zone are not as strong as those typically resulting fi.om a landfill (discussed earlier in this section). This feature is characterized as consisting of multiple, but separate, objects rather than as a continuous landfall. Its full extent is not completely defined as it apparently extends outside the limits of the survey. The portion of this feature that falls within the limits of planned dredging was further investigated with GPK During the GPR survey, metal pipes were observed hidden within the thick vegetation along or near the bank. The pipes are 2" diameter and bent, with unknown extent. Several pipes were seen at each location, except on line 110 North where only one appears to be present. Radar data detected the pipes but did not indicate additional material (concrete, etc.) beneath the surface. It is concluded that the part of this feature investigated with the GPK is made up of several "deposits" of discarded pipes, with little other buried material present. Farther up the bank, outside of the planned dredge area, the GPR data detected a few small objects, but not enough to indicate anything that could be described as a landfill. GPR data were also collected along grid lines 240 N, 250 N, and 260 N. Although the EM data did not indicate metal present in this area, conductivity values suggested a tongue of the "on shore" material extended into the lake. The radar data did not detect any features in the sediments that would indicate landfill material. The land portion of the site shows up as an area of relatively low conductivity and the lake portion as relatively high conductivity. Several conditions could result in these differences, including soil type and moisture content. The variations in observed conductivities over the lake are likely due to the depth of water and/or thickness of sediment. 3 300 ~ 280i 260 I 240 22O 200 180' 160 140 120 100 ~ 80' 60' 40 6O ,Aone Pole 1 I 100 120 180 200 220 240 Easting Distance (Feet) LEGEND 260 N ~7 EM31 Reading Locations GPR Traverse Survey Stake and Number Observed Surface Metal Figure 1 Extent of Survey Mound Site GEOSPHERE MIDVVEST ~ 300 ~one Pole 280 26O 240 220 200 ~ 180 ~ 160 140: 120 100 ~ $0 4O 60 80 100 120 14~ 160 180 Easting Distance (Feet) 200 22O 240 260 N i~47 LEGEND Survey Stake and Number Observed Surface Metal Figure 2 Contours of EM31 Conductivity Mound Site GEOSPHERE MIDVVEST ~ ,~one Pole 140 160 180 2O0 Easting Distance (Feet) I 220 240 260 N N er Metal Figure 3 Contours of EM31 In-Phase Mound Site GEOSPHERE MIDWEST 300 , 280 260 240 220 '-'..- 200 o 180 .~_ c~ 160 Z 140 120 100 80 60 40 60 ,~ one Pole 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Easting Distance (Feet) N 260 ~47 LEGEND Survey Stake and Number Area of Subsurface Matedal Figure 4 Results of Investigation Mound Site GEOSPHERE MIDWEST PCA I~ATER QUALITY NSC BRAUN INTERTEC I,IJ, Fax: 612-282-6247 Feb 15:58 P. 09/12 Bm.n Inter[et Corp~r~'l~n 13~ Northland Drive ~o~ Height, Minne~o~ 55~2~t 141 612~8~7~ F~ ~3-8888 February 24, 1997 Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager Cit3' of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. ShuMe: Re: CiG of Mound, Lost Lake Canal Project At the request of Bruce C 'hamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group, I am presenting our proposed scope of work for the PCB sampling required by the Minneb~b.-, Creek Watershed District (MCWD) as a condition of their permit to dredge ba Lost Lake. The scope of work also includes th, following two voktutary work items designed m answer some questions raised during recent public heazings. These include 1) evaluating the dredge area and proposed depth for dumped material (i.e. does dumped material encroach into the proposed dredge area'.)) and 2) evaluating the verUcal distribution of selected contaminants. As indicated, these latter two items are being performed voluntarily by the City and are not preconditions of pernfiuing by either the MCWD or the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Encroachment Evaluation .V2aere are several potential methods of evaluating whether dump material encroaches into the proposed dredge area. One would be to simply dzill holes in the ice and probe the bouom with a rod to see if it meets refusal at or above the proposed dredge depth indicating the presence of concrete or other hard objects which may have been placed there. This is simple and inexpensive but you obtain no information between holes and it leaves no recorded output for review by others if desired. Several higher technology marface geophysical methods are also available which might be successfully performed from the ice surface. A rnagnetomet~ will identify the presence of ferrous metal objects such as rebar from concrete, steel containers, etc. Much has been made of the potemial presence of non-ferrous objects. Where present however, ferrous objects will also likely be present. Another potcndally effective method is an electromagnetic (EM) survey which measures the bulk conductivity of subsurface materials and would l~ely differentiate be[ween dump m~tedals and the wetland soils. A third po£entiaI method is ground penetrating radar (GPR) which emim pulses of high frequency electromagnetic waves into the subsurface and records the strength of the return. These methods can have a varying degree of success depending on specific site conditions and it may take a trial run with severai methods by an experienced opera,or [o evaluate which method or combination of methods wiI1 produce the best results. We would subcontract the geophysical work to Geosphere Midwest which is well qua Jif[ed. PCR ~ATER QURLITY NSC Fax:612-282-6247 Feb 26 '97 15:58 P. lO/12 City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 February 24, 1997 Page 2 We would evaluate thc proposed dredge area and a narrow buffer to evaluate/f thcre is potential dump material in thc proposed dredge area. I am assuming that the City would survey and mark ~qe proposed dredge lira/ts in the vicinity of the dump area. PCB S.mpling and Analysis We discussed Re PCB sampling, and analysis with MPCA staff Judy Mader and Jerry Flom. They have requested the following: Sampling Locations Two sampling locations were requested by MPCA. They correspond to previous locations #5 and #6. Two individual soanples will be collected at each location. S.~mple Depth The upper I-foot of sediment will be collected for analysis at each location. This reprcscmts the sediment currently exposed to t~e water column. A second 1-foot long sample from the interval 923.6 to 922.6 feet above the national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD) will be collected for analysis. This represents the uppermost 1-foot interval which will remain (i.e. be exposed to the water col-~n) following excavation of the sediment to thc planned elevation of 923.6 ('NGVD). The soil between the upper 1-foot and the foot between 923.6-922.6 (NGVD) will be discarded. Sampling Methods The samples will be collected through the ice. The sampling methods will be similar to those used previomly and described in Braun I. utertec, 1995). The surface elevation of the lee will be determined on the day the work is done. I. A 6-inch diameter hole will be augered through the ice. A 4-inch inner diameter, steam-cleaned PVC casing will be inserted through the hole in the ice and pushed 1-foot into the underlying sedimem. A 3.5-inch stemless steel bucket auger will be. inserted into the casing and 1-foot sample of sediment in the casing will be exr. racted ,ha mixed in the field in a stainless steel bowl using a stair, less steel spoon and rubber gloved hands, Samplea will be collect, ed from that soil for analysis and the remalnlng soft placed in a bucket for removal and later disposal. o The bucket auger, bowl and spoon will be decontaminated as described below and the samplers will discard their used gloves and rephce them with clean ones. The PVC casing will be advanced in increments and the sediment removed and discarded until the 923.6 elevation is reached. 6. The bucket auger will be decontaminated and used gloves replaced with new clean ones. PC~ bJ~TER 0L)~LITY NSC Ka×: 6 ~ 2-252-62~7 I ;~ re, l, ill Feb 26 '97 15:38 P. 11/12 City ofMound ~oject No. BABX-94-819 February24, 1997 Page 3 The PVC casing will bc advanced to an elevation of 922.6. The section of sediment will be removed from the casing using the bucket auger and mixed in the field in a stainless ste~l bowl using a stainless ste:l spoon and rubber gloved hands. Samples will be collected from that soll for analysis and the rema/rfin§ soft placed in a bucket for removal and la, er disposal. Sample Containers The samples for analysis will be manually placed in 2-ounce wide mouth glass jars and stored in coolers on ice to 4°C. No preservatives will be used in these sample jars. Sample Labelling, Field Notes and Chain of Custody Samples wili be labelled with the sample number, date, time, sampler's initials, and project number. Chain of Custody will be i.n/tiated at the time of sample eotlecrion and mah~tained throughout the trmaspor~ation, storage and analysis. A field notebook will be ma/ntained ~n accordance with Braun Imertec Standard Operating Procedure No. 3100. Equipment Decontamination The :using will be steam cl~.aned prior to .~rrival on the site. Sampling equipment will be decontaminated between each sample collection for labontory analysis. The bucket auger, mix/ng bowl and spoon will be rimed to remove sediment and then scrubbed with an alconox soap and water mLxrare and £dple rinsed with dcionizcd water. The decont~rnimr~on ~er will be containerized and disposed in the sar~ta~ sewer. Analytical Methods Each of the four samples will be analyzed for PCBs by method SW 846 808i. Each of r,~e EPA 608 List PCB aroclors will be quantified. It is anticipated that this method will provide a detection limit of approximately 0.050 milligrams per kilogram (mgfkg) as long as there are not unusual matrix interferences. The laboratory can use a larger than normal sample and special preparatory metlmds to minimize common inteffer~ces. Unused portions of the samples will be frozen and retained for additional analysis if requited by the MPCA. Additional Analyses Because the additional sediment samples w~l be available, the City has authorized Braun l. mertec to analyze the samples being collected for PCB analysis for lead, mercury and Total Organic Carbon. The prepararo~ method for lead and mercury is SW 846 3050 and ae analTtical methods are SW $46 60~0 and SW 846 7471, respectively. Tour Organic Carbon will be anaiyzed by EPA method 415.1. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Routine laboratory quality assurance/qualits- control (Q.~QC) will be performed. QA/QC plan is available for review upon requesu The laboratory Reporting A report will be prepared descrying the results of the dredge area encroachment evaluation, sampling methods and laboram .fy results. This report will be presented to the M2PCA for their review. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94,-819 February 24, 1997 Page 4 I i I I I i I I i I I I Cost The actual costs m~y be more or le~s than the estimate above; however, the total cost wilI not be exceeded by more than 10 percent without your additional authorization. Costs presented in this proposal arc based on the scope of work and assun~tions stated above. If additional work or personnel axe required, costs will be added based on an hourly or unit cost basis in accordance with our current Schedule of Charges, which is aXtached. Costs included in this proposal arc based on thc assu~tion thax the proposal will be authorized Within 30 days. If ~he project is not authorized with~, 30 days, we reserve the right to resubmit the cost estimate. Terms of paymem axe due upon reedpt of invoice with interest added unpaid balances in accordame with the attached Oene~ Conditions, which are a part of proposed contract. If you have an), questions, please call me ~t (612) 683-8752. Richard M. Johnston Project Manager Schedule of Charges General Conditions (02/96) c: Bruce Chamberlain, Hoismgton Koegler Group ! ,,/"' Judy Mader, MPCA Please proceed according to the above-stated terms. Authorizer'~s N~e (pl~e p~ or ~) "-, / ~/d / ~,'~,n _/ _. ~uthoriz~r's F~ Date MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 1997 Those present were: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Gerald Reifschneider, and Orv Burma; City Council Representative Mark Hanus; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jon Sutherland; and Secretary Peggy James. The following people were also in attendance: Gary Nachreiner, Ron Moore, Tom Stokes, Steve Behnke, Tim Wilkinson, Steve Grand, Mark Mulvey, Joel Jorgensen, Carrie Jorgensen, and Dave Wilcox. Chair Michael requested they add item #6 to the agenda to discuss direction to the City Council from the Council Liaison. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1997 were presented for approval. MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Burma to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of March 10, 1997 as written. Motion carried unanimously. CASE 96-64: PUBLIC HEARING: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT/PDA/VARIANCES "SETON BLUFF", FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC. LOTS 15 - 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54 City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Planning Report. Fine Line Design Group is seeking approvals for a Planned Development Area (PDA) on a 1.47 acre tract of land along a currently unimproved portion of Kildare Lane. Approval of the plan will require action by the City to issue a conditional use permit for the PDA, grant variances as part of the PDA and approve the proposed preliminary plat. This application is similar to the proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 10, 1997. Major changes to the plan include the deletion of one unit, all lots now conform to minimum size criteria and the total number of variances has been significantly reduced. PDA. The developer is seeking PDA approval in order to establish the common access drive. The Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1.35 acres necessitating a variance of .65 acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the site, processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add appropriate conditions to the approval. For this reason, staff supports the PDA site area variance. Variances.. Koegler displayed an overhead showing a list of the variances being requested. The street construction variances are the types of variances that the Planning Commission sees on a pretty routine basis due to the topography in Mound. There are bluff setback variances being requested for each lot. Planning Commission Minutes April 14. 1997 Koegler stated that the setbacks are ten feet or more from the required bluff line, and suggested that the developer may provide the commission with more information on exactly what those setbacks are. The actual requested bluff setback could be used as the basis for the variance request in lieu of a 20 foot blanket setback variance. Impervious coverage has been reduced further from what was originally proposed, however a variance is being requested for Impervious cover of 32.8 % resulting in a variance of 2.8 %. A side yard setback variance of 4 feet is being requested for Lots 1 through 6 resulting in a 6 foot setback to one side yard. Six foot side yard setbacks are permitted for lots of record, however, because this property is being replatted it no longer qualifies for lot of record setbacks and therefore requires side yard setbacks of 10 feet. A front yard setback of 15 feet is being requested for Lots 5 and 6 resulting in a 5 foot setback variance. Density. There are different density provisions in the code which apply to developments. By applying the non-shoreland PDA density provisions, this site area will accommodate 9 units. However, this site is in the shoreland area, and based on the location of the 929.4 contour, this property is considered to be in the first tier. The shoreland ordinance does allow density bonuses and the proposed site plan does qualify because the setbacks from the ordinary high water contour equal or exceed a minimum of 125 % of the required 50 foot setback. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum density allowed under the shoreland ordinance. Application of the shoreland standards results in a maximum of 7 units. The issues of tree preservation, landscaping, traffic, and wetlands were briefly reviewed. Recommendation. The developers of Seton Bluff have designed a project that complies with density provisions of the Zoning Code and meets the lot of record setback provisions. The project, however, does not meet the non-lot of record provisions which apply in this case since 12 of the lots were combined in the past. In any PDA project, trade-offs are involved. In this case, the major trade-off appears to be impervious cover and setback variances for a plan that to be answered by the Planning Commission and City Council is whether or not this trade-off is equitable. Staff feels that the proposed plan with one less unit satisfies most of the concerns that were raised in previous reviews. After its deliberations, if the Planning Commission feels that it is equitable, the development could be approved with appropriate conditions. Alternatives to that approach include approval with modifications or denial. Staff suggested conditions as outlined in the Planning Report and City Engineer's Memorandum if the Planning Commission feels that the plan is appropriate and consistent with the Mound's provisions for PDA's. Voss questioned how many residences could be built on this property without any variances. Koegler responded that is a difficult question to answer because variances result from a specific site plan. Voss recalled a statement made at a Council meeting that the only way they could development this property is if there were no variances. Koegler could not recall that comment. Planning Commission Minutes Ap~ll4, 1997 Density bonuses were discussed. Mueller asked how the City will police tree trimming. Koegler clarified on the overhead the location of the conservation easement which is measured from the bluff line to the lot line. Mueller is concerned about people cutting/removing trees on the bluff and how they could get permission to do this. Koegler stated that they would have to come before the council and amend the resolution to do tree trimming other than diseased and dead tree removal. It was discussed that Lot 7 will need to install some type of path or stairway on the bluff in order to access his dock. Weiland raised a concern regarding the curb radii at Kerry and Kildare and feels the developer should be working with the owner of the property on that comer to get an easement so the radii can be larger. Koegler noted that the City Engineer commented in his report that "a more desirable drainage pattern will need to be designed for the City cul-de-sac than the sheet drainage as shown." Koegler suggested that the Commission could include in their recommendation that alternatives for the curb radii be further investigated as well. Mueller asked about the amount of water flow down Kildare due to the 13 % slope. He recalled that options had been discussed, such as installing a larger catch basin. Koegler did not know if Cameron had reviewed that issue further, but maybe he can expound upon that more. Chair Michael opened the public hearing Steve Grand, resident at 2620 Kerry Lane, expressed a concern about the ability for people to tow large boats around the corner and up the hill. Grand is concerned that the private drive area will be used for storage of snowmobiles on trailers and boats with tarps, he does not want to be looking at a storage depot. He is afraid the developers won't save the trees as they propose since the other lots they have built on in the area were stripped of trees. He also has a large concern about drainage and the accumulation of sand and dirt in the roads and lake. Weiland referred to condition #8 in the Planning Report, it states, "The common driveway area exclusive of the guest parking area shall be posted as "no parking" area. Koegler noted there will be no parking on Kildare Road due to the narrow width, and he noted that the covenants precludes parking of recreational vehicles on the site. Mueller asked if homeowners covenants are enforceable by the City. Koegler stated that since the covenants are part of the PDA approval, the City can enforce compliance with the PDA and the covenants cannot be changed without city approval of a modified PDA, however, the City does not enforce covenants. Tim Wilkensen, resident of 4628 Carlow Road stated that his property is on the comer of Carlow and Kerry and feels that drainage is a big issue. The water that drains down Kerry runs through his lot into Black Lake and they already have too much sand. He also expressed a concern about child safety and stated there are a number of kids under the age of five in the neighborhood and he is concerned about the increase in traffic as a result of this development. Developer, Steve Behnke addressed issues raised in the Planning Report: All houses except the end lot are all part of the association and will have similar features, but all seven houses will have a consistent theme to them. Planning Commission Minutes April I4, 1997 - Relating to the "blanket 20 foot bluff setback variance," only Lot 2 would have conceivably less than the 20 foot variance, it would have a 15 foot variance. Referring to the Impervious Cover variance of 2.8 %, Behnke noted that if traditional driveways were developed, impervious coverage would differ by only 2 %, and the drainage situation would be worse. With density bonuses, seven units are allowed. - Tree loss is equivalent without the private drive. - There will be no grading changes from the back of the houses to the rear lot line except for required storm sewer construction. - Under-story trees and shrubs were planned for the five foot wide utility easement in case they have to be removed for utility repairs. Normally trees are not allowed in utility easements. The retaining wall will consist of two six foot high boulder walls with plantings between. The size of parking stalls requested by the Engineer is fine. The construction of the private drives, individual drives, and turu-arounds all match the Engineer's comments from previous meetings. His comments on elevations are acceptable. - Referring to the Engineer's memo, #3.e. and f., he explained, from the back of the houses forward, the drainage will flow towards the driveway. Behnke responded to comments made by the Planning Commission: The number of houses that could be built on this property under lot of record status is eight. The intent for Lot 7 is to have a meandering path or stairway to the lake that would be built by the homeowner. The conservation easement restricts tree removal. The two stairways proposed will handle the other six lots. - It was never the intent of the project to disturb tree removal, except for the storm sewer construction. - The street design, as proposed, is the same that the Engineer recommended back in 1985. The radii of the coruer at Kildare and Kerry is larger than the southeast corner. The covenants do not allow storage of recreational vehicles and fish houses on the driveway. The parallel parking is being treated for guest parking, nothing else. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Behnke showed on the overhead that 40 % of the site as it exists today which drains down Kerry, and then showed that after the property is developed, only 8 % will drain into Kerry, so the amount of run-ff will be reduced by 32 %. All the residences east on Kildare sit on 40 foot wide lots with only 12 feet between each house. They are proposing houses on wider lots with 16 feet between the houses. Clapsaddle noted an error on the preliminary grading plan, an elevation noted on a contour line by the driveways into Lots 2 and 3 should read 956, not 960. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Mueller questioned if Lot 7 should be included as part of the association and subject to the covenants and restrictions since his property is affected by the conservation easement. Mueller asked how this Lot owner will now that they need to provide their own walkway to the lake and the restrictions of disturbing the vegetation. Tom Stokes with Fine Line Design stated that Lot 7 has been pre-sold and the owner is aware of the stairway requirements. Stokes confirmed that Lot 7 could be included in the association. It was noted that Lots 6 and 7 have private lakeshore, and the reason Lot 7 was not included in the association is because it is not involved in the common drive. Clapsaddle suggested that condition //8 specifically include a statement that no recreational vehicle storage or no other vehicular storage be permitted in the common drive to ensure that it can be enforced by the City. Mueller stated that the Planning Commission should be given opportunity to comment on final plats and be given the opportunity to review the covenants. Staff commented that this issue can be addressed at a discussion meeting. Relating to the over-story trees in the utility easement, Koegler stated that they would like to look at the utility plans and work with the developer, but there is enough space in the 5 foot boulevard to support an over-story tree if it can be kept away from the utility lines and staff would like flexibility in the resolution until they can determine where trees can be added. MOTION made by Mueller to recommend approval of the PDA as recommended by staff, with the conditions I - 10 listed in the Planning Report and in the Engineer's Memorandum, with the following additions and modifications: #4 Covenants and association bylaws shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney and reviewed by the Council prior to approval of the preliminary plat. #8 The common driveway area exclusive of the guest parking area shall be posted as a "no parking/no exterior storage" area. The Guest parking area shah not allow the parking of recreational vehicles for more than 48 hours continuous exclusive of the covenants and restrictions. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 The developer shall submit detailed plans for the retaining wall identifying materials and a tiered construction for rcv'.'cw and approval by the City Engineer. #10 Move gl0 in the report to #11, the new gl0 should read as follows: Lot seven shall be included in the covenants and restrictions and verbiage allowing individual costs of snow removal. #11 The recommendations and conditions found in the Engineer's Report are incorporated herein. #3.h. Modification of the radius from the new Kildare Road to Kerry Lane, to increase the distance between the southwest corner to more easily accommodate turning on the road. #3.i. That a larger availability for absorption of water at the intersection of Kerry Lane and new Kildare Road be presented to the Council by the Engineering staff. Clapsaddle seconded the motion. Voss stated that he will vote against the motion due to the steep grade of the road, the narrow street, and the child safety issue due to increased traffic. Reifschneider agreed with Voss and stated he has a hard time with 23 variances, this kind of hardcover on this kind of slope, and the fact that there are too many outstanding issues. Hanus asked who will determine what the radius will be at the corner of Kerry and Kildare. Weiland suggested that Cameron and Steve Grand get together to discuss how much property can be taken to improve the radii. Koegler summarized that two issues have been raised, the street radius being one, and this drainage on the new portion of Kildare Road being another. He suggested the Commission ask the City Engineer to use his professional judgement, are there means and methods by which the radius can be improved and by which the impact of storm water can be lessened coming off the cul-de-sac and to report what those means and methods might be to the City Council. Mueller moved to amend the motion to incorporate the language suggested by the City Planner into "#3.h. and i", with the exception that the storm water be lessened coming of the "street", not the "cul-de-sac," as follows: #3.h. The City Engineer is to report to the Council possible means and methods to improve the turning radii at Kerry and Kildare and means and methods to lessen the impact of storm water run-off from Kildare Road. Clapsaddle seconded the amendment. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Burma stated that there will never be a PDA that won't have issues to deal with, and the developer has addressed problems raised by staff and the Planning Commission. Burma stated that he will vote in favor of the motion. Hanus asked what a finding of fact may be for permitting the setback variances. Clapsaddle commented that one finding may be the way the City was originally platted with small streets and small lots. Mueller suggested that the technical expense of making it accessible and the fact that a conservation easement is being given to keep the shoreland pristine could be findings. Koegler clarified that the variances the Commission should be acting on are the 20' foot bluff setbacks, all except for Lot 2 which should be 15'. Motion carried 7 to 2. Those Burma, Clapsaddle, Glister, Michael, Muller, Weiland, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Reifschneider and Voss. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 13, 1997. CASE 97-14: VARIANCE FOR DECK JOEL JORGENSEN, 4313 WILSHIRE BLVD. PART OF LOT A, REARR OF P.I.P. 1ST DIV., 19-117-23 13 0011 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. This property is located in the R-lA zoning district which requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a front yard setback of 20 feet, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water of Lake Minnetonka. The applicant is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of a nonconforming 12' x 20' deck as shown on the survey. The proposed deck is setback 9 feet + to the lake where a 50 foot setback is required, and this results in a variance request of 41 feet. The shallow depth of the lot limits the buildable footprint and the existing location of the dwelling creates an impossible situation for the owner to build a conforming deck on the lake side. There are other options to locating a deck on the site, such as the open area on the west side. This location would result in an encroachment, however it would have less impact than the lakeside. This property has received two previous variances and the most recent, Resolution 89-96 recognizes the existing deck. (The existing deck had been removed at the time of our site inspection on April 2, 1997). The City has previously looked at minimally sized decks on lakeshore properties as a reasonable use. The applicant and the Planning Commission may wish to consider relocating the proposed deck to an area that would reduce the impact to the lake and still afford the applicant reasonable use of the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the applicants request for a 12 foot deck because 12 feet in depth does not reflect a minimal situation. Planning Commission Minutes April 14. 1997 Applicant, Joel Jorgensen, asked where staff would suggest the deck be relocated to. The option of having a 4 foot deep deck/walkway off the end of the house and then wrapping the deck around to the side of the house was discussed. Sutherland commented that there would still be a variance, but this location would lessen the impact towards the deck. The option of an on-grade patio was discussed. It was noted that an on-grade patio does not require a permit and is not subject to setbacks, however, could affect hardcover. Jorgensen stated that he was not informed about this nonconforming situation when he purchased the property, and he was of the understanding that because it was existing, it could be replaced. Mueller talked about the Commission's desire to implement a truth in zoning ordinance. Mueller also reviewed the intent of the shoreland management ordinance to screen structures from view from the lake. Burma commented that a deck with no railing has less impact. Sutherland commented that they would consider a deck less than 8 inches from grade to be on-grade. Voss commented that they are getting into designing again, and suggested a tabling action. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to table the request to allow the applicant the opportunity to work with City staff and designers to improve his plan. Motion carried unanimously. Jorgensen expressed his displeasure in the delay created by their tabling action. CASE 97-15: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDN, 14-117-24 43 0006 City Planner, Mark Koegler, referred to the memorandum from the City Engineer which refers to a feasibility study that was done to improve the platted road in front of this property. The variance being requested is a 45 foot street frontage variance. The development of this property does not preclude the future road improvement from happening. Koegler referred to the conditions of approval recommended by the Engineer and noted that staff recommends approval of the variance subject to these conditions. Mueller asked the applicant if he read the report and agreed with the conditions. Mark Mulvey, applicant, stated that he agreed with the conditions. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. Planning Commission Minutes Aprill4, 1997 CASE 97-16: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION GARY NACHREINER, 6056 CHERRYWOOD ROAD P/LOTS 6 & 7, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS, 23-117-24 34 0088 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a variance to recognize the existing nonconforming dwelling in order to allow construction of a nonconforming 36' x 28' two story garage addition as noted on the attached survey. Currently the property is conforming in all aspects and there is no garage on the site. The proposed addition is setback 22 feet from the front property line where a 30 foot setback is required, resulting in a variance request of 8 feet. There is a fairly steep hill on the west side and the general topography of the site favors the location as proposed. Due to the topography of this site it would be difficult to place a detached garage that would be conforming to setbacks. It is the applicants intent to add square footage onto the dwelling, and the attached garage with the addition above makes sense from the prospective of how it all fits on the site. The City has, in past variance cases, supported the construction of garages to provide for storage and eliminate clutter, however, any variance or encroachment must be minimal and meet the criteria set forth in Zoning Code Section 350:530. The proposed garage is rather large in this case, and if the depth were reduced somewhat the situation would be closer to meeting the minimum situation as outlined in the ordinance. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request. Although there appears to be some practical difficulty and limiting topography in this case, the proposal does not represent the minimal situation in order to alleviate the hardship. Staff suggested the applicant and the Planning Commission may wish to consider a garage addition that is reduced in depth and that would be more representative of a minimal situation. Applicant, Gary Nachreiner, presented photographs to the Planning Commission and emphasized the need for the garage and the topographical problems of the lot due to the steep slope. He expressed a need to use 12 inch block in order to retain the hillside behind the garage, and therefore needs a deeper garage due to the space lost by the 12 inch block. Nachreiner also stated that construction of the addition in this location will help correct drainage problems on the lot. The Commission expressed a concern about the size of the garage and noted that it is not a minimal request. The applicant stated that he needs and would be satisfied with a 26 foot deep garage. Mueller clarified with the applicant that there is approximately 13 to 15 feet of boulevard between the curb and the property line, so with a 28 foot deep garage addition it will still be about 35' from the curb. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Mueller commented that a 24 foot depth would be more acceptable. Sutherland commented, from a staff perspective, that a 24 foot deep garage would be supported and suggested a motion could be made denying the 28 foot depth and suggesting that a 24 foot deep garage would be acceptable. MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend denial of a 28 foot deep garage addition, but would recommend approval of a 24 foot deep garage addition as it constitutes a minimally sized three car garage. Clapsaddle stated that he would prefer to table the request to allow the applicant time to rework his design. Clapsaddle suggested that the garage could be designed to be constructed to the side of the house. Michael expressed a concern that they are making a recommendation for something that was not presented. The applicant emphasized again that he would be happy with a 26 foot deep garage. MOTION carried 7 to 2. Those in favor were: Burma, Glister, Mueller, Reifschneider, Voss, Weiland, and Hanus. Those opposed were: Clapsaddle and Michael. This case will be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997. COUNCIL LIAISON Michael noted a comment in the minutes of the March 25th meeting where Hanus stated that he encouraged the commission to vote on the school district conditional use permit, but that he would abstain because of things going on with the school district. Michael asked Hanus why the request was even brought before the planning commission, and if he knew he was not going to vote on it, why would he encourage the commission to vote on it? Hanus explained that the request was brought before the commission because it was applied for. Hanus tried to make sure the commission would not be upset with the way they are working within the City. He considered his options of how to act on this case because he feels there are other things going on that really is not within the purview of this commission, and he chose the route of letting the commission do their job and let you act on it accordingly, and those issues that are not in the purview of this commission, at least at this point they are not under the purview of this commission, he felt it was better to let the commission act on it. Michael stated that he does not agree with the way it was handled and his concern is that all five councilmembers did not want to vote on the school issue, and if there was that much support from council, then this body never should have passed-on the case because it was dead before it got there. Hanus raised the issue of the 60 day time limit so if the request is ignored it would get approved by default. Planning Commission Minutes April 14, 1997 Michael stated that he would encourage Hanus, as council Liaison to suggest to the council that they go back to work on truth in housing and give the commission some direction on the issue because there was another case on the agenda tonight that had an issue with their property because they were not properly informed. Hanus commented that he does not support truth in housing, but he could support truth in zoning. Mueller commented that the purview issue relating to the school involves a structure in a downtown location, and as a planning commission he feels it is important that they be involved in planning, and pan of that planning includes the removal or retention of structures in the downtown area if they are going to be funded by the city or dealt with by the city. He feels it is important that the council realizes that making a decision with regards to possible funding of that structure without having a public hearing from the planning commission or a staff recommendation or recommendation from the EDC is not necessarily going about it the best way. Hanus explained what he meant by purview. There are two concerns. One has to do with the retention pond at the Shirley Hills site. There was a condition of approval which requires the school to get approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), however the MCWD could approve a fee in lieu of ponding. If this is the case, the City would incur the cost of providing land to the MCWD to build a pond and retain that pond in perpetuity. The other problem is that the funding is a major issue, because with the sale community center the city would have to pay about $800,000 to demolish the building and the city would get nothing for it through tax increment financing. Weiland expressed a concern that Hanus is not presenting the Planning Commission's recommendations and ideas back to the Council, but that he presents only his ideas. It was noted that the Klein case was unanimously approved by the Council even though the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial twice. Hanus explained that after approval of the Pierce variance on Bluebird, the Council found it difficult to deny Klein's case. It was noted that the variance for Teal Point was also approved by the council and denied by the Planning Commission. Sutherland commented that the City Council has maintained a very high percentage of agreement with the Planning Commission's recommendations (in the upper 90%). Clapsaddle commented that in other communities, the meeting of the whole was used for the Council to get together with other commissions and review current issues. He feels the City of Mound would benefit from adopting this practice. The Council needs to communicate and work with its committees, it will make a better system and get rid of disgruntled attitudes. Weiland suggested the City send a letter to Triax or whoever owns the property behind the Koenig law offices about what a great job they have done cleaning up the property. Planning Commission Minutes April 14. 1997 ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Geoff Michael Attest: PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF A MEETING APRIL 10, 1997 Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Marilyn Byrnes, City Council Representative Leah Weycker, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Secretary Peggy James. Those absent and excused were: Rita Pederson and Tom Casey. Also in attendance were: Christine Fitz, Sue Crawford, Julie Bowman, Mary Berglund, Ralph Bauer, Alan Blackwell, Lavonne Adams, Gregory Neubert, Jori Larson, Kris Huspek, Steve Behnke, Tom Cathers, Eddie Egan, Sue Cathers, and Jacob Luby. MINUTES Meyer 1. requested some corrections to the minutes, as follows: Page 3, 3rd paragraph from the bottom, 3rd sentence: "Also, the parks that are used for the parks program, shelters would allow the parks program to be held on marginal weather days instead of being automatically cancelled which is now the case ~"~ ~.o...~,~..1 ""wada: ....s ~.,~...h,~.,~ Jr i;..~, ..~,~ ~. .......~.,,*~'e-' .... 1~ ,.~.~ ,h~ Page 3, 4th paragraph from the bottom. Add to the paragraph: There was considerable discussion about why an exact location is needed to move forward on a joint powers agreement. Page 4, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence: "Meyer noted that because the City of Mound is not sure of the location, they have not budgeted money for site development *" ........ * ...... v,~,~ 1,..,,-,,~,;^~ ~-l~ ........ ~-l'~,,,4~r~t' .... Page 4, 1st paragraph, 4th sentence: "Meyer noted that he has a tank that can be used for resurfacing, however, they we (ci _ty/schools) will need a hefty trailer or truck, to mount it on." Page 4, 2nd paragraph: Meyer commented that the Comprehensive Plan states that Mound is lacking in particular types of parks and open spaces and agrees that the commission cc. uld should concentrate on accumulating park land. Page 5, under City Council Representative's Report: "The appointment of the al__!l male Dock Commission members was discussed." Page 6, 1st paragraph: Meyer commented on an article from the paper which talks about a large bond referendum which was just approved in the City of Prior Lake in order to improve their parks , and a large portion of that referendum included the construction of several outside community skating rinks. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 Motion made by Botko, seconded by Meyer to approve the minutes of the March 13, 1997 Park and Open Space Commission meeting, as amended. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Chair Byrnes added 3.a. Seton Bluff Park Dedication. Meyer requested the following be added 4.a. Lifeguard Stand at Mound Bay Park and 4.b. Shelters. CITIZEN INPUT ON FUTURE PARK IMPROVEMENTS Chair Byrnes announced that for this item they are opening the meeting to the public to hear comments on what improvements can be made to existing parks, and secondly to hear what new areas or activities you would like to see in the City of Mound. Dock at Mound Bay Park Greg Neubert 5852 Idlewood Road requested a make-ready dock be installed at the main landing at Mound Bay Park. Reasons supporting his request included: lack of dock space, accessibility for the handicap, the existing dock is always congested with regular users, it would help reduce congestion on the beach because people always beach their boats on shore, and it could be used by more than just Mound residents. Neubert submitted a copy of his request in writing, and asked the commission to read it and consider it. Three Points Park Alan Blackwell has been a neighbor to Three Points Park for 15 years. He stated, over the years many trees have been removed from the park and he would like to see some trees replaced in order to provide more shaded areas. He would also like to see waste receptacles at the park and to see them emptied on a regular basis. Crescent Park Mr. Blackwell stated that he also lives near Crescent Park, and has seen little happen to the park over the years. The park is used for fishing from shore, walking, and biking. He feels it is inappropriate for the City to use this park as a dumping area for snow. The snow pile blocks the walking trail, creates an eyesore, is an unsafe pile of ice chunks, and the residue after the snow melts is a layer of gravel and debris which does not get removed. He would like to see grass in the park and see the walking trail improved. He would also like to see the park better maintained, would like benches, picnic tables, and maybe some landscaping. 2 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ApffllO, 1997 Ralph Bauer lives adjacent to Crescent Park at 1774 Heron Lane and explained that west of Crescent Park is a wildlife area which he believes has some special protection by the law, and it was the intent of the Council at some point to designate that area as a wildlife area, therefore he feels it would be a good idea to maintain the adjacent park in a natural state. Bauer suggested that a short term plan for the park would be to return it to the state it was in about six years ago, which included a trash barrel that was emptied regularly and a sign which stated "no motor vehicles or parking." He would like to see grass in the park and noted that he and his wife have adopted the park and he would be willing to water the grass. He also noted that the spelling of the park on the sign is incorrect. Bauer suggested that long range plans for crescent include landscaping (which he offered to help with), prairie restoration, and the planting of some trees (he suggested cherry trees). Mr. Blackwell stated that he walks along the trail at Crescent Park with his dog, and when they do the bird life panics. He would like to see a more permanent vegetation barrier on the trail along with an improved trail surface and a park bench. Avon Park Christine Fitz stated that Avon Park badly needs new park equipment, including benches, slides, swings, and a modern jungle gym. They would like to see pebbles instead of sand, because the neighborhood cats use the sand for their litter box which is not sanitary for the kids. They would also like speed bumps in the road to slow cars. Currently there is one swing set, one usable swing and one old baby swing, a metal trapeze, two rings, a metal climbing jungle gym, a basketball court and a backstop fence for baseball. Their neighborhood has 30 plus young children, and its growing. The existing park equipment has been there for a very long time. Julie Bowman stated that the park has not been updated since the 60's. There are a lot of young kids in the area. The park is not very usable and the swings are dangerous and unsafe. The older kids use the basketball court and every year the neighborhood has a garage sale and a picnic in the park. The older kids use the playground equipment at Shirley Hills, but it is not a good place for smaller children. There are a lot of "at home" mothers in the neighborhood. Sue crawford lives in the neighborhood and is getting licensed to do day care and would like to be able to use the park, but it currently is not maintained, the grass is high and weedy, and the sand where the play structure is located is used as a cat box. NEW AREAS AND ACTIVITIES Skate Park Sue Cathers who is involved with Westonka Helping Youth (WHY), stated that they took a survey of the youth group and what scored the highest was the need for a place to be able to Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 skateboard, rollerblade, and bike. Jacob Luby distributed to the Commission photographs of signage posted in the downtown area which prohibits skateboarders, rollerblades, congregating, etc. Luby emphasized that most of the paved places in the city where they can rollerblade or skateboard do no allow them. Luby proposed a skate park be developed. A skate parks are designed and developed by individuals who participate in the sports of rollerblading, skateboarding and biking. The skate park can be paid for by donations and different things kids could do, like in Burnsville they had concerts to raise money and they can go to service groups, have sport demonstrations, have advertisements on the ramps in the park, etc. They would rent equipment at the park, require protective helmets, and have concessions. To reduce risk for insurance purposes the facility will be fenced, supervised by an adult, unorganized competition will not be allowed, the ramps structures will be constructed to code, minors will be required to sign a waiver of liability and hold harmless which would be prepared by a legal professional, will require they wear safety gear, any personal equipment brought into the park will be inspected prior to entrance, and the park rules and regulations will be posted. Kris emphasized that in-line skating, skate boarding, and biking is a sport just like football. There is a need for a place to go for this alternative sport. A 6th grader stated that he took a pool at Grandview Middle School and out of 180 people, 160 said 'yes' to the park. Sue Cathers commented that she had talked with Bruce Chamberlain about the possibility of locating this park between the Wolner Fields and where they will be dredging Lost Lake. Building plans for the ramps can be purchased for $100 and there is a sports group that will install the ramps. Kris commented, if kids are in a skate park, it will be more kids off the street and out of crime. Leah suggested that the skate park could double as a outdoor skating rink in the winter. Basketball Hoops Sue Cathers noted that another item that scored high on the survey was to have basketball hoops at the end of cul-de-sacs. Fackler commented that the problem is that there may not be enough city property behind the curb line. Portable hoops was discussed. Byrnes suggested the City could purchase the portable hoops and rent them out. It was noted that the portable hoops can be purchased for under $200. 4 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes ApffllO, 1997 Bench by Christmas Tree Sue Cathers commented that her and Jeanne Storts have talked about removing some of the pavement by the Christmas Tree located downtown and the possibility of having a grassy area with a bench. Fackler expressed a concern that the area being discussed is private property. Tennis Courts Alan Blackwell expressed a need for more tennis courts and emphasized that when the Pond Arena was constructed it displaced two public tennis courts. Having indoor tennis at the Pond was discussed. Byrnes stated that she will raise the issue and the next Community Ed Council meeting. Byrnes thanked everyone for their comments and suggestions and announced that the Commission will take their suggestions into consideration and will be making a recommendation to the council on these issues. Christine Fitz who spoke regarding Avon Park asked what they can do to make sure their park gets improved. Weycker suggested donations. The Parks Director suggested the neighborhood put together a petition and list the items they would like to see in the park, and if possible develop a rough plan and submit it to him by May 1 then the Commission can review it at their May meeting. Fackler stated that he is available and willing to work with them on a plan and to help determine the cost of the equipment. Alan Blackwell suggested that they contact local Eagle Scout nominees to help with the park because they may help with labor. SETON BLUFF PARK DEDICATION The developer, Fine Line Design group, inc. (Steve Behnke) has not reserved land on the proposed plat for dedication. City Code Section 330:120 states, "At the City's option .... the subdivider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the City may require.., cash contribution shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $500 for each new lot being created." According to the Hennepin County tax records, the market value of the subject properties are as follows: 1%11%23 22 0036 $ 300 19-117-23 22 0037 300 19-117-23 22 0038 300 19-117-23 22 0039 300 19-117-23 22 0040 1,800 19-117-23 22 0041 1,800 19-117-23 22 0054 6,000 TOTAL $10,800 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 Calculating $10,800, at 10% would result in a total contribution of $1,080. Therefore, it is recommended that a dedication in cash of $500 per lot be collected in lieu of land dedication. The total dedication would be $3,500 (7 Lots @ $500). The Parks Director added that he had been asked by Tom Stokes (developer) if the City would be interested in accepting the land that is under water for park dedication. Fackler informed the Commission that these lots are completely under water and the DNR has control of this property, and it is not his recommendation to take the property in lieu of money. MOTION made by Weycker to recommend the developer pay $500 per lot in park dedication fees. Botko seconded the motion. It was discussed, if the number of lots change, the fee will still be $500 per lot. Meyer questioned the fair market value. It is his opinion that these lots will be valued at $30,000 each when they are sold. Behnke referred to the state statute which states, "... based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval..." Meyer suggested the City collect more than $500 per lot emphasizing that the City paid $40,000 for the strip of land next to Veterans Park. Weycker expressed a concern about coming up with an arbitrary number. Meyer suggested the City collect $1,500 per lot as this would be only 5% of a $30,000 value. Behnke emphasized that the land will not have that value until the property is developed and the streets are constructed. Byrnes called for the question. Motion failed 0-3-1. None were in favor. Those opposed were Botko, Meyer and Byrnes. Weycker abstained. MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Byrnes, to recommended to the City Council that $1,500 per lot be collected for park dedication for the Seton Bluff plat. Motion carried 3 to 1. Those in favor were: Botko, Meyer and Byrnes. Weycker abstained. Weycker commented that she feels uncomfortable voting on the issue unless a reason can be given to raise the fee. Byrnes commented that lots located on the lake are more valuable and therefore feels the park dedication should also be higher. Meyer commented that Mound has needs. The City Council will be receiving this recommendation on May 13, 1997. 6 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 DEPOT Lavonne Adams announced to the Commission that she was asked to come to the meeting as a representative of the historical society to talk about the color of the new siding for the depot, however, she now understands that the siding is already ordered and it is too late to change the color. She was not at the meeting when they chose the color, but understands that the president of the historical society though the color should blend in with the area. Fackler showed the color sample to the commission, the color chosen was cactus green. The fascia and trim will be white. Lavonne gave a photocopy of a picture of the original depot (which was black and white) and stated that the original color was white. The deck will stay brown. VETERAN PARK IMPROVEMENTS Fackler referred to the concept plan for improving veterans park and explained that the City plans to solicit funding from outside organizations. Currently we are looking to approach the local VFW and the American Legion. The cost is estimated to be around $25,000 with labor provided by the Minnesota Tree Trust. The City staff would be providing support help in relation to ground preparation. Once we have a clear understanding of what these organizations will donate, both with the final plan and monies, we can determine if there is a need for the City to provide additional funds. This funding could come from a few different means, such as the Park Dedication Fund, the Capital Improvement Fund for 1998, or from proceeds earned at the Kevin Sorbo autograph session this upcoming summer. Please keep in mind that this is only a concept plan and there is not a need at the P&OSC level to do more than give general comments at this time. City staff will be meeting in the near future with the prospective supporters and will keep you updated. The P&OSC will be provided an opportunity for a more in-depth look at the Veterans Park improvements before it goes to the City Council. There were no specific comments from the Commission. LIFEGUARD STAND AT MOUND BAY PARK Meyer asked the Commission if they would agree there is a need for a second lifeguard tower at Mound Bay Park. He stated that two guards are stationed at the beach. Byrnes stated that one guard is in the stand while the other one is down below and she feels this works well. Meyer commented that the cost is only $300 for the materials if we build it ourselves and suggested that the City could purchase the materials out of the 1997 budget. Meyer confirmed that the head of aquatics, Jackie Meyer, requested the stand. 7 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 Byrnes noted that this need was not mentioned by Tim Piepkorn this Spring during his report. Fackler agreed that another stand may create more congestion in the park and it may be better to keep one guard roaming. It was determined that City staff would contact Community Services to determine if there is a need for another stand. 1998 CAPITAL OUTLAY PRIORITIES Shelters Meyer received a request from Community Education for shelters in the parks where they have their parks program. The shelters are needed to help protect kids from the sun when doing craft work and also on misty or rainy days so they can still carry on with the programs. The parks where they have programs are Three Points, Swenson, Highland, Philbrook and Beln"~ont. Meyer stressed that all they need is a roof on posts and a slab. Faclder commented that Belmont may be too small. Fackler will get costs. Byrnes suggested that lock boxes be installed at the the parks where they have programs so they have a place to keep equipment. This topic will be further discussed at the workshop meeting on April 24th. SORBO PARK (LANGDON PARK) IMPROVEMENTS Jim Fackler reported that Langdon Park is to be renamed Sorbo Park in a dedication ceremony this upcoming August. In appreciation, Kevin Sorbo is going to make a donation of an undetermined amount to be used to improve the recreation facilities at the park. The play structure in the park was replaced within the last six years, the basketball hoop was upgraded about three years ago, and a baseball backstop was installed two years ago, so these items are not in need of improvement at this time. Faclder requested input from the Commission on possible additions to the park. Faclder suggested that a passive sitting/picnic area could be added between the play structure and the baseball backstop which could consist of a paved level area with benches, a picnic table, and trees planted for shade. Byrnes noted, if there are going to be benches and picnic tables behind the backstop, a screen may be needed on top of the back stop. Byrnes asked if you could cut into the slop and put picnic tables on the plateau so people can look down on the park. Fackler noted that this is a sliding hill in the winter and feels they will want a more tangible type improvement and that it be completed by August so it is there for the dedication. It was suggested that the ball field and benches be straightened. 8 Park and Open Space Commission Minutes April 10, 1997 DISCUSS MAY AGENDA It was determined to have the following items on the May agenda: 1998 Capital Outlay Discuss Park Tour Date and Location Outdoor Community Ice Skating Rink (Discuss possibility of requesting the council to ask staff to move forward with the joint powers agreement even though there is no specific site as of yet, so when we do get a site the agreement can be adjusted accordingly, but at least we can get started on who will do what, such as staffing, providing water, etc.) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Weycker encouraged the Commission to attend the COW meeting on April 15th because Mayor Polston has invited the School Board, Minnetrista Council, and Spring Park council to discuss the community center. Weycker commented that the Comprehensive Plan stated in 1991 that Mound was 91% developed. There was brief discussion about how the City can obtain more open spaces 9 I -Io