Loading...
81-10-13MOUND cITY COUNCIL October 13, 1981 City Hall 7:30 P.M. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota A G E N D A PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Youth Center/Arcade (Tom Watson) - Special Use Permit - Arcade License B. Proposed Vacation of Part of Private Alley (Phelps Island Park, First Division, lying between the Northwesterly extension of the Northeasterly line of Lot 39 and Lot 40, corner of Block 18 - Driveway extension for Ronald Johnson) Co Do Pg. 796-802 Pg. 803 Subdivision of Land (Parts of Lots 4, 5, and 6, Block ll, Pg. 804-813 Mound Terrace) Richard Anderson Application Subdivision of Lane (No. part of the South 410' of Lot 6, Pg. 814-815 Block 11, Mound Terrace) This is a separate subdivision from above and is for one parcel only which will be sold to an adjacent neighbor. Cigarette License (B & L Vending) - Mobil Station Betty L. Buehl - corner of Ct~ Rd. 15 & Bartlett Blvd. Sign Permit for Koehnen's Standard Station ( 5321 Shoreline Blvd. - Parts of Lots 21-25, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F. VARIANCE APPLICATIONS A. Terrance P. Wulf - 2600 Ruby Lane, Lot 1, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B, Nonconforming Use B. Set date for Public Hearing - November 3, 1981 Street Vacation - Portion of west side of Three Points Blvd. from Glen Elyn to end of Lot 1, Block 23, Shadywood Point (Gregory Malik, 4908 Three Points Blvd.) C. Set date for Public Hearing - November 3, 1981 Street Vacation - Outside corner of Leslie Road abutting Lot 8 and part of Lot 9, Block 21, Wychwood. (Arthur J. Peterson, 4872 Leslie Road) D. Side Yard Variance - incorporating area of vacated portion of Ahr Lane (James B. Brown, proposed address 3129 Island View Drive - Parcel C, Registered Land Survey #1545. E. Street Front and Side Yard Variance - (Richard B. Stokke, 1754 Resthaven Lane - Lots 21 and 22, Block 5, Shadywood Point) Pg. 816 Pg. 817-818 Pg. 819-822 Pg. 823-829 Pg. 830-838 Pg. 839-845 Pg. 846-847 Pg. 848-851 Page 794 F. Subdivision of Land separating Lot 32 from Lots Pg. 28-31 to resell to Bruce Heutzel (City of Mound, Lots 28 to 31, Inc., Block 1, Arden) 5. Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present (Please limit to 3 minutes) 6. Presentation by the City of Minnetrista - Waste Disposal Si t~- Eric Sorensen Resolution to Support - Proposed 7. Dues Statement - Westonka Area Chamber of Commerce for 1982 - $225.00 8. West Hennepin Human Services Board - Appointment of new representative to replace Ms. Connie Stahlbusch Recommendation: Judi Cunnington 9. Application for Bingo Permit - Mound Fire Dept. Auxiliary (For November 17, 1981, - 7:30 P.M. to 10:30 P.M.) Waive Fee and Bond 10. LMCD Resolution - "A Resolution Regarding Disposal of Sewerage, Sludge, Hazardous or Other Solid Waste in Landfills in the Lake Minnetonka Drainage Area" ll. Payment of Bills (to be handed out at meeting) 12. Information/Miscellaneous Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. Pg. 852-853 854-855 856 857 858-860 861-900 Page 795 REGULAR MEETING OF THE C~¥ COUNCIL 142 October 6, 1981 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5341Maywood Road in said City on October 6, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Robert Polston, Gordon Swenson and Don Ulrick. Also present were City Manager, Jon Elam; City Attorney, Curt Pearson; Secretary, Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Carol Lindstrom, Jim Murdo and John Munkelwitz. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the September 29, 1981, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of September 29, 1981, Regular Council Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Minutes of the September 30, 1981, Special Council Meeting and Public Hearing were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of September 30, 1981, Special Council Meeting and Public Hearing, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - UNPAID WATER & SEWER CHARGE ASSESSMENT Presented was an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Unpaid Water and Sewer Charge Assessment. The Mayor than opened the Public Hearing for input on said Water and Sewer Charge Assessment and persons present to do so were afforded an opportunity to express their views. No persons presented objections and the Mayor then closed the public hearing. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-327~ RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,O72.19 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY TO BE SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8%. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. VARIANCE APPLICATION - JOHN MUNKELWITZ, 2239 LANGDON LANE, LOT 9, BLOCK l, MACK'S ADDITION - PID #14-117-24 43 0035 The City Manager explained that this variance application should have accompanied his street vacation request at the September 29, 1981, Council Meeting but that due to an oversite, it was not discussed. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the 28' front yard variance and the 8' side yard variance in order for Mr. Munkelwitz to build his garage. Councilmember Polston said that he thought last week when the vacation was granted that a variance would not be needed. Concern was voiced about not enough distance from the road right-of-way to the garage door. 143 October 6, 1981 ~wenson moved and Charon seconded the Following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-328 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH TNE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GRANT A 28' FRONT YARD VARIANCE AND A 8' SIDE YARD VARIANCE AND APPROVE THE GARAGE FOR PID #14-117-24 43 OO35-JOHN MUNKELWITZ. The vote was 3 in favor with Councilmembers Polston and Lindlan voting nay. Motion carried. PROCLAMATION "NATIONAL FITNESS WEEK" The Mayor is asking that the City recognize National Fitness Week. Polston moved the following Proclamation. Councilmember Charon seconded. RESOLUTION 81-329 RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 10, 1981 TO OCTOBER 17, 1981, AS NATIONAL FITNESS WEEK AND OCTOBER 10, 1981, AS NATIONA FITNESS DAY IN MOUND. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND-SPRING PARK WATER CONNECTION George Boyer of Eugene A. Hickok and Assocates was present to present the plans and specifications for the joint Mound-Spring Park Water Connection on C.S.A.H. 125. He explained that the hardest job has been coordinating plans with the County to coincide with their removal and replacement of the bridge between Black Lake and Spring Park Bay. The County has changed their plans 3 times. Some of the concerns of'the Council about this connection were: 1. Will Spring Park have enough water to supply us? 2. Spending $35,000.00 for a cross connection when we need an adequate storage facility in Island Park instead. 3. Would likea letter from Spring Park approving this connection and committing their $35,000.00 to this project. The City Manager explained that this connection would be, in a sense, an insurance policy for Island Park in case of an emergency. If Spring Park did not have enough water to supply, they could cross-connect and get water from Orono thru their lines to ours. Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-330 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED BY EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE MOUND-SPRING PARK WATER CONNECTION C.S.A.H. 125 AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN CHECKED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Polston voting nay. Motion carried. Charon moved and Swenson seconded a motion to set a date for the bid opening after Spring Park approve the plans and specifications and Mound has a letter from them allocating their $35,000.00 to the project. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Polston voting nay. Motion carried. Councilmember Polston asked about a storage facility for Island Park and would like an updated report from Eugene A. Hickok and Associates on this. 144 October 6, 1981 METRO SEWER REPORT - CITY MANAGER The City Manager reported that the City's Metro Sewer charges will increase 15% above this year in 1982, 25% above the 1982 figure in 1983 and 35% above the 1983 figure in 1984. This will happen because all the bond payments and the principal payments of those bonds, for all the capital work Metro has done in those plants continues to come on line and continues to grow. Therefore, maybe we should take a look at not tieing our sewer rates to water usage but instead go to a set rate per month for sewer. ADMINISTRATIVE REIMBURSEMENT - CDBG FUNDED HOUSING REHAB. GRANT PROGRAM Hennepin County is requesting authorization for a 7% administrative reimbursement for program administration of the CDBG funded Housing Rehabilitation Grant Program. Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-331 RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROCEDURAL GUIDES FOR THE CDBG YEAR VII HOUSING REHABILITATION GRANT PROGRAM COVERING THE P~IODJULY 1, 1981 TO JULY 1, 1982. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENTS Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-332 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR (LEVY 7928) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following Resoluti°n. RESOLUTION 81-333 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR (LEVY 3180) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Swenson moved and Charon seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-334 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR (LEVY 3388) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-335 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED AND SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES; DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; AND DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR (LEVY TREE REMOVAL) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 145 October 6, 1981 DOCK APPLICATION The City Manager presented the proposed 1982 Dock Application. There was discussion on whether to mail dock notices or put a notice in the newspaper and save the postage. The Council decided they would rather see the notices mailed. Councilmember Swenson felt ,with the waiting list, that people who take out a permit and do not construct a dock should not be given a permit. The attorney suggested some language changes in the application. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the dock application with the third to the last paragraph to read,"Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 332 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit". The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Jim Murdo, President of Seahorse Condominium Association.- Asked if there would be any further discussion on the assessment that was approved September 30, 1981. The City Attorney responded that the roll is now adopted, the Council has.acted on the assessment and that the Seahorse letter accepted September 30, 1981, is to preserve their right to appeal legally in court. Mr. Murdo stated that he did not understand that there was to be no more discussion on their objection to the unit charge. Mr. Murdo stated that the Seahorse has strived for 1½ years to get this unit charge straightened out. The City Attorney explained that the Engineer (the City's representative) met with the Seahorse people to explain the assessment. He went on to explain that the City Council cannot meet with them separately by law. They should have asked to be put on the Agenda of a Council meeting long ago. Councilmember Ulrick told Mr. Murdo that the reason he didn't want to close the public hearing on September 30, 1981, before the coffee break was because he thought the Seahorse would come back with a presentation besides the 'letter. But there were no comments after the break and therefore the City Council acted on the assessment roll. Mayor Lindlan stated that he was under a complete misunderstanding because he thought the Council would act on the 11 objections within the 30 days after the hearing. The other Councilmembers stated that they had understood that the assessment hearing was for certifying the assessment roll and that after that the roll could not be changed.. Councilmember Ulrick stated that, as a Council, they have adopted the assessment roll as of September 30, 1981. Mayor Lindlan stated that he realizes now that a written objections, presented at a Public Hearing, does not constitute further action, by the Council, on that item. No action taken. CABLE TV COMMITTEE UPDATE The City Manager reported that the Cable TV Committee has submitted a budget proposal for 1982 that asks Mound to contribute $4244.40,, Minnetrista $1030.00, Spring Park $25.50 and St. Bonifacius ($299.60). He stated that he felt this was unfair as each community has equal policy voting power and that the Council should rescind Resolution 81-164. Polston moved and Swenson seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION 81-336 RESOLUTION TO SUSPEND ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE CABLE TV COMMITTEE'S BUDGET PROGRAM FOR 1982 UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A COMMON UNDERSTANDING IN THE AREAS OF FINANCIAL COST SHARING AND VOTING REPRESENTATION IS DEVELOPED. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 146 October 6, 1981 It was suggested that a member of the Cable T~ Committee ~hould come an8 speak to the Council. SCHOOL DISTRICT LETTER - llO CURB CUTS BY THE ARENA The City Manager present a letter from the School District regarding the curb cuts on County Road 110 by the Arena. They are asking the city to participate by con~buting the money for this now and then assessing that contribution back, over a several year period, to the School District or the Arena. Councilmember Uirick is abstaining from this item on the basis that he is an employee of the School District. The City Attorney suggested that an agreement, in writing from the School District, regarding the fact that they want this assessed back to them would be in order. Swenson moved and Polston seconded the following Resolution. RESOLUTION #81-337 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY ENTER INTO A CHANGE ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THE PICK UP AND LOADING AREA ON COMMERCE BLVD. IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL PARKING LOT CONTINGENT UPON RECEIVING, FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRIC~A WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL STAND 100% OF THE COST WHICH IS TO BE IN THE FORM OF AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. The vote was four in favor with Councilmember Ulrick abstaining because of a potential conflict of interest. Motion carried. BURLINGTON NORTHERN LEASE The City Manager reported that the railroad has finally submitted a lease for the property by.the Seton Bridge. In this lease they want $175.O0 fOr the 1st 10 years and $100.O0 for each 10 years thereafter. The Council was asked if they felt the City should pay this or the people who want the fence installed. The Council felt that since we solicited the Engineer to get bids, we approved the bids and are holding the money for the fence that it would be better if the lease were in the people's names and that they should pay for the lease. Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion that if the Burlington Northern negotiates a lease arrangement with the people directly, the City Staff would consider the matter released to the people to take the fence matter from here. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. STAFFING STATEGIES The City Manager brought the Council up to date on what is going on at City Hall. He asked if City Hall could be closed on Friday, October 9, 1981, in order to move some desks and furniture around. The Council had no objections. POLICE DEPT. MOVE The Mayor asked if anything further has been done about moving the Police Dept. to the Community Services Building in downtown Mound because the school will not hold the space indefinitely. 147 October 6, 1981 Councilmember Polston stated that he cannot see spending this type of money to move the Police Dept. wlth the t~ght flnanc~ai s~tuat~on. The City Manager asked if the Council felt he should explore the move. Councilmember Ulrick mentioned several items: 1. The downtown people feel the Police Dept. should be more visible in town. 2. He has not seen any proposals from the school. 3. There is no conflict of interest in this matter because he is not involved in this as a11. 4. That the Council needs to arrive at a decision and before they can decide, they have to have all the fact and figures. Ulrick moved and Charon seconded a motion to authorize the City Manager to move forward and bring, to the Council, as refined a proposal as possible on the costs and various options. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. TRANSFER OF FUNDS Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded a motion to authorize the transfer of certain Funds listed on the Bills for October 6, 1981. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the payment of the bills as presented on the pre-l, is~ in the amount of $68,551.62 when funds are available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The final bills from Buffalo Bituminous and Hardrives were submitted for approval. Ulrick moved in two concurrent motions and Swenson seconded approving the final bills submitted by Buffalo Bituminous in the amount of $42,883.27 and Hardrives in the amount of $17,634.13 to be paid when funds are available. Roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manag~explained that by approving these two bills tonight, the City was starting the 1 year warranty with the companies on the construction. MISCELLANEOUS/INFORMATION BOHNHOFF BOATHOUSE - INSURANCE CLAIM The City Manager reported that Vicki Bohnhoff had called him at home and stated that she would be suing the City. DEVON COMMONS BOATHOUSE UPDATE The City Attorney informed the Council that the City has initiated action on the boathouse and the matter is on the court calendar but that because of the overwhelming number of cases on the court calendar that civil matters are only being dealt with after criminal matters. LASSEK FENCE The City Manager brought the Council up to date on this matter, explaining that the Lasseks have agreed to contribute to the fence by doing part of the labor. Councilmember Swenson objected to this item being brought up again and not being on the Agenda. 148 October 6, 1981 The City Attorney advised that this fence should be put on Fire Dept. property not private property. The City Manager stated that this was what we are going to do and that two quotes have been received; one from Summerhill Investment Associates in the amount of $3,000.00 and one from Natures Way in the amount of $3795.00. Charon moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to approve the bid of Summerhill Investment Associates in the amount of $3,000.00 ar to have the fence installed on Fire Dept. property. Roll call vote was four in favOr with Councilmember Swenso~'voting nay. Motion carried. The Council went into Executive Session at ll:20 P.M. and came out of this Session at 11:40 P.M. ZUCKMAN CASE Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to proceed with an action against the owner of property at 5012 Tuxedo Blvd. to restrain any further construction for the reasons that he does not have a Building Permit and has not received a variance for this construction. Roll call vote was four in favor with Councilmember Swenson voting nay. Motion carried. Lindlan moved and Ulrick seconded at motion to adjourn at 11:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, Secretary BILLS .... OCTOBER 6, 1981 Amer Ins. Assoc. 14.50 A-1 Mtka Rental 15.00 A1 binson 532.00 Blackowiak & Son 24.00 Ron Bostrom 31.10 Holly Bostrom 100.00 " " 171.56 Buffalo Bituminous 42,883.27 Curtis 1000 122.87 Duanes 66 310.O0 Dependable Services 33.00 Dorothy DeLaney 53.59 Wm Hudson 76.68 Shirley Hawks 21.48 Henn Co. Chf Police PTAC 40.00 Hardrives, Inc. 17,634.13 Jones Chemicals 136.95 Kustom Electronics 135.28 The Laker 327.01 Mound Police Dept 19.12 Mound Postmaster 300.O0 Craig Mayer 600.00 C.S. McCrossan Inc 84.00 MN Co. Attorneys Assn 15.85 Metro Fone Communications 35.40 Mpls Star & Trib. 56.00 Metro Clinic of Counseling 252.00 Mid Central Fire Ins. 67.62 Natl Fire Protection Assn 18.48 Timothy L. Piepkorn 517.50 Roto Rooter 45.90 Scott Racek 31.10 Greg Skinner 261.11 Nels Schernau 8.58 Waconia Ridgeview Hosp 28.50 Westonka Sanitation 100.00 2ieoler, Inc. ~0.~ R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc 14.00 Griggs, Cooper 575.92 Johnson Bros. Liquor 208.93 Old Peoria 1,146.35 Ed Phillips & Sons 1,432.51 TOTAL BILLS 68,551.62 TRANSFERS Street to Imp & Equip Outlay 1,666.66 Park " " " 333.33 Finance " " " 80.17 Elections" " " 25.00 Diseased Tree ,i ,, 176.66 Sewer " " " 375.00 Water " i, ,, 416.67 Cemetery" " " 25.00 Street to Shop & Stores 189.13 Sewer " " " 2.00 Water " " " 98.94 Parks " " " 29.53 Police" " " 749.19 Liquor to General 1,500.00 /~flp ( APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE S 2.,C. OD LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAT PARCEL ZONING 'EClAL USE PERMIT luse) State why this use, if granted, would not be contrary to the gewral purpose md intent of the ordinance to secure public health, sefety, generel welfare, end mjb- stantial justice. Residents and owners of property within feet: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: _ To grant the Special Use Permit with conditions. DATE August 31, 1981 COUNCILACTION__~-8-81 Call publlc hearln9 for September 29, 1981. ........ DATE ??2 Resolut; · ,,xoq~n{,, ~ s~ u~ou~ llUOmmOO sI lvqA ao xoq ~lsnm pa~va~do-uloo v u~am o~ pana~suoo aq ~ou II~qS ,,OOlAep ~UmlZ~srull~ I~Oluvqoe~, u~o3 ~qJ, *$~XOH~)IIII' '00:[ NOIID2S P~UllIlq pus Iood ol 2usu$s~aod XvA Xus ut 7o 2utl~ln2o~_ss.pen~lsuoo :SNIV~TtO )I~IY~ [lqI~&S &O XilD ~H& &O 7IDNDO~ A&ID 9~ *ON RDNFNI~O Glq~l~ DNIRa$ &O A~ID RHI NI SRDIARfl ~I~ISI1H~ ~"clV~ DNI~klS ~0 Al. ID pue ~peseTodo oq Ilia aooTAop (t (9 'SOOTAOp e,SUeOTIdde oql to uolleooI posodoad eql os lqaeou psgueOlI os SOOTAoP qons ~o aequmu eqs pue (~ '(g)S0TAOp SU0UlOSI'~I~ IUOTueqoemoqs to uoTseaodo mls qSlA UOTSOSuuo0 UT pssonpuoo ~onbTI SuTs~oTxosuT to Ole8 pu~ (~ to sousuosuTvu pu~ uoTsuaedo posodoad oqs 3o ucrlsvooI otis (£ *pasuoosI sq os Gsu~oSI tue aao'~q 'sao3a~etl,,i, 'ea~Sa~P SusIq~S sa s~oTa~p qons to esl -lsnq pue ~oSoe~eg~ oq.l. .poleln2oa oq 1uu ssoutsnq ~o ~oeld ~uo luv us psuTesusm oq 1mu SUtlS gooTAop qong ~o aoqunu umurIxum ~ttI. l~oTuegoom ~o ~oqmnu oq3. *uoT~soSuoo SulNaud pue puo~ s~uuTurlls pu~ (g00~AOp gong ~U~u~u~mn g~uomxls~q~go ~o I~U~O~A Otl~ U~ uuos~od ~o ORDINANCE 46 1981 Page 3 hereunder shall receive one annual license tag, which shall be num- mered and which shall be prominently displayed upon the mechanical usement device at all times in the form and location specified by the City Clerk. Such tag shall be readily visible to the public. Any owner holding an owner's license may transfer any machine owned by him and upon which the appropriate tag is prominently affixed from one licensed location t~ another within the City, and with permission of the City Clerk, may transfer license tags from one mechanical amusement device to another mechanical amusement device of the same location. ~SECTION 8:00. OPERATOR LICENS_E. No person, firm or organization shall maintain a mechanical amusement device for use, except as exempted in Section 4:00 hereof, without first having received a license therefore. Each person, firm or organization desiring a license to maintain a mechanical amusement device shall make appli- cation therefore in which he shall specify the numbers, types and distinguishing characteristics of the mechanical amusement devices for which he seeks a license. Each application for an operator's license shall be accompanied by an annual license fee of ~25.00 for each mechanical amusement device which the operator is applying to keep upon his place of business. The operator's license shall be plainly displayed upon the walls of his place of business. Ail license fees shall be paid into the General Fund of the City, and all Olicenses shall terminate the next June 30 after issuance. License on fees shall be paid in full in advance with the application and shall cover the period terminating June 30 following, except that fees for licenses, for which application is made within the last five months of the license year, shall be one-half the license fees specified herein. No license shall be transferrable as to person or as to location. Upon revocation or lapsing of any license, no refund shall be made of any portion of the license fee. SECTION 9:00. ,~INVESTIGATION. Immediately upon the receipt of an applica[:ion-for a licen.~e to operate a mechanical amusement device the City Clerk 8hall forward a copy thereof to the Police Department of the City of Spring Park for investigation and recommendation to [:he City Council. ~SECTION 10:00. PROHIBITED PRACTICES AND RESTRICTIONS. No person, firm or organization possessing an operator"s license hereunder shall permit any minor, not accompanied by a parent or legal guardian, or supervised by an adult employee, to operate any mechanical amusement device in the operator's place of business. No person, firm or organ- izatian shall permft in his or her place of business the operation of any mechanical amusement device for the making of side bets or gambling in any form. No prize, award, merchandise, gifts or anything of value shall be given to any such player ef ~:t~ch mechanical amusement device. (Amended Ordo 46.01, 8/3/81) ORDINANCE 46 Page 4 SECTION 11:OO. PUBLIC HEALT~ AND SAFETY. The building or place in which mechanical amusement devices are licensed to be operated must conform to all State Statutes and City Ordinances relating to public health, safety and zoning, and, in addition, a) the room where~mechanical amusement devices are kept, used or operated shall be well lighted, well ventilated and neat and clean at all times, and b) adequate toilet and wash room facilities shall be Provided and maintained at all times as required by the Health Officer of the City of Spring Park, or his deputy, and c) no person operating or having control of any licensed mech- anical amusement device shall permit or allow any minor to use any mechanical amusement device therein, or to be, remain in, or frequent any such business if any non-intoxicating malt liquor or intoxicating liquor is served or allowed to be consumed in the room where such mechanical amusement devices are kept. S~ECTION 12:00. VIOLATIONS BY MINORS. Any minor who uses a mechanical amusement device or is in a licensed business contrary to the provi- sions of Section 11:00 (c) of this ordinance shall be guilty of a violation of this ordinance. SECTION 13:00. TIME OF USE AND OPERATION. No person, firm or organ- ization licensed as herein provided shall suffer or permit the playing of licensed mechanical amusement devices between the hours of 1:00 a.m., and 12:00 noon on Sunday; or between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on Monday through Saturday. SECTION 14:00. S~PARABILITY. ~very section, provision or part of '~his ~ordi~an~e-is declared separable from every other section, pro- vision or part; and if any section, provision or part shall be invalidated, this shall not affect any other section, provision or part o S_ECTION 15:00:. PENALTIES° Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed $300.00 or by imprison- ment in the County Jail for not to exceed 90 days or both. SECTION 16:00. ~FFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force a-nd effect from and after its passage and publication in the official newspaper, and shall apply at such time as it takes effect to all mech- anical amusement devices then or thereafter existing in the City. Ail persons, firms and organizations who have prior to and at the effective date hereof any mechanical amusement devices for which this Ordinance ORDINANCE 46 Page 5 requires a license will be given thirty (20) days ~rom the e~ective date to make application as provided herein. Such mechanical amusement devices existing prior to and at the effective date hereof and for which application are filed within thirty days of such date may stay in operation until such time as the application covering each such device is denied or the license therefore expires or is revoked or suspended. Such mechanical amusement devices for which no such application is made within thirty days of the effective date hereof will be in violation of this Ordinance. (Adopted 5/21/75) CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnes0ra NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF PART OF PRIVATE ALLEY TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IF HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City Council of the City of Mound will meet at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota at 7:30 p.m on the 13th day of October, 1981, to consider the vacation of the following described private alley: That part of Private Alley as shown on the plat of "Phelps' Island Park, First Division" according to the recorded plat thereof Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying between the north- westerly extension of the northeasterly line of Lot 39 said "Phelps' Island Park, First Division" and a line drawn northwesterly from the most westerly corner of Lot 40, said "Phelps' Island Park, First Division" to the most southerly corner of Block 18, "Avalon" according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. I ~ T 6 on Elam, .G City Manager \ 73 rt of P~ivat~ Alley P roposed.~to b~e~Vacated. Revised plan submitted fe I0 Lots all meetlng the zoning requl manta Not appl ical ~ ~-!----[~11 APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND 4 1981 ' Sec. 22.03-a ~j_.._~,~,~/~ VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER PLAT Richard T. Anderson. 61890 /~o. o o ,5'0. FEE O0 /~ ~ PARCEL 768O L~atian and complete legal descriptian of proper~ ~ be divided: The South 410 feet of Lot 6.'ri'hat part of Lot 5 lying southerly of the northerly 144 feet thereof, That part of the West half of Lot 4 lying southerly of the Northerly 1~4 feet hereof (for purposes of this survey the East line of said West half of Lot q has been assd ed to be a line midway between the East and West lines of said Iot)~ Block II Mound TerFa~ ZONING TO ~ divided es follows: See attached subdlvlsion of Richard T. Anderson in Block Mound Terrace. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dirnenlian of proposed building lites, square foot area of each n~w parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REOUESTED FOR: Levv Lot No. From Square feet TO ors-6, 7, and 8 I0,000 9,976.2 Lots I, 2, and 3 10,000 9,~37.5 Square fe~t This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the preperty, or an sxpl~n- ilion given why this is not the case. I am y 2 8 sgu r f e h I am°b~.5 ~uare ~ Se~~st~ ~c~e~. lot size In these three loll. TEL. NO. 937:1356 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Accept conceptual approval of the pre1 imiflary plat of entlre subdivision and call a public hearing on Phase I - Ist Addition to consist of Lots I, 6, 7 and 8 along Westedge DATE March 30, 1981 for Irnmedlate approval. ~-lq-81 Approve the preliminary plat with stlpulatlons (See minutes of Plannlnn Commission meeting ) COUNCIL ACTION 9-8-81 Set public hearing for 9-29-81. DATE 9-22-81 Reset public hearing for 10-13-81. Resolution No. APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER. THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN t YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. A list of residents and ow.ars of property within feat must be attached. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September )~, 1981 OPresent were: Chairman Russell Peterson, Commissioners Margaret Hanson, Gary Paulsen,i Lorraine dackson and Frank Weiland, Council Representative Gordon Swenson, City Inspec- tor Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 31, 1981 were presented for consideration. Hanson moved and Jackson seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 31, 1981 meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Subdivision of Land - Preliminary Plat Part of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 11, Mound Terrace Richard Anderson was present. Discussed preliminary plat. Applicant has submitted a change from the 12 sites to 10 sites with the exception that part of the original plat next to Lot 7, in Block I is to be divided off and sold to adjacent property owner. Discussed the recommendations of staff--particularly the turn in road (square corner in front of Lot 3, .Block 2 to allow easy access to the east if that property is developed sometime in the future). Rex Alwin presented a petition from several adjacent property owners objecting to the general plan for this project. ~Subdivision allows no open space and he believe,. he will have a problem wi th people trespassing; concerned wi th~quality of homes _ and environmental impact. Hanson moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the preliminary plat with the stipulation that all of the lots except Lot 7, Block 1 front on the proposed.new street; that the developer work out with the City Engineer about what is the best configuration of that street---either that he put it in like it is now with the agreement that it be changed in case of any future develop- ment of adjacent lots or that it be put in to the specifications of the Enginee and that we receive in writing a document indicating a dedication of funds for Park. The vote was unanimously in favor. 2. Subdivision of Land South 410 feet of Lot 6, Block 11, Mound Terrace Hanson moved and Jackson seconded a motion to approve the subdivision as re- quested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Sign Permit for Gas 'Station at 4800 Bartlett Boulevard Lots I-4, .21 & P/5 & 20, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A Mike Duffy was present. Paulsen moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the sign as requested. ~he vote was unanimously in favor. Sign Permit for Standard Station, Corner of Wilshire and Shoreline No one was present regarding this request. Weiland moved and Swenson seconded a motion to table. The vote was unanimously in favor. Discussed status of Tonka Toys pollution problem. Last year variance application Planning Commission Minutes September 14, 1981 - Page 2 was made for extension of the stacks. Motion on var}ance tabled. Tonka Toys was working out solution to comply with Hinnesota Pollution Control Regulations. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a mot|oN to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, so adjourned. Attest: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS 11, 1981 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 {612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject. City of Mound Richard T. Anderson Preliminary Plat File No. 2113 - General Dear Jon, We have received plans from the Included were a grading and drainage ceive a preliminary plat which would proposed plat from back in January which ceived shows 10 lots. I assume the inten The following are our comments and 1. The south right-of-way line of t straight to the east boundary of the smaller, 20 or 25 feet, which would add s would allow for future extension of the 8 east. 2. The sanitary sewer and water,mia boundary of the plat for future extensiom may need to be lowered to serve this be field verified. 3. We would suggest that only Lot opening directly to West Edge Boulevard. 4. The drainage area to be carried street will have to be field verified to size. Because of the steep grade of the blacktop swale be constructed to carry th the ditch along West~Edge Boulevard. the above proposed subdivision. a utility plan. We did not re- lot sizes. Our files contain a 12 lots. The new drawings re- is to plat 10 lots at this time. ~tions' proposed street should be extended The inside radius could be made area to Lot 5, Block 1. This to serve the property to the ould also be extended to the east The elevation of the sanitary sewer to the east. This will have to ock 1 be allowed a driveway the culvert under the proposed mre the culvert is of sufficient ~osed street, we recommend a from the end of the curb to Minneapolis - Hutchini ,~ - Alexandria - Eagan printed on re'it,led paper Mr. J0n Elam September 11, 1981 PageTwo 5. Utility and drainage easement along adjoining and rear lot lines streets. Final construction plans should bE final plat is presented to the City. please contact me. JC'sj ge required, seven feet in width in width adjacent to all :ed for our review at the time the ~eed any further information, yours, ASSOCIATES, INC. :on 8o7 Z Z 3 4 OOl T'Ol~, Z 4::' L LOT ! t.ol DIP IN SION FOR ,NDERSON TERRACE · 6 [', " tO, o,lq \ BLOCK SCAt. Et I INCH.50 FEET DATE I-Z8-80 D&TUU, MEM~I ~& LEVEl. · '. i GORDON R. COFFIN CO, IN~ LAND SURV[YOR$& EN$1NEER$ LONG La. KE, MINNEmT& Regarding of Mound, Legal 'The South northerly southerly the East midway Terrace." PETITION Copy of Parties who objections 1. Pro in 2. Pres open for subdivision of cart&in lands in the citF Anderson. Lot 6. That part of Lot 5 lying southerly That part of the West half of Lot 4 lyt~ 144 feet hereof (for purposes of thiB half of Lot 4 has been assured to be a and West lines of said lot), Block 11 Moun~ ~vision attached. ! "- below are reques~ing consideration for thai plan for this proJectt ~gal, but is imposing congested development by surrounding rpsidents as rural or zee uss of land area for minimum development .ow, in some cases) allowing no recreational imposing burden for such on neighboring as open space. Present ~ents a severe environmental impact on the of lurrounding the development,, up to now residents are n~t aware of any environmental impact surveys, or ase/ssmen~lpertaining to this development. . 4. Minimml lot eSzes (or below in some cases) suggests that the quality of hoUSing proposed is below standards maintained withinl the n~/qhbOring properties. ... 5. NeighbOring property to the West of this proposed development across West Edge Drive in the City of Minnetrista is zoned for' acreage lot sises. 6. Sewer unit assessments on the entire 59 acre (approxin~tely) of land in the southeast quadrant of West Edge Road and County 15 (Lynwood Blvd.) including the area pertaining to the development were established back in 1962 as i acre units at request of the 5 property owners to maintain acreage homesite status. The Co, moil a~ that time granted the reduced complying with acreage statue. .~- Wa request that the Planning Commission and the City Council'of of Mound reject this plan in favor of a plan presenting lees lower density housing and better quality for the new development · the n~ighborhood. Submitted Respectfully, Address Property Locatio~ ................... ~ ia1 / / PETITION Regarding th~ app~o&tion for subdivision of cert&in landa in the of Mound, ~ Rich~d T. Anderson. Legal descri ~tion~£| prope~ty~ "The South 4.0 feet o~ Lot 6. That part of Lot 5 lying southerly of northerly 14~ feet thlreof, That part of the West half of Lot 4 lying southerly of~the Northerly 144 feet hereof (for purposes of this the East li~! of Said West half of Lot 4 has been assured to be a midway between the East and West lines of said lot), Block 11 Mound Terrace." . Copy of pro sed tlbdiviston attached. Parties who have Signed below are requesting consideration for their objections ~o the general plan for this proJect~ 1. Project may be legal, but is imposing congested development with an area mantained by surrounding r~sidents as r~lral or in character. 2. Present plan maximizes use of land area for minimum development standards (or below, in some cases) allowing no recreational or open space, thus imposing burden for such on neighboring pro~ert: being~aintained as open space. 3. Present plan presents a severe environmental impact on the quali' of neighborhood surrounding the development, up to now neighborir residents are not aware of any environmental impact surveys, or assessments pertaining to this development. 4. Minimum lot sizes (or below in some cases) suggests that the quality of housing proposed is below standards maintained within the n~ighboring properties. 5. NeighbOring property to the West of this proposed development across west Edge Drive in the City of Minnetrista is zoned for acreage lot sizes. 6. Sewer unit assessments on the entire 59 acre (approximately) sec~ of land in the southeast quadrant of West Edge Road and County 15 (Lynwood Blvd.) including the area pertaining to the proposed development were established back in 1962 as 1 acre units at the request of the 5 property owners to maintain acreage ~omesite status. The Council a~ that time granted the reduced as complying with acreage status. We request that the Planning Conunission and the City Council'of the C of Mound reject this plan in favor of a plan presenting less'con. lower density housing and better cfual'ity for the new development and · the neighborhood. Signed Submitted Respectfully, Address Property Location ................... ~ Le~al Descri' MOUND MINNE~; ~', 5:~3' (612! 472~1 i55 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager~ Rob Chelseth, City Plat~ner 14 September 1981 Richard T. Anderson - I~reliminary Plat Application I have reviewed the plans from ~ and have the following recommen~ 1. The City should require alprf sions and the lot's sizestin / reviewing the original prelim . owner for the proposed subdivision, ions. iminary plat plan showing lot dimen- quare foot area. The Memorandum ~ry plat submission (dated March 30, 1981) shows several lots ~jre. below 10,000 square feet in size, the minimum required for the /~-!1 zoning district in which this property is located. 2. All lots (except Lot 7, Block 1I) Should be required to provide all driveway access onto the proposed new street. Lot 7, Block 1 can only be served by an opening on Westedge Boulevard. 3. Adequate provisions should be made at the turn in the proposed street for connection to property to the east, which may be de- veloped in the future. The intersection should resemble a "T" shape, allowing easy street continuation to the east in the future. 4. Consideration may be given to' adjusting the cul-de-sac and the lot frontages of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 1, to facilitate the contin- uation of placing lots on the! cul-de-sac circle to the east if and when this property is developed. 5. A park funds dedication is apparently proposed in lieu of a land dedication. A letter or note confirming this fact should be ob- tained from the owner. Rob Chelseth CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTiC'!E OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT th! City Council of the City of Mound will meet at the City Hall, 5341 Ma,~tood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 p.m. on the 13th day of Octobe!r, ~981, to consider the subdivision of land - "The Richard T. Anderson Subdivision", located South of Lyn- wood Boulevard on Westedge Boulevard, PID # 14-I17-24 33 0008 described as.' , The South 410 feet of Lot 6 andi that part of Lot 5 and of the West 1/2 of Lot 4 lying Southerly of~ the Northerly 144 feet thereof, Block ll, Mound Terrace. i Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Elam, City Manager Published in The Laker September 29, 1981 ~, · ,~ APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND FEE ~NE~ ~ 'i; PLAT PARCEL That ,rt ~ t )~South qlO feet of Lot 6. mlock II..o.n~ Terrace, lying Nort~ 'ly [ )fOiSting described line: Counting at the Sout~st corne~ of S d'l~tl thence North along the ~est line of said lot a dis- tance if 3] feet: to the point of beginning of the line being descrlbed; thence ~efi ~ii~ right 88° to the East line of said lot, and there ending. ~ ~h'~ey .... ale drawi~ s~i~ ~j~ent struts, dimensi~ ~ pr~ , , ~! d~ lites, square f~t area ~ each ~ ~rcel ~si~at~ by ~rl New Lot No. ~1 )~ From ~are feet TO ~are f~t lift I~' I [ DATE Sept. !~, I C~NCIL ACT~ DATE Resol~i~ ~ APPI OV~L OF THIS DlVlSI~ I$ DEPENDENT ~ THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFI :lEIIT ~ECIAL A~E~ENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE OlVl~ ~ A ~R' ~ED AND THE NECE~RY PAYMENTO~T~ESBY THE FEE OWNER WITI N I YEAR FR~ THE DATE OF THE RE~LUTI~OR IT BEC~E$ NUC~ A~ VOID. A Iii ~ resldentt and ~trl of pr~e~ wi~in__feet must h ~. Name Address .Mound, Phone No. ~/7~,?--~'--.2A~ 2-1-79 Cigarette. Licenses 1, 1979 $12.00 Please bring or send "b,y lThursday, CODE OF ORDINANCES City of Mound, Minnesota August, 1960 Chapter 37 - Licensing and Ret Part A Cigarettes, Cigarette Tobacco, Section 37.04 Restricti¢ except to a person of be issued to any lished place of business. vending machine for the wrappers, cigar, pipe tobacco, except that 'Place' where persons from entering.. No licensed and registered for sale, sell. or jimson weed, bella donna any deleterious or .City OffiCe, 5341 Maywood Ro'ad, ..Thank you.- of Certain Sales appers, Cigars, Pipe Tobacco, Chewing Tobacco :~o such licehse sh~ll be issued character. No ~cense sh~ll...~.. any'place other thah his estab-' license shall be issued for a of cigaretteS, cigarette tobacco,.sguff'or chewing machine be located in such age of. 18 years are.prohibited a bona fide and duly ~ist or physician shall, keep any form any opium, morphine, 'chnia, cocoaine, marijuana, or drug except nicotine. ~ignature o/ Applicant for License ' APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF MOUND NAME OF Leroy Signs, Inc. APPLICANT Address 5321 Shoreline Drive Mound, MN 'Telephon~ Numb INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT[ [ACCESSORY YARD FT. BUILDING SIDE [ YARD FT. LOT SIZE FOOTAGE N. C.U.* or OTHER (describe) Sign Variance:Size REASON FOR REQUEST: To add addi illuminated "Price" sign, directly below ex FEE $ ZONING PROPERTY ADDR. ES8 PLAT 2,5.00 Comme rc i a I PARCEL B LOCK ADDITION Telephone Number 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed ' in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining property owners showing attitude tow request. "Standard" si~n on same .......... A building permit must be applied council resolution or variance [~-7~-- Variances are not transferab SEP I 19 .TM PLANNING CO~SSIO~ REC ................[ ~t"~°esn't conflict with anything COUNCIL ACTION: non- conforming us e within one year from the date of the becomes null and void. :e DATE Accept in the code, the sign as requested, providing i.e. like having flashing lights, DATE Sept. 28, 1981 RESOLUTION NO. DATE T L£ADFREE t~/t 0 C 0 OI L_ 5 .-T,.~ MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 28, 1981 Present were: Chairman Russell Peterson,i!iCommissioners Margaret Hanson, Gary Paulsen, Lorraine Jackson, Frank Weiland and Geor9~ S!tannard who arrived later in the meeting; City ~anager Jon Elam and Marjorie Stul In.'~ MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission of September 14, 1981 were presented for consideration. Item 1, Paragraph 3 Idi read: Subdivision allows no open space and he "believes he" will have a .. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to approve the minutes as cot i The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Sign Permit for Koehnen's Standard on, 5321 Shoreline Boulevard Part of Lots 21-25, Block l, Shirley! ii~!!lls Unit F Weiland m°ved and Pauisen seconded~ ~Otion to table as applicant was not present. All in favor of tabling.! Later in the meeting, the Piannin~ Weiland moved and Hanson seconded providing that it doesn't confIicl flashing lights, etc. The vote Commissioner Stannard arrived. ion considered the request. mOtion to accept the sign as requested, ~h anything in the code, i.e. like having n~nzmously in favor. Nonconforming Use - Property at 26OoI. Ruby Lane Lot 1, Rearrangement of Block 7, Shirley Hills Unit B Mrs. Wulf was present. Discussed the existing nonconforming Shed and alternative placement for the deck which would meet the setbacks, proposed location is off the kitchen and no other placement of the deck would meet their needs. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a~imotion to recommend approval with the stipulation that it not be enclosed other than screened. The vote wa~ Hanson and Jackson in favor; Weiland, Stannard, Paulsen and Peterson against. Hanson's reason for the approval was that she-feels it is not creating a problem. Reasons against: Weiland - Not enough hardship involved here for the additional variance; Peterson- concur with Weiland on reason and that we would be incon- sistent with past decisions; Stannard and Paulsen concur with their being no major hardship. Street Vacation - Portion of West side of Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to end of Lot 1, Block.23, Shadywood Point Gregory Malik , 4908 Three Points Boulevard, was present. Mr. Malik is asking for the vacation so .that he can build onto his house so that he has 1) an indoor access to the.present basement and 2) needs a garage for his car so that it will start in the winter (Operates a service station and needs to be there very early in the morning). Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend vacating 16 feet of the street right-of-way providing the utilities won't be infringed. The vote was unanimously in favor. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1981 ~ Page 2 Applicant would like a greater vacation; he was advised that it would be up to him to lay out a plan for the addition to Dre~ent to tke £ouncll to justify a greater vacation. o 6, Street Vacation - Outside corner of Leslie Road abutting Lots 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16 Block 21, Wychwood Arthur Peterson, 4872 Leslie Road, present. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconde( street right-of-way requested utility easements. The vote was Reason: Where there is 10 feet things that it might be needed fo . Sideyard Variance Parcel C, Registered Land Surve~ 1 James B. Brown was present. i Applicant is requesting a variance Building Inspector advised him that1 lot square footage. Weiland moved and Stannard seconded a motion to recommend approving the center line of vacated Ayr Lane becoming the property line so far as establishing.a side yard setback:ion Parcel C, Registered Land Survey 1545. The vote was unanimously in favor. Street Front and Side Yard Variances Lots 21 and 22, Block 5, Shadywood Point Mrs. Stokke was present. motion to recommend the vacation of the' idlng the City retain all the appropriate in favor except Peterson who voted nay. ea available, there may be unforeseen 5 New Division) o ~ive the lot more building area as vacated Ayr Lane was not part of the Discussed the distance from the street of the neighbor's house on the North. Jackson moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the variance request as stipulated on the application recognizing the existing side yard deficiency. The vote was unanimously in favor. e It was noted that the line of sight would be no problem as street curves. Subdivision of Land (City Property) Lots 28 to 32, Incl., Block 1, Arden Request is to separate Lot 32 from the other lots in parcel and then divide into two parts; North half being sold to Bruce Heuszel for square footage to make Lots I and 2 a legal building site. Hanson moved and Jackson seconded a motion to recommend the approval of the subdivision of land as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. DISCUSSION Discussed inviting Planning Commission applicants to Discussion Meeting in October. Letter to be sent to all of the applicants. Planning Commission Minutes September 28, 1981 Page 3 Discussed the objectives of the Downtown Advisory Committee. Use of the Depot Building by Alano group on an interim basis - it was suggested allowing Alano the use of the building on a 90 day basis with a 30 day notice; but not deprive other groups the use of this building. The date of the next discussion meeting was set for October 19, 1981. This is the date to interview candidates for the Planning Commission. Ice Arena problems. ADJOURNMENT Paulsen moved and Stannard seconded a motion to adjourn. All in favor except Weiland, so meeting adjourned to next discussion meeting on October 19th. Attest: CITY OF MOUND gound, ginnesota Date: September 23, 1981 TO: FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION Building Inspector SUBJECT: Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1981 -- Recommendations 1. Leroy Signs, Inc. for Koehnen's Standard Station Sign Permit The proposed size is excessive for the intended use and should not be allowed larger than 3 X 3 or 9 square feet as permitted by the existing sign ordinance. 2. Terrence P. Wulf, 2600 Ruby Lane Nonconforming Use The existing nonconforming utility shed allowed once by a variance should be removed before granting another nonconformancy. Gregory Malik, 4908 Three Points BouleYard Street Vacation - Portion of West sidei!of Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to end of Lot l, Block 23, Shady~ood. Point The right-of-way vacation could be vacated to within seven (7) feet of the existing traveled roadway providing there are no City utilities in that area and also the vacation should follow uniformly to the intersection of Glen Elyn and Three Points Boulevard if allowed. Also, the property at this time is undersized by 824.3 square feet. Arthur J. Peterson, 4872 Leslie Road Street Vacation - Outside corner of Leslie Road abutting Lot 8 and part of Lot 9, Block 21, Wychwood Also, this right-of-way vacation could be vacated for street purposes to within seven (7) feet of the existing back of curb line, but retain the full thirty (30) feet for City utility services. As shown on the enclosed street profile-- the purpose to retain seven (7) feet is for possible berm work, planting, side- walks, etc. Vacation should be uniform from Marlboro to Bradford Lane where- ever possible. 5. James B. Brown, Proposed'address - 3129 Island View Drive Side Yard Variance Not applicable. Richard B. Stokke, 1754 Resthaven Lane Street Front and Side Yard Variances Street front variance of line of sight--proposed variance would still meet the minimum zoning street front setback of 20 feet. Henry K. Truelsen APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE ' ~ CITY OF MOUND 5~P.- 8 t981 APPLICANT INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE $ ZONING k)'3Q~"J~ "~'i,,' , PLAT ~l q30 . PARCEL Telephome~:l :~ N~ber-.. ~~%~ ]~ 0001 8 ~X'//~; ~ ADDITION FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) , ',,.]; Address VA PJ_ANCE REQUESTED: FRONT [ I ACCESSORY YARD FT. BUILDING SIDE[ I YARD . FT. LOTSIZE ] NO TEl /O00 ~-'~', B LOCK %OL~ Telephone Number 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed imt in relation to lot lines, othe¥ buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, i' and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. FOOTAGE ,! 3. Attach letters from adjoining affecl ~DR {8 FT.{ ~ , prope~owners shoving attitude N.C.U.* or .[[ /_.,/z- /' d[~/ [ re~q~e~:~,_~,,~ OTHER (describel ,X( / -- Z' REASON FOR RE~UEST: A building permit must be applied for within one year from the clots of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances a~re not transferable~ :'~ il APPMCANT , 1~kPV~ DATE Signature ~ PLANNING COMMISSION'RECOMMENDATION Motion failed to approve with the stipulation that it not be enclosed other than screened. (By 2 in favor vote to i~ aga|nst) DATE Sept. 28, 1981 COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO._ DATE *non- conforming use / / / ? / / / / -% ,¢T3oe.z"l:P ~'Zoq.q~'l:eu eq3 (e~l Council Action 11-9-71 ~z-an~ed If. em 5 - lo~ 11, ]~lock ~] -:] - Applicant wi~hd~e~ ~e~uest 11-9-71 9hs i~ninist_~tion c the tethsck cf %hs e'xis<:ing ct.~:a~.-~'~e b'a. cu. ':h~ ~th side (fr~:t) 3 f~t ~' feet cn ~'~'~ ..... ~, zi~, a f~:i>~ g~ra~e b~.sh~m ~ Parcel'A .,. ~. Terrence P. Wu]T, 2600 Huby I~,me Lot i, Rearr. of V~i~ce ~ Oberdeck moved the ~cessory b~ldi~ in its ~ Hasse moved ~d B~ seconded %~ i~ce from the side ~~ 15 'feet: to 4 feet... (V~i~ces-It ~ p]ann~ Co~isaion Disc~sion 1. Occup~cy ~er~ts O~y over 2. Heati~ Pl~ts Car~ aver 3- Dog & Cat Ordinances--Drop 4. Other General Topics The last Thursday in will be moved to Monday, 3:00 P.M. Friday, Nov. 19th. Motion by Oberdeck and 23.011 Sub. d SS 8 be the village in the future IT CAME until special shall definitely assign imously. Newell moved and Partington sider the PlAnning to employ professional help "Zoning". Passed 5- Unopened streets Study Meeting A~lJourned i - 61930, Parcel 1000 ,commend that the rec~uest $o l~a¥8 ation be denied. Passed u~animously. that the Council approve a var- reducing the side yard from P~ sed um~nimously. Meeting Meeting ,~iving day, the meeting Out-off date for applicati%ns to recommend that zoning Ordinance any ]and which may be added to AS ZONED IN THE AREA FROM WHICH illage council as herein provided ~ther use districts. Passed recommen~ that the Council recon~ of ?-30-1970 and October 29, 1970 ew and redrafting of Chapter 23 Attest~ RESOLUTION GRANTING SIDE (Lot 1, Rearr of Blk -~0 YARD VARIANCES Hills Unit B) the owner of Lot l, Rearr requested that the accesI to remain in its present W~, the Plamn~ngComm~ssion and reoomm-nded that the from the side yard, required, NOW, TNMREFORE, BE I~ RESOLVED BY MINNESOTA: That the owner be ~ designated place (see is put on a cement~slab Shirley Hills Unit B has on his lot be permitted and denial of this request moved to a place fou~ feet !.variance from the 15 feet COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND: his building to the ing) provided the building 1972. Adopted by the Council this 9th day 'er, 1971. / / Cl l-y Sepl 1981 5341 MAYWO0~ F~OAE MOUND, MINNESOTA (612) 472-1155 TO: John Cameron HcCombs Knutson FROH: RE: Jon Elam, City Proposed Street vard and Portior Portion of Three Points Boule- Road. We have two requests for blacktopped and now in g tion. Copies of the two applica there are any utilities can be vacated. If it appears they can b, criptio~ for the notices the County if vacated. portions of streets not the recent street construc- attached. Please advise if rtions of street and if they we will need the legal des- hearing and for sending to I~PPLICATZON FOR STREET VACATION CiTY OF HOUND REARON FOR REQUEST Applicant*e /nterest tn P~operty - (~}~:~ ~co~ended by City: P~ltc t~orks ~ ~' Fi~ ~ief ~ I ~gineer See I~ttoff, , -.~. Planning ~mission Reco~ndatton= To vacate 16 feet of the street rlgNt~[" ~ay providing the utilities ~n~t be Infringed. Council Action Resol. No. Date Date September 28. 1981 _ "*. ,' McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS ~ PLANNERS September 23, 19 81 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Proposed Street Vacation Portion of 3 Points Boulevard Adjacent to Lot 1, Block 23, Shadywood Point - Job #2113 Dear Mr. Elam: We have reviewed the above proposed vacation and have the following comments and recommendations. This was an extension of a State Aid street and therefore, the 66' right-of-way was obtained. It would seem that it may be desirable to keep the entire right-of- way. 1) If the City desires to vacate any of the R/W, they should maintain a minimum of 50' R/~. Since the existing R/W is 66', 16' could be vacated and it could be taken off the one side. If this section is ever upgraded to include concrete curb and gutter, most likely the new road would be centered on the R/W. 2) Sanitary sewer is located approximately in the center of the R/W. If a portion is vacated, the new property line should be no closer than 15 feet to the sanitary sewer. 3) We would recommend that no more than 10' be vacated along the northwesterly side. The proposed addition shown would extend approximately 18' into the ex- isting R/W, which would leave less than 10' to the edge of the driven road. If you need any further information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. lr Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria- Eagan printed on recycled par~er (6'~2) October 6, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Manager Public Works Department Proposed Street Vacations The Public Works Department can foresee no future need for that portion of the west side of Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to the end of Lot 1, Block 23, Shadywood Point. There are no utilities in that portion of the right-of-way. The outside corner of Leslie Road adjacent to Lots 7,8,9,14,15 & 16, Block 21, Wychwood could be vacated but we will have to keep it entirely on a utility easement. It contains sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main. Respectfully, Robert Shanley ~2~ Public Works Director RS/j cn Continental Telephone of Minnesota Inc. South District P. O. Box 258 2365 Commerce Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-8865 October 6, 1981 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention of Mr. Jon Elam Subject: Street Vacations Dear Mr. Elam: Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota has no objection to your proposed vacation of the outside corner of Leslie Road, adjacent to Lots 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16, Block 21, Wychwood. We have no facilities located on this right-of-way and cannot see any future needs. Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to end off. Lot 1, Block 23, Shadywood Point, is a different story. We have thre~ existing buried cables located in this right-of-way. This is part o~ our underwater route across Lake Minnetonka that feeds the North ShDre. We need to retain this route. Yours truly, District Engineer RSB/mi s xc. George Kraemer Dave Penney TO: Minnegasco Northern States Power Company Continental Telephone Company Public Works Department Fire Department Police Department FROM: The City Manager SUBJECT: Two Proposed Street Vacations: 1. Portion of West side of Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to end of Lot l, Block 23, Shadywood Point 2. Outside corner of Leslie Road Adjacent to Lots 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16~ Block 21, Wychwood The City of Mound has requests for vacation of the subject portions of streets which are not black:topped and are now in grass due to the recent street construction. Attached are copies of the portion of street proposed to be vacated. Do you have any utilities in these portions of the streets or do you foresee a need for these portions of the streets? Thanks for your help in supplying this information. JE/ms McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ LAND SURVEYORS ~11 PLANNERS September 23, 1981 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (61:2) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Proposed Street Vacation Portion of Leslie Road Adjacent to Lots 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 & 16, Block 21 Wychwood - Job #2113 Dear Mr. Elam: We have reviewed the above proposed vacation and have the following comments and recommendations. l) Since the street and park in this area have been up- graded, we see no future use of this area for road purposes. 2) This portion of Leslie Road has sanitary sewer, watermain and gas located in it, therefore, it would seem best just to retain the entire R/W However, if you decide to vacate it, utility easements should be retained on the entire area to be vacated. 3) We would recommend a lO foot boulevard be retained behind the existing curb. The area which could be vacated is indicated on the attached drawing. If you need any further information, please contact me. Yours very truly, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. · Cameron Minneapolis - Hutchinson ~ Alexandria - Eagan printed on recvcie<l ~ar}~ CI TY of MOUND 534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (672) 472-115~, October 6, 1981 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Manager Public Works Department .Proposed Street Vacations The Public Works Department can foresee no future need for that portion of the west side of Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to the end of Lot i, Block'23, Shadywood Point. There are no utilities in that portion of the right-of-way. The outside corner of Leslie Road adjacent to Lots 7,8,9,14,15 & 16, Block 21, Wychwood could be vacated but we will have to keep it entirely on a utility ease~ent. It contains sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water main. Respect fully, Public Works Director RS/ich -7 1"'-7 J).J LF__SLIF_ t _ I · Continental Telephone of l/,inne ota. Inc. South D ...... P. O, Box 25~ 2365 Commie,'ce Boulevard Mound Minne$olo 5536,~ (~12) 472-8865 October 6, 1981 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Attention of Mr. Jon Elam Subject: Street Vacations Dear Mr. Elam: Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota has no objection to your proposed vacation of the outside corner of Leslie Road, adjacent to Lots 7, 8, 9, 14, 15 and 16, Block 21, Wychwood. We have no facilities located on this right-of-way and cannot see any future needs. Three Points Boulevard from Glen Elyn to end of Lot 1, Block 23, Shadywood Point, is a different story. We have three existing buried cables located in this right-of-way. This is part of our underwater route across Lake Minnetonka that feeds the North Shore. We need to retain this route. Yours truly, District Engineer RSB/mj s xc. George Kraemer Dave Penney 'h APPLICATION FOR VAP,_IANCE ' 'NAME -OF' - -'-:'-. _- APPLICANT FEE $ j~3'-. ~O ZONING /~"~ / RTY ADDRESS 17 - PARCEL B ~OC~ Telephone Numbe r___~ ~-2 '~ 727ADDITION FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s Te le phone Number VA R3_ANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement FT.[ in relation to lot lines, other buildings I on property and abutting streets. 2_. Give ownership and dimensions of [ ] adjoining property. Show approximate LOT SIZE FT. locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request. 0 -'Co ,,,vcco orS' ~/,oc../~ ,'-g--O (2DtL?-tO,'~ ~t::: FRONT YARD ACCESSORY B UI LDING [ SIDE YARDI FT.] I i LOT SQ. i N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution 9r variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are ~ansferabl.~/'~,.~..z__ _ ?//~ Z/fl APPLICANT( .-~'~J~"~-~/'~'~''z'~'''~ x.--- i DATE , _ / /- Signature PLANNING COM1VIISSIOIqPRECOMMENDATION Approving the center 1 ine of vacated Ayr Lane becoming the property line so far as establishing a side yard setback on Parcel C, Registered Land Survey 1545. DATE September 28, 1~81 COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non-conforming use Z / ,' APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF MOUND APPLICANT INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE $ ADDRESS ~ T ~ZfF~ P A a C m L P LOT ~/~ BLOCK Tele phon~/~ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s Telephone Numb e r CE REQUESTED: ~RO~T t~ Z'~ I ACCESSORY YARD /' ~' FT. ] B~LDING NO T E: .FT.I YARD . FT. LOT SIZE FT'I FT.] LOT SQ. OOT^O / 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relati,)n to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets, Z_, Giw ~ownership and dimensions of adjoinin; locatiom and stre by extem 3. Atta( prope rty~ request. property. Show approximate of all buildings, driveways, ~ts pertinent to the application ting survey or drawing. :h letters from adjoining affected owners showing attitude toward C. U.* or ~HER (describe)~.,~/~/~_./',~//~ REASON FOR REQUEST: coanqil-resolution or variance grantS, comes A building permit must be applied for within one Year from the date of the n~ll and void. t DATE PLANNING COMMISSIOI~RECOMMENDATION stipulated on the application deficiency. Approval of the variance request as recognizing the existing side yard DATE September 28,,1981 COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. ;:-'non- conforming use ,Of = ~,i :oI~OS · ~%us~qopo~ou~ ~o S~uozoAoJd"J~ ~q~o aoqs ' %i 'uo~sq~ sJu!pi!nq 3u!%s.~'~ II~ jo uo!%~ooI sq% : : oS$ ml~ .IICAT ON FI I SUBDIVI~ION OF LAND FEE OWNEI I l JlOund PLAT .37730 PARCEL 071' Locahon an( ,~ eription of pti I~ y to be divided: ~!mlll !ilncl. Block I Arden ZONING A-) To be d~wde illlllilliS Lot t~ divided ilto two parts (each q0 feet by.80 e ) IJ~ mi II!1 ' ~y or scale . a ~g showing adj acent streets, dimensio~ of proposed [~I ~11 ~ ~ i L square foo i, of each new p .... I designated by number) . A WA'VE" '~ ij Il ~ ~ESTED FOR~ New Lot No. !llll Il Ill ~1 From SqL ,re feet TO Square feet Jl III! ~ ~lml i I, NT i TEL. NO. Isignature DATE Appliceot's i I~ Jy: :Jim lam mt,~,i, i,oot the ii i PLANNI< CIrlltII' "ENDATION-' App.oval Ilillllm!mt' ,,~tm~! ~ DATE September 28, I,! ' COUNCIL AC DATE ill; ~IIIIII, Ec AL ASSES~ I DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY ITS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION JJJ"lll~ao AND THE NE~1 ~ARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES ;idents and of property within feet must be ettached. _OAFTON J? 6, ' ,~4 I,, MANC~ This block is oll ROAD MOUND m SPRING PARK MINNETRISTA ~ NAVARRE westonka area chamber commerce September 11, 1981 GREETINGSI~! Your Chamber of Commerce is alive and well[ 1981 has been a very eventful year. The most exciting thing as a community event was our "First Annual Citizen Of The Year" Dinner, honoring Mr. Jim Richardson. Your Chamber has been very active in participating with city councils in the many prob- lems that have occurred (i.e. road construction). Because of the projects and ideas from the First Annual Retreat, it was very apparent that your Board should proceed in hiring a professional Executive Secretary. This person will enable us to put in action the ideas the members decided upon. Your Board of Directors has established a budget for 1982 based upon the above guidelines. Enclosed you will find a statement reflecting the annual dues that the Board of Directors feels is fair. Because of the overwhelming response from the membership, the Westonka Chamber of Commerce, Inc., will be hiring an Executive Secretary in the ver~ near future. We will be able to solve many of the Westonka problems that, heretofore, have been left unanswered. If you have any questions, call Jim French at 472-2929. Sincerely, Sharon Gross, secretary POST OFFICE BOX 426 · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 MOUND · SPRING PARK . MINNETRISTA INAVARRE 1982 MEMBERSHIP westonka area chamber commerce SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT The undersigned hereby subscribed to membership in the WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. and agrees to invest the sum of $ o~°-~-° annually. It is also understood and agreed this membership will be automatically renewed unless notice to the contrary is given, in writing, PRIOR TO THE ANNUAL DATE OF RENEWAL. This application is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. The annual membership term is January 1 through December 31. Please make your check payable to the WESTONKA AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INC. and mail to: P.O. BOX 426 MOUND MN 55364 THANK YOU. Firm Name Contact Person Address City Zip Telephone # POST OFFICE BOX 426 · MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 Mayor Rock Lindlan 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor Lindlan: I am writing to you about the fact that one of Mound's representatives to the West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, Connie Stahlbusch, has attended only one of the eight Board meetings held during 1981. Because of her poor attendance, we would appreciate it if Mound would find a replacement for Ms. Stahlbusch. We be- lieve that it is important to have each member municipality fully represented in the decisionmaking process. We would be happy to assist you'in finding another representa- tive to our Bo%rd from Mound. Enclosed is a job description for Board members. Please contact me if you would like assistance or want more information. Marcy Shapiro Executive Director cc: Jon Elam, City Manager Connie Stahlbusch CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT (If an organization, ~ve!.organiz~tion name) Address I~' I..[ [~' 'q'~'kJ~_~_ l ~.~ Phone' No. ~-./~ Bingo Manager (Name) ~, ~-~_><tL{ ,, ~ ., o Dates and Hours Bingo will be played (Attach separate sheet~f more room necessary) *Note: Fidelity Bond:' (a) Amou inimum $10,000.) (b). Name of Bonding Company (c) ExpiratiOn Date of Bond Fraternal-, religious, veteran an~ other non-profit organizat'ion's may request the Bond t~ be waive~. Please. indicate below if you are making such a request'[ Request fee and bond be waived. LMC9 LAKE 402 EAST LAKE STREET MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-?033 FRANK MIXA. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARDMEMBERS Orono Edward G. Bauman. Vice Chairman Jerry Johnson. Secretary Excelsior Spring Park Robert T Brown Greenwood U~nnetrista Orval R. Fenstad Mound R~chard J. Garwood Oeepnaven Lois C. Johnson Robert S MacNamara Robert P Rascop David F Nixon Robert K Pillsbury Mlnnetonka ! E SIocum R~chard J. Soderberg Victona TO: DATE: iSUBJ: Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, c/o John E. Derus, Chairman Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, c/o David H. Cochran, President Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, ¢/o Salisbury Adams; Chairman October 5, 1981 Resolution re Sludge, Hazardous or Other Solid Waste Landfills The attached Lake Minnetonka Conservation District resolution expresses its opposition to the location of any sludge, hazardous or other solid waste dump site in the Lake Minnetonka drainage area. After spending many millions of dollars installing the Metro sewer system and closing all of the dumps in the Lake drainage area during the past 20 years, it is inconceivable that anyone would consider opening new and much larger 'facilities which could pollute Minnesota's most valuable water recreational resource. Instead, it is hoped that responsible agencies will direct their efforts toward finding suitable alternative disposal methods. The District, through the adoption of Resolution 37, wishes to encourage those agencies to resist potential further pollution of the area by finding a better way. Sincerely, · LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT · ~9~natf ~,; Pa~r~? ~ Eric. cc: LMCD Member Municipalities Minnesota Waste Management Board LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution No. 37 A RESOLUTION REGARDING DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE, SLUDGE, HAZARDOUS OR OTHER SOLID WASTE IN LANDFILLS IN THE LAKE MINNETONKA DRAINAGE WHEREAS various agencies of the state and counties are in the process of selecting landfill sites; and WHEREAS some consideration may be given to locating one or more of these sites within the Lake Minnetonka drainage basin; and WHEREAS many old landfill sites remain in the drainage area; and WHEREAS these dump sites remain unmonitored and unreported; and WHEREAS many old sewage sludge ponds remain from sewage plants close~ in the past; and WHEREAS these ponds remain unmonitored and unreported; and h~EREAS the Maple Plain Sewer Treatment Plant is still discharging effluent into the Lake Minnetonka drainage area; and WHEREAS this problem could be easily remedied by diverting the discharge into its own watershed; and WHEREAS local sewage collection systems in the drainage area have not been completed; and WHEREAS many septic systems in the drainage area remain unmonitored; and WHEREAS the placement of such potential pollutants into the drainage area would further burden an already overladen Lake; and WHEREAS the location of such landfill sites in the Lake Minnetonka drainage area would violate the LMCD Code: 5.03. GENERAL PROHIBITION. Subdivision 1. Polluting Waters. No person shall pollute the surface waters of the district by placing or depositing or by permitting to be placed or deposited in, or upon said waters or upon any public or private property from which may run into said water any sewage, industrial waste, garbage, rubbish or other waste. and ' WHEREAS the location of such landfill sites in the Lake Minnetonka drainage area would.violate the Special Laws of Minnesota for January 30, 1889: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Resolution No. 37 - Page 2 Section 1. No person or persons shall polute (sic) or defile the waters of Lake Minnetonka by depositing therein any sewage, foul, noxious, putrid or offensive substances or liquids. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The District is opposed to the introduction of pollutants into the Lake Minnetonka drainage area by creating new landfills or by any other means; 2. The District will oppose such contamination of Lake Minnetonka with every means at its disposal; 3. The District will be happy to continue to assist in locating proper disposal sites; and 4. The District'wishes to encourage those agencies responsible to direct their study toward other alternative disposal methods. Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors this 23rd day of September , 1981. Attest: ~q~or~a~ W,//P~ur~u~,~ C~h~ir~n~an MI(}I[TY BIG EGO TRIP ¥O~]K 0~. TI~x A LITTLE mumILl'~ ~U ~ BO'~ MUOB ~ XOU'D BE LIKED school league of minnesota oities October 5, 1981 TO: Mayors, Managers and Clerks of Member Cities FROM: .. Donald Slater, Executive Director~ Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel; Cathy Quiggle, Research Assistant RE: General Revenue Sharing Industrial Revenue Bonds General Revenue Sharin9 President Reagan has proposed a(%~J~)in the general revenue sharing program, which will amount to a loss of $~'5'l~lion in fiscal year 1982. If approvedj this will mean loss of approximately $4 million to Minnesota Cities. It was also disclosed that further cuts may be requested for fiscal year 1983, leading to possible phase-out of the program entirely by fiscal year 1984. These proposals, if carried out, will obviously have a disastrous effect on cities' budgets. Concerned city officials should contact their senators and representatives to urge continuation of this program at its present funding level. It is important to stress the fact that revenue sharing is a three-year entitlement program, and thus should not be subject to annual funding review within the three-year period. If funding is to be reduced, the legislation governing the revenue sharing program must be changed first. Senator David Durenberger is a member of the Senate Finance Committee which will be involved in reviewing the general revenue sharing program, should the legislation need to be amended. Should the funding be reduced without amending the legislation the support of Representative Martin Olav Sabo, a member of the House Appropria- tions Committee, will be very important. Again, it is crucial that city officials contact their two senators and repre- sentative to oppose any cutback in the general revenue sharing program, em- phasizing especially the entitlement ~eature of the program. II. Industrial Revenue'Bonds Congress has been considering enacting limitations on the use of industrial revenue bonds for some months. The likelihood of major new restrictions was increased recently when President Reagan announced that his administration (OVER) 300 hanover building, 480 oedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 (612] 222-2861 -2- would be proposing IDB restrictions as a federal revenue-raising measure. It is not yet clear what limitations the President will endorse - the specifics are being worked out by the Treasury Department and should be available in several weeks. In any case, widely varying rumors concerning IDB's are flying fast and furious. Some people have said that federal legislation will soon be introduced that would effectively halt any IDB project unless it had been formally approved by a city as of October 1, 1981 (or some other imminent date). This rumor, and ones like it, have been vigorously discounted by the National League of Cities lobbyist working with this issue. ACcording to NLC, all indications from key Treasury officials are that any restrictions to be imposed will be prospective. The type of "grandfather" and transition provisions that caused problems in the recent legislation restricting mortgage revenue bonds will probably be avoided. Our advice to Minnesota cities now is as follows: 1) No one really knows now what kinds of restrictions will be enacted or~.when they will take effect. 2) If your city is considering an IDB proposal, you are best advised to proceed as you normally would in evaluating and'approving an IDB project. ~Do .not act at the expense ofcareful decision-making as to whethe~ the project is an appropriate Use for tax-exempt financing in your city. -If IDB's aren't completely eliminated and there is a rash of hastily conceived projects our position'with the State Legislature on this issue will not be improved. 3) If you are concerned about your city's ability to continue to use IDB's, contact your Congressman, Senators, and the President. PrOvide specific information as to'worthwhile projects which would not be possible'without 'IDB's. DAS:PF:CQ:rmm TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Downtown Advisory Committee Rob Chelseth, City Planner October 7, 1981 Agenda for Next Meeting (October 19th) and Minutes of October 5th Attached please find a copy of the Minutes from .our most recent meeting. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee (DAC) has been scheduled for two (2) weeks in advance on Monday, October 19th, 12:00 Noon at Branty's. (No meeting scheduled on October 12th due to Columbus.Day Holiday) A one hour meeting has been planned on October 19th, so please mark your schedule. Please note a group picture for publication in our press release is planned for 12:00 Noon sharp, so please arrive as close to noon as possible. AGENDA - OCTOBER 19, 1981 1. Review Minutes from the October 5th meeting. 2. AdJourn to the outside for a group photo. 3. Readjourn for a report from the Chief of Police on crosswalk locatlons on County Road 110. 4. Discussion of results from the survey of downtown businesses. 5. Preliminary results from the land use survey. 6. Other business. See you on October 19th. Ninutes - Downtown Advisory Committee - October 5, 1981 12 noon at Branty's Present: Paul Pond, Ron Norstrem, Georgiann Daly, Dave Willette, Pete Ward, George Stevens, Orv Huseby, Ron Carlson Also present: Gerry Longpre,,Mary Campbell, Jon Elam, Clayton Nolby, Rob Chelseth, and Diane Arneson flinutes of three preceeding meetings were approved. Ron Norstrem reported for the sub-committee on streetlighting. He retraced the confusion concerning, selection of fixtures. Ron said the frustration has been getting different answers from.different people. Jon Elam sun~narized: "~It wasn't'a -legal case. It'~'a matter of $7000. The City has authorized the fixture thatyou (the committee) didn't". Elam indicatedla,change_order will result in all poles and fixtures being painted the .same bronze color. He added that purchasing $180,000 worth of new streetlighting has been controversial enough in'the community.~without adding $7000 more. Jon Elam introduced Clayt Nolby, the County's project engineer for the llO project. Nolby reviewed the-work schedule and told about difficulties in satisfying committee recommendations on details of the project. Placement of crosswalks was discussed. The chief-of-police was consulted on the matter, as were some businessmen. Pond inquired whose responsibility crosswalk maintenance and boulevard maintenance is. The contract is for the county 'to install above and the city to maintain them. The Chief of Police will be invited to attend the 12 Oct. meetin~ to review crosswalk placement. It is that week that determination of placement must be finalized. N°lby explained that placement of power poles was determined by N.S.P. and their right-of-way. The setbacks requested by the committee would have cost the city an extra $50,000. "Blowout" of power wires cannot transgress private property lines. Burying the power lines was considered only briefly at the outset of the project. It would reportedly have cost ten times as much (10 x ??) Grass boulevards along llO will be maintained by the city. If anyone would like to plant and care for flowers there, that would be encouraged. Contact Paul Pond. Rob Chelseth summarized his project work for Crookston, MN. The project was larger than Mound's in many resPects'. Additional money, was spent on a consumer survey. Project qualified for federal funds as a community development block grant in the amount,of.S1.4 million. Mound receives ~pproximately $100,000 each year as part of an urban county block grant. The park development at Island Park is an example of how those funds were used. Also low-income housing rehabilitation and winterization/weatherizat~on are uses for this funding.. The county is about to impose a 7% fee for administration of even these meager funds~ Jon Elam: "Whatever you come up with will have to be a homegrown plan. Anyone tying projects to federal money now is asking for a.lot of frustration. Minutes from Oct. a /2 N0rstrem: "Then why are we continuing if there's no federal money?" Chelseth: You have the choice to do something or nothing. Elam: I and the city councll see your-task.as developin~ a reasonable plan and the city will do what we can to implement'it:- B~t we need a plan .first. Then the plan needs a constituency of support. Explore all the possibilities. Don't assume that something won't work. Go after private developer$'~as.a Committee of Ten. That's powerful. Pond said ideas will be solicited from the 'public at 'large. Chelseth started with survey of retail businesses. Survey was-deferred until more responses can be included. Chelseth,will ~get necessary information to sub-committee of-Ward,~ Campbel.1, and.Daly for phoning holders of outstanding surveys. The committee needs press. Pete Ward' and Mary Campbell will-work with Diane Arneson on make-up of press releases. At the beginning of the Oct. 12th meeting the committee wt'll"be photographed for. a news release. ' .... Motion carried to drop members'with three unexcuse~ absences. Norstrem voted no. Motion by Longpre, seconded by Stevens. Pond moved con~nittee membership for anyone who is interested. ~le included names of Mary Campbelt anti,Gerry Longpre in motion. Motion"carried. Norstrem moved and Ward seconded to meet weekly until further notice~ Weekly meetings will convene'Mondays-at Branty'$.at.noon..Motion carried. Chelseth will invite Chief of Police. to next meeting. Pond will inquire whether Jon Elam can attend each week. Adjournment was at 1:45 p.m. Diane Arneson, Secretary WEST TONKA C~BLE TELEVISION CO~ZMITTEE MOU~ CITY HALL MOUND, MN. 55364 October 7, 1981 To Whcm It May Concern, The cities of Mound, Minnetrista, Spring Park and St. Bonifacius have established the West Tonka Cable Television Committee to determine the needs, if any, for the services of cable television within these four cc~amunities. As a result, the cc~amittee is seeking input from organ- izations which may have special needs for 6able services. Enclosed is a questionnaire we would like your organization to complete. In addition we need to know the specific requirements of a cable tele- vision system for your organization. Recognizing that you will probably have more than one request, be sure to rank them in order of priority. The ienclosed questionnaire and your specific needs must be submitted to the West Tonka Cable Television Committee by November 18, 1981 if it is to be considered in the requirements of a West Tonka Cable Television system. If you have any questions concerning the cable system please contact this committee in care of the Mound city offices, 472-1155. Sincerely, Randy Bickmann West Tonka Cable Television Cc~mittee Needs Assessment Committee WEST TONKA CABLE QUESTIONNAIRE L-broadcast Servlces: If it were possible, would your organization like to be able to Transmit data to other locations via cable? To whom? Participate in teleconferencing? Two-way Services: Check the ones your organization would be interested in: Security Monitoring (Alarm Systems) Energy Management Utility Reading Blood Pressure Monitoring __ Voter Registration and Counting Comments: Cc~ununity Broadcast Services: 1. Please specify ready made taped information your organization would like to play on cable for the c~.tiunity: 2. List public meetings your group would like available on cable. Specify if you think a live call-in for questioning from the community would be helpful. 3. List information your organization would like to produce and make available on cable TV for the community. 4. List information your organization would like available on regular basis on cable T~". (over) 5. If the entire metropolitan area cannot be connected as one cable television system, would your c~nmunication needs be better met by: (check one) __ West Tonka being in the same cable system as Edina, Hopkins, Eden Prairie, and Minnetonka. West Tonka being in the same cable system as the city of Minneapolis. West Tonka being in its own cable system with only one channel connected to the region. 6. Rank in order, 1 thru 11, your preference for these services: being the highest) Local church services Round table discussions Religious studies Religious taus ic Public services (school and city events) Senior citizen information High schOol productions, U of M courses Library information School board meetings West Tonka sports (1 RETAIL BUSINESS SURVEY In addition to receiving input from the residents of Mound regarding their shopping habits the views of the city's merchants regarding downtown were ~lso solicited. This was done through a questionaire mailed to City merchants in September of 1981. These surveys were mailed to 54 businesses in Mound which have retail commercial or over the counter sales.' Services and industry were not surveyed. This should be kept in mind when discussing the results. As with the previous consumer survey the results are not and should not be taken to be perfectly accurate. They do however provide a useful indication of the general business climate in downtown Mound as well as information which can be used in forming strategies regarding the downtown's future. Breakdown/Analysis of Survey Results Question #1 was a reference check as to name and address. .not critical to this analysis. The ~esultS are Question #2 provides an indication of the types of retail businesses which are located in Mound. Retail Trade - General Merchandise: 1 Retail Trade - Food: 3 Retail Trade - Apparel and accessories: 2 Retail Trade - Furniture; home accessories, and equipment: 4 Retail Trade - Miscellaneous Retail: 7 Financial Services: 1 Total Surveys returned: 18 Question #3'found that 72.3% of the businesses surveyed rented their building while 27.7% owned the building they occupied. Question #4 yields the average square footage of the businesses in Mound. The average square footage computed from the surveys is 3234 square feet. Question #5 found that 39% of the businesses were organized as corporations, 45% as individual businesses, 11% as partnerships and 5% were organized in other manners. Question #6 and ~7 show that the average number of years in business is 15 years with the average number of years at the current location being 11 years. This is indicative of the stable nature of many of the downtown businesses in Mound. In Question #8 it was found that the average number of full-time employees was 3.6 and the average number part-time employees was 3.9. This indicates a slightly higher reliance on part-time rather than full-time help and is indicative of most retail businesses. Question #9 represents a survey of the general business trends in Mound over the past five years. The results are presented below. Business increasing 78% Business decreasing 11% Business remaining the same 11% The resusts are surprising in light of the national economic conditions but provide a glimpse of the underlying strength of the downtown Mound area. Question #10 addresses the issue of why the business trends.appear as they do. These results are summerized in Table'XII. Specifically 72% of the merchants pointed to the attraction of new customers as helping business while 55% credited advertising and 50% felt that inflation was a factor in determining any downward business trends that have occured in the past 5 years. Ab~ 22% felt that location affected b~siness trends, while 27.6% felt that remodeling and expansion played a role in past business trends. Question #11 outlines the past capital expenditures that Mound merchants have undertaken in the past 5 years. These results are shown in Table XIII. The vast majority of effort has been in improving existing buildings through repairs (38.8%), remodeling (38.8%), new fixtures (44.4%) and adding new equipment (50%) as opposed to the construction of new buildings (5.5%). Question #12 attempts to indicate what capital expenditures are being planned for the next 5 years. These results are shown in Table XIV. Again the majority of effort is expected to ae concentrated on the upgrading of TABLE XII Reasons For Past Business Trends New Customers 72.0% Nearby Competition Advertising 55.0 Location R~modeling 16.6 Additional Manpower Expansion 11.0 Other Inflation 50.0 9.0% 22.0 5.0 16.6 Past Remodeling 38.8% Expansion 16.6 Fixtures 44.4 New Buildings 5.5 TABLE XIII Capital Expenditures Repairs 38.8% Modernization 22.0 Equipment 50.0 Other 0.0 Future Capita)i iiiExpenditures Remodel ing [xpans ion Fixtures New Building [quipment 16.6 33.3 5.5 38.8 Other 11.0 A28 existing facilities through new fixtures (33.3%) or neW equipment (38.8%) as opposed to new construction (5.5%)i~ Question #13 requested the merchants to identify the area in which the majority of their customers lived. The. results are as follows: Mound: 22% ~ ~ Within 5 miles of Maund: 44.4% Within 10 miles of MOund: 38.8% Greater than 11 mi)~$ from Mound: 16.6% It is evident that most of the merchants feel their customers are within a 5 mile radius of downtown Mound. Question #14 provides an estimate of to customers of several of the set an indication of the market area Mound: 51.1% Spring Park: · Minnetieista:: 1( St. Bonifaciou: Maple Plaine Other: 7.6% Over ½ the sales are made to Mound dividing the remainder. These fi. Question #13 which ihdicate most of .t of downtown Mound. It is also indica keep its local residents happy in or~ m The last two questions invited mer, improve downtown. Also general comm~m Table XV indicates the improvements W merchants. The categories which rec( renovation of the store fronts in do~ less utilized buildings to make room which received a number of responses of the downtown area as well as impro general comment most often received percentage of sales which are made communities. This is also to owntown Mound. The results are: :nce: 6. % lents with ~he surrounding communities lack up the lanswers provided in customers are within a 5 mile radius · ,,ed for the downtown to ~eiof the n( to continu( to make st ~egarding iChWere sug! to increase sales. ggestions for actions to downtown were solicited. ested by the downtown ied?the greatest response were the .Own and removal of some of the older ,r more busin~esses. Other categories ~re a change to the traffic patterns )nts in the streetscape. The the downtown merchants is that they Percent of Improv Remodel Store FrO Remove Old Attract More BusJ~ Improve Streetsc Change Traffic Return to on Str~ Coordinated :lng 66.6% 22.2 27.Z 16~6 16.6 5.5 5.5 would like ~o see more cooperat city itself and the downtown cooperative efforts would be a In summary the survey of downtown to be made up of businesses which operated by individuals, and who merchants have seen a generally due to the attraction of new In order to continue this trend capital expenditures in the areas of these businesses are contem on Mound residents for the majorii improvements to the store fronts scape and with the help of the ci strong shopping area. rdinati~n of efforts between the ,. ~ It is felt that these :1 imp. rov ng the downtown atmosphere. shows the downtown area in th area over 10 years, are build rigs from others. These n their sales primarily advert sing. Jnts ha' ildin. sale and are considering, ing and fixtures. Few . These businesses rely land feel that by making li as to'the local street- Mound will remain a Land Use of Downtown Mound The present land use patterns of problems which may exist and po solve these problems. Existing Land Use For the purposes of this study, 1 Single Family Residential, Multi, Service, Manufacturing and Utili Vacant Land areas. These areas map it is evident that within th of institutional land use; pr' land use most notably the Tonka are 4 major areas where commercl Shoreline Blvd. across from Tonk Blvd. and Commerce Ave., on area and along Commerce Ave. at t intersection of Shoreline Blvd. main commercial' area. Residenti. north and south of the primary c Eastern ~ommercial Sector This sector includes the Tonka To area along Shoreline Blvd. and Wi commercial and manufacturing with Wilshire Blvd. This sector inclu( parking areas exist including the as well as the lot at the interse( One multi-family building is Maywood Road south of the bowling along Maywood Road between Wilshi vacant wooded land that is just land fronts on Eden Road. lp to corne ingle Hid of ti live an indication of ~at may bI available to divided into 8 categories: ~l, Commercial (Retail), ~1, Parking areas and n Map #1. From this .rea there are large areas schools, and manufacturing ,reline Blvd. There itrated. !These are at ~rsection of Shoreline . ~uthern border of the study of thelstudy area. The s considered to be the ~ated al6ng Commerce Ave. as well as the shopping main land uses are :stabl ishments along Ces and fire hall. Several lot on Shoreline Blvd. lVd. and '~Cypress Lane. 6f Cypress Lane and reSidences are located Valley Lane. There is residences. This The store fronts of the shoppingI modern while the commercial and classed as Mid 20th Century stri with facades which are historical Northern Commercial Sector This area contains large amounts churches), as well as a single a: along Commerce Ave. The commerc' 'at the northern end along Commer( relatively recent construction. parking provided by each establi end of this sector on Commerce A ments. The existing development to become a neighborhood conveni~ Southern Commercial Secto'r This area is located along section. The primary commercial area with residential, commercial along Commerce Ave. As was the parking is provided by the indivi in this area are characterised as to much of the general res Main Commercial Sector This is the area generally locate~ and Shoreline Blvd. This is the-i and is traditionally known as shoppers in this area. They are Commerce Ave. south of the rai Valu and Coast to~oast stores. commercial there are several serv Also a small residential area is be ldin lracteriz~d as franchise tlong Wi~shire Blvd. are seem tolbe any buildings and use .identia s of shoppi"( ctor is d existi com int (schools and uses.which are s sector are located area is of limited to the at the northern ~ercial establish- nt of this area vd and Easoline sales; maini!commerci al inter- ~hern e~d of the study itutioniL1 uses mixed comme)'ci al sector, · The establishments trip a))d do not relate well area. on of !ommerce Ave. ommerc al establishments king a .~as exist for the ~e Blvd. to the east of he west Of the Super Use in this area is ~he commercial buildings. of the railroad tracks on Lynwood Blvd. The majority of Mid 20th Century strip, however, t facade is still evident. This the bakery, as well as the LongprE of the railroad tracks next to the the parking area west of the store Summary. The downtown study area can be sp' containing differing land use type manufacturing area of the study The northern sector contains prim~ with newly constructed commercial are located within'this sector am The southern sector is spread aloi use'with commercial, residential, The main commercial sector is the majority of parking and their historical character but counterparts. Little Vacant be building space available. area that should receive the for improvement. ~is sect are considered ~ich a storical mt bui ding adjoining land e sts to the north lding md also behind )rcial .ectors each in:ludes the major shopping center. and ~idential areas cels vacant land for purposes. d is area of mixed existi side by sidJ. ,town a contains the )e buil ings ~till hold ~ed by more recent ~ugh th re does seem to ~hoppin! area. It is this devel~ strategies MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF MINNEHAHA Se~ The regular meetJ Minnehaha~Creek Watershed Chairman Cochran at 7:30 Minnesota. Managers Present: Manager Absent: Also present were board Approval of Minutes The minutes of 1981, were reviewed. It w~ versal Land Corporation," be deleted and the word It was then moved by Lehma mihutes be approved as Public Hearing/Proposed 19 Maintenance and Repair Fun President Cochra proposed 1982 budgets of trict at 7:30 p.m. Presid regular meeting the manage required by law for the Maintenance and Repair 1982 budgets available for Cochran stated that notice in legal newspapers as reql President gets, indicating that the tive Fund would levy a district sufficient to rail Cochran explained the used. President Cochran il the Water Maintenance and cient to levy $15,000 in 'law. budge )le pr~ )00 that wo OF 'RICT 17, 1 81, of the .ed to order by :a Cit Hall, Wayzata, ~an, ssell )n .~ep Ma combe r. of page lie the lust 20, under "Uni- ~d" should the reo f. that the )tion carried. and Water and s of had on the ~ed Dis- at the last budgets as the Water proposed President published d the for t~ erty ng ~e d levl ~sed bud- Administra- the 2. President 'unds would be ~d budget for a tax suffi- September 17, 1981 Page 2 Treasurer proposed expenditures and the Water Maintenance plained the proposed use fund. President Cochra~ from any of the members of all comments would be cons~ voting on the proposed raised by the members of President Cochrar of those members of the nection with pending ~ public hearing and then applications. Thereafter posed budgets and act on upon, President Cochran dec 7:50 p.m. Approval of Permit The managers engineer dated September ing applications comply district and recommending as set forth in his writtel Lundgren Bros. ent Ridge," Minn,' Wayzata Evangeli~ age, Hwy 101, P1 Hennepin County Park, CSAH 125, Minnetonka. 81-~ It was moved by Gudmundson going permits be approved conditions recommended by carried. ' J. Johnson - retaining Island, Orono. 80-78 The engineer spected this property to the ~tive budget ~udget ex- balan¢ in each ~tions or comments ~.nt, st that ~agers to ~s or were for convenience ~he me~ ting in con- would close the the ~ permit uss the pro- budge s. There- hear closed at ~dum from the Lng th ~t the follow- stan .ards of the .nd conditions ie, "Cres- grad.ng/drain- truct.on, Spring Bay-Lake to that the fore- Lll terms and ~e the motion lots and 8, Big he had in- the ongoing September 17, 1981 Page 3 construction activity at the owner had repaired the exist advised the managers that the location or other ~ the prior condition. Lehman, seconded by GudmundS to advise the applicant that repair activity based on the property. Upon vote the J. Stanton - grading/draina¢ Street, St. Louis Park. 81' The engineer advi date, grading and drainage p applicant showing compliance was moved by Russell, managers accept the plans the applicant that the the motion carried. State Bank of Long Lake - 81-73 The engineer revie~ submitted and advised the ma fied in his written The engineer also advised place sewer pipe at a on the site. Following seconded by Lehman, that proved as recommended by the condition that the applicant below the pond. Upon vote ti A. Abbariao - dredging, Lot Minnewashta Lake. 81-87 The engineer application subject to the his memorandum. It was move~ that the application be a ~ . mended by the engineer. Upo~ Centurion Co. - grading/drai~ Rd 15, South East Shore of G] The engineer. submitted. It was moved by the grading and drainage pla recommended by the engineer. ,$ lect mot ed that the engineer ~an[ia change in the 11 from it wa moved by lineer be directed ~equir. d for the .d ins'.ection of d Add tion, 26th that, as of this d by the ~equir~ It .at th~ board of ~ineer to advise vote Hwy 1 Long Lake. and d~ plans condi' ions identi- by appl ic ant. there an in- ~e ret~ pond Russell, ~inage )lan be ap- the aC :istin¢ sewer pipe !d. r Cre Addition, of the ident condec the cE carl dredging in by Gudmundson, recom- dential site, Cty i 81-89 the plan as by Russell, that submitted as carried. Page 4 ,iiti i City of Minnetonka - utilit i iresen " (81-48), Minnetonka. 81-90 i~tlll ~H !lllJt BtI!i · ,'.~JilJ JJ~ i, tions numbered .1., ~ and 4 :i.,~ttJlJ:~JJltten/Jmoran~ ~. 'rt was motion carried, ttJJlJJJJ, City of St. Louis'Park - dr,~JJinnehJJa CreE { between CSAH 18 and W. 34th Street. ~!,.J~..~.!!~i JJJJJJ:Jl~.i' i identified a new spoil disp¢/t abov the 1( ~ year flood elevation of the creek and 3/l~ed ap i oval ~ ubject to the condition identified in his/iJl?emor : dun. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudm~i~hat t ~ applJ-ation be ap- proved subject to the conditlM,Jmmend ~ by t~ ~= engineer. Upon vote the motion carrie(W"', D. McConkey - rip-rap, 5175 J~d Cir i e, Gr~ _~nwood, St. Albans Bay-Lake Minnetonka. The engineer reco~~/.~--.--~--.-pprov i'~'~ls~i-- subj~t.=t to condi- tions numbered 1 and 2 in hJ~~n men i andum.I It was moved by Lehman, seconded b~u~, the the a~t)lication be approved subject to the for'~~nditi i s. U~(~n vote the motion carried. JJ lJJJ R. Duvick - "after-tne-fact'lB~Jng wa i , 612(ij Pine Circle, Mound, City of Minnetrista, ~~Bay-L ]e Mint. _=tonka. 81-96 JJJll~ JJ JJJl The engineer advi.,llB ~age : that a retaining wall had been constructed at~ ~l~ ,ert witho% ~ a permit from the district and that -'~1~ .pre 'i ously authorized dredging h~d been placed bel~.~l~ .tai lng wa] l contrary to the condition of the pre~~ ~ued ] ermit.{ The engineer adivsed the managers that, ~]J~ ~ion the r~taining wall, as built, lacks sufficient ~~ iht, rity ~d that if plans had been submitted DrJ~~ ~tru ' ion, ke would not have reco~ended approval. ~~ dis ' ssion,~ the managers directed the engineer to ad~~ ~er ~ f the ]apparent violations of ~he te~s of ~~ ~sly ~ saved ~permit, and to advise the o~er that th~]~~ wou ~ not ~pprove the construction of the retaini, J]~~ bui · . It was moved by Russell, seconded by Gu~un~~ the ~ pplication be tabled Upon vote the motion carrie,~ ~['~ September 17, 1981 Page 5 Schott Corp. - gradin¢ Hwy 12, Minnetonka. 81-99 The engineer grading and drainage plan and recommended approval of additional revisions It was moved by Lehman, cation be approved subject vote the motion carried. City of Wayzata - street an( Glen," riparian to Gleason Cty Rd No. 15 and The engineer revi~ utility approval. The engix sanitary and water utilitie~ sewer plan until a g g been received. The and requested an indication would waive or reduce the d~ The managers indicated that to meet the district's requ: discussion, it was moved by the placement of sanitary the storm sewer plan be and drainage plan. Upon vo~ Lanvesco Corp. - grading/dr~ residential, east of Cty Rd Blvd., Minnetonka. 81-101 The engineer advis~ been received and all conditJ memorandum have been met by Lehman, seconded by proved as recommended by the carried. G. Rosentha~ - grading/draini Center," 15016 Minnetonka Bi' The engineer age plan indicating that the treatment, but that treatment conditions in the adjacent the for 200' N. of that revised by t applicant neer' approval of that .the appli- condi ion. Upon :ructi .n of "Hunter' s inte 'section of f ~r street and appro of the tabl .ng the storm for :he site has the c.ty appeared the board uirement. Bee ma imum effort site. Following by G dmundson, that be pproved, that .pt the grading :ried. .cre ltiunit lth of Minnetonka that ~lans have written It wa moved by ~licatlon be ap- vote the motion senthal Office 8i-i02 grading and drain- ed, would provide under high water pointed out September 17, 1981 Page 6 that the proposal would, face water discharges ~ offsite properties prior to Richard Larson appear on to questions from the that, while there was some quirements, there was a sub~ providing treatment for the site from offsite propertie~ that the property was ad' of the rate of runoff would was moved by Lehman, be approved as submitted that the engineer approve a Upon vote the motion M. Arneson - grading/draina¢ north of Hwy 12 at the exisi tonka. 81-103 The engineer revi~ He advised the managers tha' adequate for low and medium not meet district criteria cause of the low elevation that this site was adjacent the physical constraints of treatment on site that coul¢ Russell, seconded by Lehman~ as submitted subject to the engineer approve the sizing tion. Upon vote the motion Minnehaha Creek Clean Up Norm Crosby appea them that the Boy Scouts portion of Minnehaha Creek thanked Mr. Crosby for his up activities. Minnehaha Creek Watershed The managers disc% district to acquire data district activities in a sufficient balance in the to from !or limJ the Data e cont urvey~ and trati~ for sur- ~ethis from . ~ent marsh· icant responded of ers agreed ~e ' s re- to gained by drai] ing onto the ght the fact area increase t effect. It application 1 condition structure. development Motel site, Minne- and rainage plan. raina, e plan is , but will ~ensi storm be- Le ers noted d and that id the extent of It moved by be approved |ition that the prior to construc- s and advised ~ris from a ~k. ~e managers ~ts in creek clean uisition Fund ~uing need of the Ln connection with :ed that there was fund to create a September 17, 1981 Page 7 Data Acquisition Fund for t manager Lehman offered the adoption, seconded by Russe2 WHEREAS, acquisition activities will be a cont years; and WHEREAS, it is necessa haha Creek Watershed'DiStri pose of paying for making and WHEREAS, the January 1 is sufficient to fund a Acquisition Fund; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 1. The Managers be known as the Minne~ Data Acquisition Fund necessary surveys and with District activiti~ 2. The Treasure directed to transfer t! Dollars ($80,000) from balance in the Administ Creek Watershed Distri( these purposes; and 3. The Treasure~ directed to render and necessary reg of the fund; and 4. The officers ized and directed to sary and appropriate The question was on the were 4 yeas an~ 0 nays as COCHRAN LEHMAN THOMAS RUSSELL GUDMUNDSON iose. g res n d of t AE ~llowi2g discussion, ltion and moved its :tion Dist~ ~ to es .ion F~ and rative ~ershed ;h a fu Di ~ith District~ ict in future tablish a Minn- .nd fOr the pur- .cquiring data; Fund balance District Data' nd to strict ma~ing n connection orizedl and Thousand 1, ~und the Minnehaha !ion Fund for [and appropriate are author- ngces- resolution. and there Septen%ber 17, 1981 Page 8 The Chairman declared the 1982 Administrative Fund The managers discl get for 1982 for the Admini~ it was moved by Russell, budget be adopted by the di~ Fund: 1982 HYDROLOGICAL DATA Stream Gauging Precipitation Recording Monitoring Lake Data Tabulation Groundwater Observation Water Quality Measur ADMINISTRATION Secretarial, Supplies & Insurance Accounting & Auditing Engineering, Permit Engineering, Complaints & Legal Services Managers' Per Diem & Ex Publications Control Structure Operati~ Rules & Regulations Revis~ SPECIAL PROJECTS Upper Watershed Storage Galpin Lake Drainage Other Cooperative Proj RESERVES Contingency ~e serve Litigation Reserve TOTAL 1982 BUDGET ado~ revi )82 ~T the proposed bud- discussion, that the following rative $ 3,200 500 750' 4,000 1,000 5,050 $ 12,000 1,200 4,500 28,000 20,000 25,000 7,000 2,500 4,500 5,800 $ 50,000 2,000 3,500 $ 2,000 4,000 $186,500 Sel~te~nber 17, 1981 Page 9 Fund Balance 12/31/81 (Est, Less: Fund Balance 12/31/~ Plus: Other Income, 1982 TOTAL AMOUNT Upon vote the motion carried 1982 Water Maintenance and The managers 1982 Water Maintenance and it was moved by Russell, sec following budget be adopted pair Fund for 1982: 1982 WATER MAI Engineering Accounting & Auditing Dam & Control Structure Municipally Initiated C~ Board Initiated Coopera' TOTAL 1982 BUDGET Fund Balance 12/31/81 (i Less: Fund Balance 12/.'. Plus: Other Income, 19~ TOTAL AMOUNT Upon vote the motion carried. Tax_~_~_~Resolution Manager Russell and moved its adoption, RESOLVED, that a mi produce $125,000 be taxable property in Watershed District, and Carver Counties 000 bud, ts 7,425 1,425 4,000! )in $ 61,500 $125,000 ~t for the discussion, the ~ce and Re- $ 2,000 1,000 4,000 15,000 23,000 $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 re: )lution to September 17, 1981 Page 10 for the year of 19 of paying the for the District Minnesota, 1974, The question was on the ado were 4 yeas and 0 nays as COCHRAN LEHMAN THOMAS RUSSELL GUDMUNDSON The Chairman declared the res Tax Levy Resolution/Water Mai Manager Russell and moved its adoption, secon~ RESOLUTION, that a produce $15,000 be taxable property in Watershed District~ and Carver Counties for the year 1982, i~ maintaining a wate~ repair fund for th~ by Laws of Minneso~ The question was on the adopt2 were 4 yeas and 0 nays as COCHRAN LEHMAN '~'HOMAS RUSSELL GUDMUNDSON The Chairman declared the Treasurer' s Rep~Drt The treasurer Fund report dated September attached. Following discuss the b Y Y ~n adop' ce and he fol Lehmal ate su~ upon 3, of as , Cha the adopt ihis mo a co 'was :nses .aws of olution and there )air Fund resolution to ~k Lepin ~e sots, of :ovided ~r 187· .lution and there Administrative of which is by Lehman, September 17, 1981 Page 11 seconded by Gudmundson, that the treasurer's Administrative Fund report dated September 17, 1981, be approved and the bills paid as set forth in that report. Upon vote the motion carried. Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements at West 44th Street Cooperative Pro~ect No. CP-7 The engineer distributed a tabulation of bids received in response to the advertisement for bids for the channel improvement project at West 44th Street in the City of Edina, Cooperative Project (No. CP-7.) The engineer ad- vised the managers that U.D. Contracting was the low bidder and that his investigation revealed that work performed by this contractor for other governmental agencies had been satisfactory. Following discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Gudmundson, that U.D. Contracting be determined to be the responsible low bidder for Project CP-7, that the contract for the work as described in the plans and specifi- cations be awarded to U.D. Contracting, and that the officers of the district be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documents to direct the contractor to commence per- formance of this work. Upon vote the motion carried. Upper Watershed Improvement Project/Painter Creek Work Plan Status Report The engineer distributed the revised cost estimate dated September 14, 1981, and indicated that a public infor- mational meeting had been scheduled by the Advisory Committee to be held October 1, 1981, at 8:00 p.m. at the Independence City Hall with regard to activities within the Painter Marsh area. 1981 Water Maintenance and Repair Fund Allocations/St. Louis Park and Medina The engineer reported that the City of St. Louis Park had undertaken work on the retaining wall previously authorized for water maintenance and repair funding. The engineer reviewed a request from the City of St. Louis Park for modifications to the existing authorizations. The engin- eer recommended rescinding the three allocations previously made to the City on June 18,~ 1981, for retaining wall repair at Edgebrook, creek bank stabilization at the C&NW Railroad Crossing, and dredging at Decatur Lane and, in lieu of the rescinded allocations, recommended approval of 28% of the total construction cost of both the retaining wall and the September 17, 1981 Page 12 dredging project, but not to exceed $3,800. Following dis- cussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Russell, that the allocations be approved as recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. The engineer then advised the managers that the City of Medina had submitted a request for funding culvert re- pair with an estimated cost of $1,488. The engineer recommended approval of a maintenance fund allocation for this project of one half of actual construction costs not.to exceed $744. Fol- lowing discussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Russell, that the allocation be approved as recommended by the engineer. LMCD Proposal for Water Quality Study/"Blue Water" Pro~ect The engineer reviewed a study proposal as outlined in memoranda dated September 3 and September 15, 1981. The managers reviewed the memoranda and discussed the proposed project as outlined in the written memoranda. Following dis- cussion, it was moved by Lehman, seconded by Russell, that the district accept and approve the proposal, the engineer be directed to undertake the project as outlined in the memo- randa subject to and conditioned upon acceptance by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District of the same proposal. Upon vote uhe motion carried. City of Minneapolis Proposal for Minnehaha Creek Study The engineer advised the mangers that a meeting had been.held with City of Minneapolis representatives and repre- sentatives of the Minneapolis Park Board and the Department of Natural Resources with regard to the City's proposal for a study of the hydrologic conditions along various reaches of Minnehaha Creek. Following'discussion, the managers directed the engineer to prepare an outline of the scope of the study, identifying particular reaches of the creek, and to prepare a cost estimate for such a study and return the proposaI to the managers at the next regular meeting. Galvin Lake Petitiqn The engineer reviewed a letter from the City of Excelsior date~ August 21, 1981, requesting participation by the district in a cooperative effort to clean the Galpin Lake drainage system and to act as contracting agent for such work. Following discussion, the managers directed the attorney to investigate the request and to advise the City that the district did not wish to act as the contracting agent for the work, but rather this should be done by the City. September 17, 1981 Page 13 Elm Creek Conservation Commission Petition for Withdrawal of Lands The attorney advised the managers that the Water Resources Board has scheduled.a hearing on the petition of the City of Medina for the withdrawal of certain lands from the district for October 7, 1981, at the Medina City Hall at 7:30 p.m. The managers directed the attorney and the engineer to investigate the facts of the matter and to participate in. the hearing as necessary. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, chairman Cochran declared the regular meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Barbara J. R. Gudmundson Acting SeCretary AGENDA Minnehaha Creek Watershed District October 15, 1981 Wayzata City Hall 7:30 p.m. e Be Call to order; present, absent, staff. Reading and approval of minutes of regular meeting, 9/17/81. Approval or amendment of October 15, 1981 agenda. Hearing of permit applications.  81-65 Universal Land Corporation - grading/ drainage for an 8 lot residential subdivision "Langdon's Landing." Be 81-104 L. Tichy - channel dredging and rip- rap shoreline erosion protection, Priest Bay, Lake Minnetonka. Ce 81-105 Ravenhorst Corporation - grading/ drainage for an office building and parking facilities at 1-494 and Hwy. 12. De 81-106 Stone-Woodruff Pond Improvement Asso- ciation - withdrawal of ground water to fill a type 4 wetland, Stone Road, Minnetonka. Ze 81-107 Duraps, Inc. - grading/drainage and flood plain development for the expansion of an office building and parking facilities, St. Louis Park. 81-108 Bruce Bren Homes - lake setback variance, Lot 3, Block 3, "Bluffs," Mound. Ge 81-109 H. Flippe - rip-rap shore line erosion protection, W. Lake Street, Excelsior, Gideon Bay, Lake Minnetonka. Correspondence. Hearin~ of requests for petitions by public for action by the Watershed District. 10. 11. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney. A. Treasurer's Report -- Mr. Russell. Be Engineer's Report - Mr. Panzer. (1) Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements at W. 44th St., Cooperative Project No. CP-7, Status Report. (2) Upper Watershed Improvement Project, Painter Creek Work Plan Status Report and Cost Update. (3) City of Minneapolis Proposal for Minnehaha Creek Study. (4) MCWD Hydrodata Program Evaluation. (5) Gray's Bay Dam Operational Plan Revision (see Engineer's Memorandum dated August 13, 1981). C. Attorney's Report - Mr. Macomber. Unfinished Business. A. Upper Watershed Gauging. B. District Regulation Revision. New Business. Adj ournmen t. FIRST NATIONAL-SOD LINE CONCOURSE 507 MARQUETTE AVE. EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 3:39-8291 (AREA CODE 612) October 1, 1981 File: Financial Specialists: Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Please distribute to governing body members In times past we've expressed concern about credit markets but the third quarter decline in the bond market has never been equaled. The trade was alarmed about rates going up 1/4 of 1% per week for six or seven weeks running but then tax exempt rates went up 1/2 of 1% per week. 'Used to be that that kind of movement was big in a year. The underlying cause has to be the FED effort to control the money supply and inflation, but the tax exempt market got a triple whammy with reduction of the maximum tax on so-called " "unearned" income, and with tax exempt all- saver's certificates. They've taken tens of billions out of the regular tax exempt bond PREV. WEEK~4.0?% market. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 It proves with a vengeance that the tax-exempt bond market is limited and fragile. If, with innovative and expanded uses, we saturate higher bracket tax exempt investors, interest rates must increase to attract investors from lower and lower tax brackets. The spread between taxable and tax exempt interest rates is narrowing dramatically and if the spread closes all-saver certificates not only won't do much for the "thrifts" but will have destroyed for local governments any advantage from tax exempt financing. The underwriting fraternity isn't so lily-white either. Dealers loudly lament the all-saver's certificates but defend to the limit the unlimited use of tax exempt bonds for housing and industrial loans which also compete with cities, school districts, counties and the states. State and local governments must realize that allowing others to use their tax exemption does increase their own interest rates. Underwriters act as though tax exemption is the very basis for their existence, but businesses will need financing whether or not it's tax exempt. Some marginal industries might not proceed unless their borrowing costs are tax free but in most cases a viable industry will finance its expansion anyway. If every community can finance tax free then none has a peculiar tax exempt advantage. So why give away your tax exempt status? We have some interesting computer programs that might help you, your board, council or commission in making financial decisions. Attached are short descriptions to which we invite your attention and enquiries. We'll be getting out a catalog with more detail but, in the meantime, you might find a good use for them. Meet Neil Johnson, M.S.W., University of Minnesota, joining Ehlers and Associates with ten years experience providing development services to northern Minnesota communities, most recently with the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission. Mr. Johnson brings special expertise in putting together indus- trial development and redevelopment projects. Very truly yours, ~~rsEHLER POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 WAYNE G ROPHAM RAYMOND A HAIK ROGER W SCHNOBRICH DAVID S. DOTY ~OLFE A. WORDEN G MArC WHITEHEAD BRUCE D. WILLIS F~EDE~ICK 5. ~ICHA~D~ ~OBE~T ~. BU~K ROBERT E. HAMEL . FREDERICK C. B~OWN BRUCE D. MALKE~ON ~AME~ ~. 5TEILEN GARY E. RARtSH . ALLEN w. HINDERAKER CLIFFORD M. GREENE D. WILLIAM I~AUFMAN DESYL I. PETERSON MICHAEL O. ~REEMAN LEE E. SHEEHY Hearing Ex~-~ner Room 300 1745 University Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 October 2, 1981 TELEPHONE AND TELECOPIER DENVER OFFICE s~660 ENERGY CENTER DENVER. COLORADO 802OZ TELEPHONE AND TELECOmlE~ 303~825-2660 Re: In the Matter of the Recommendation by the Director to Certify Proposed Solid Waste Disposal Sites in Hennepin County as Intrinsically Suitable -- Site M -- City of Minnetrista Dear Ms. Rhea: This office represents the City of Minnetrista. Set forth in this letter is a summary of the reasons why Site M in the City of Minnetrista is not intrinsically suitable for a solid waste disposal site. Also enclosed for your review are the detailed analysis of the intrinsic suitability factors for Site M by Donahue and Associates, Inc. (Donahue) _anOther, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Inc. (BRW) (Exhibit A) and a e~~ ~----~t~n the imj2Q~--ta~c~e of Site M for agriculture purposes ~x~'O--h~it B), and ~r~f the location of the floodplain of a stream within 300 fe~ Site M (Exhibit C) by Tom Link, the City's Planner, and a copy of a resolution adopted by the neighboring City of Orono in opposition to the selection of Site M (Exhibit D). As you may recall, at the hearings on September 23, 1981, Mark Norgaard of Donahue and Don Hunt of BRW summarized the reasons why Site M is not intrinsically suitable. They indicated that the detailed analysis would be filed with you which is embodied in Exhibit A. At the hearings Mayor Gen Olson testified as to the importance of Site M for agriculture purposes. Tom Link, the City Planner, has set forth a more detailed analysis of that argument in Exhibit B. POPHAM, HAIK. SCHNOBRICH. KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2, 1981 Page Two I respectfully ask you to be sure to read Exhibits A and B in their entirety. We did not present all of the infor- mation contained therein at the hearing in order to limit the length of the hearing, especially since the review of Site M did not start until 1.0:30 p.m. that evening. I. Site M is not intrinsically suitable because the ground water is not protected by an acquiclude and the municipal drinking water supply would be adversely impacted. Step 12 in the Flowchart asks "Is ground water protected by an aquiclude?" Assuming arguendo that an aquiclude is correctly defined by MPCA staff as "a layer of relatively ~m~permeable material that is capable of absorbing water slow~ but functions as an upper or lower boundary of an aquifer and does not transmit gound water rapidly enough to supply a well or spring" (See Attachment 3), Site M fails to meet that test. At the hearings, Bruce Nelson, MPCA hydrologist, testified that the aquiclude must be naturally present at a site in order to be intrinsicallY suitable. The information previously submitted by Hennepin County to the MPCA upon which the Director relied in making the preliminary recommendation, did not include the unrebuttable proof submitted by Donahue at the hearing and found in greater detail on pages 5, 6, 7, 11-18 of Exhibit A which shows that there is no aquiclude protecting the ground water and most importantly there is no acquiclude protecting the Jordan and Franconia Sandstone ~cquifers which supply the drinking water through municipal wells to the City of Minnetrista and the City of St. Bonifacius, immediately adjacent to Site M, and to many other cities in the Twin City area. On information and belief, the lack o~ such an aquiclude resulted in the MPCA director's decision thatV~wo sites in the City of Maple Grove recommended by Hennepin County were not intrinsically suitable. On information and belief, this lack of an aquiclude is not present for any of the remaining sites. As explained by Donahue, there is no acquiclude in this area because the pre-glacial river channels were eroded down to the Franconia Sandstone. This is new information which was not available previously to the MPCA staff or Director. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBrlCH, KAUFmAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2, 1981 Page Three Therefore, Site M does not comply with flowchart Steps 12 and 10 since the drinking water supply for several cities will be adversely impacted. II. A/though Site M may technically satisfy other steps in the Flowchart, the overall failure of Site M to satisfy the steps the intrinsi.c ~uit- with any degree of margin for error, results in ability of Site M. The document titled "Intrinsic Suitability Flowchart for Solid Waste Disposal Facililties" states on page 2: "As illustrated by the diagram, the intrinsic suitability of any site is dependent upon a number of complex variables and as such does not represent an absolute condition. Rather, it is more like a continuum ranging from barely suitable on one end to eminently suitable on the other. W~ere a site lies on this continuum depends upon natural conditions plus the number and extent of resolutions required to qualify for certification. A site with natural attributes to move directly through the diagram would be much more suitable than one which required a number of resolutions. Sites whiCh have natural conditions requiring unique or unconventional engineering would be considered intrinsically unsuitable." The clear intent of this process is to exclude any site from further eligibility which barely meets several of the criteria based on natural conditions occurring at the site or which requires unique or unconventional engineering. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, Site M fails this test. A. Assuming arguendo that Site M may technically meet the criteria related to wetlands, streams, lakes and watercourses, it clearly does not meet the spirit and intent of those criteria. In the past 10 years, pursuant to MPCA mandate, all of the municipal sewage treatment plants (except one) which discharged into Lake Minnetonka have been eliminated at great expense to the general taxpayer. The objective was to ensure that eventually POPHAm, HAIK,SCHNOBRiCH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2-, 1981 Page Four Lake Minnetonka would achieve an acceptable level of water quality since it is a prime recreational asset in the Twin City area and directly affects the ground water supplies of the area. Nearly all of the natural surface water runoff from Site M is to Lake Minnetonka and the Minnehaha Creek watershed. (Exhibit A, pages 4, 5, 18, 19, 20) Although Site M is not less than 1000 feet from a lake, pond or flowage, it is adjacent to Whaletail Lake, a proposed regional park, and is upstream from and an integral part of the watershed tributary to ~ake Minnetonka. Although Site M is less than 300 feet from a stream, the runoff from Site M will quickly be discharged into Six Mile Creek and Lake Minnetonka. Site M is within 300 of a stream as it has been defined by the Department of Natural Resources and applied by MPCA in adopting Minn. Rule SW-6. In the Report on the Director's Proposed Recommendations, the MPCA has stated that the source of MPCA staff's interpretation of the term "stream" is the Shoreland Management Act, Minn. Stat. §§105.485 et seq. (1980) and the rules promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) thereunder. (Page 4 of the Report) Minnesota Statute §105.485, Subd. 2(a)(1980) provides in part: "(2) land within 300 feet of a river or stream or the landward side of a flood plain delineated by ordinance on such a r~iver or stream, whichever is greater." (See p.' 5 of Report and p. 2 of letter of August 18, 1981, to Allan Klein from Barbara Simms on file with the hearing examiner's office.) Within 300 feet of Site M, there is the landward side of a flood plain delineated by ordinance No. 41 of the City of Minnetrista which was adopted in 1971. The above statutory language and its application by the DNR clearly intends that any portion of a flood plain of a river as designated by the POPHAM, HAIK, SCFINOBIqlCH, KAUFMAN & DoTY, LTD. Ms. Phyll_is Rhea October 2; 1981 Page Five ordinance of a city is equivalent to a strea~~termination of the 300 foot setback rule. The attach~report_3~f the City Planner (Exhibit C) shows that the design~t~c~~d plain of Six Mile Creek is within the 300 foot setback as defined by City ordinance No. 41, a copy of which is found as .Appendex E of Exhibit A. Therefore, Site M violates step 2 of the flow chart and is not intrinsically suitable. The 100 year floodplain does not include Site M, but it is immediately adjacent to the 100 year floodplain of Whaletail Lake. The proposed active fill area of Site M is not within a classified wetland, but.it is clearly within a wetlands transition zone which has been altered from its natural wetland state because of the 15,000 - 20,000 feet of drain tile draining Site M. The conclusion that Site M is a former wetland and would revert to one without the drain tile is further supported by the fact that there are near surface water tables, the 23 acre wetlands on site, and adjacent wetlands off site. (Exhibit A, pages 4, 5, 18, 19, 20) The above factors are an integral part of the analysis of intrinsic suitability, since a failure to meet any of them automatically leads to "stop" on the flowchart and results in the intrinsic unsuitability of Site M. Although arguably Site M may technically comply with steps 1-6 of the flowchart, it barely does so as to 5 of the 6 steps, and on a continuum and overall, Site M has such troublesome topography, geology, hydrology and soils as discussed in more detail in Exhibit A, ~Site M is not intrinsically suitable. B. Although other concerns arguably may be solved by site modifications, the modifications would require unique or unconventional engineering or governmental actions. 1. Not only is Site M less than 1000 feet from ~ highway or occupied dwelling, six homes are within Site M, five of which would be 1000 feet of the active fill area; an additional three homes along Highway 92 would also be within 1000 feet of the proposed active area. (Exhibit A, p 4) Therefore, at least six homes would have to be acquired. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2~ 1981 Page Six Moreover, as discussed infra, many more homes in the City of St. Bonifacius would be adversely affected by the haul trucks which would violate MPCA noise standards. 2. The wetlands on and adjacent to the site would be impacted during development because of the need to install runoff control dams. Most importantly, the runoff will adversely impact the quality of water in Lake Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek which it supplies. In order to bypass the densely residentially developed area in the City of St. Bonifacius along the existing haul route, an expensive new road would have to be built on the east side of that City which would cross over Six Mile Creek and through major wetlands in that area. (Exhibit A, p. 18, 19, 20) 3. Because of the poorly drained soils on Site M, 15,000 to 20,000 feet of field tile currently drain Site M and would be disrupted by the landfill operations. Such disruption would create significant drainage problems. (Exhibit A, p. 5) The increase in surface water runoff from Site M would exacerbate the present flooding problems in the urban areas of the City of St. Bonifacius. (Exhibit A, p. 5) 4. As discussed in section I. above, there is no aquiclude to protect the Jordan and Franconia Sandstone acquifers which supply municipal water to many cities. Moreover, the lack of an aquiclude and the porous soils in the area will result in possible pollution of the ground water supply which is capable of being withdrawn at a sustained yield of greater than one gallon per minute (Exhibit A, pages 5, 6) and which supplies at least 23 wells within 1/2 mile, and 45 wells within one mile. 5. Because of the unique nature of the subsoils and lack of an aquiclude, it is submitted that the amount of engineering and groundwater monitoring would be unique, unconventional and extraordinary, especially in comparison to the other sites. III. Site M is not intrinsically suitable because the landfill operation on Site M will result in violation of other state standards. POPHAM. HAIK, SCHNOBRICH, KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2, 1981 Page Seven A. The noise generated by the trucks hauling refuse to Site M will violate MPCA noise standards within the adjacent City of St. Bonifaci~us. "Certification is an indication that the site will likely .be able to weather the more intensive scrutiny of subsequent hearings and evaluations." (Intrinsic Suitability Flowchart for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, p. 3) Because the MPCA cannot and should not issue a permit for the operation of a landfill site which will result in a violation of its own noise standards, Site M is not intrinsically suitable. This conclusion is not based upon the generalized statements of individuals who are opposed to the presence of a landfill because additional trunk traffic in an area will create additional unwanted noise. BRW has completed a thorough analysis of the projected truck traffic noise levels and has concluded that under any of three different projected truck traffic levels, MPCA noise standards (NPC-2) will be violated. (Exhibit A, Transportation Evaluation p. 1-15). This is the case because of the unique topography of the haul road through the City of St. Bonifacius with its steep grades which cause the otherwise unexpected excessive generation of noise by truck traffic. BRW's analysis is thorough and unrebuttable. This is new information which was not available previously to the MPCA staff or Director. BRW has reported that a possible solution to the violation of state noise standards would be the construction of an eastern bypass road over Six Mile Creek, through wetlands and prime agriculture land. Obviously, such a solution involves unique and unconventional engineering. Moreover, the construction of a county roa.~-~a City necessitates prior city approval pursuant to Min~a Statutes. Given the City's long history of preservation of wetlands, approval should not be anticipated. Any destruction of wetlands and crossing of a stream may also be in violation of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act, M.S. 116 B.01 et seq; Freeborn County by Tuveson v. Bryson, 297 Minn. 218, 210 N.W.2d 290 (1973). POPHAM. HAIK. ,SCHNOBRICH. KAUFmAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2; 1981 Page Eight B. Historic and archeological sites which should be protected are located adjacent to and perhaps within Site M. Hennepin County did not report the presence of any historic or archeological sites within or adjacent to Site M. At the request of the City of Minnetrista, the Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the area and has indicated the presence of several prehistoric burial mounds adjacent to and possibly within Site M. Moreover, because of the presence of low lying areas on Site M that could have been lakes or wetlands with habitable shorelines in prehistoric times, there is a high probability that additional historic or archeological sites could exist within Site M. (See Exhibit A, Appendix F, letters of August 26, 1981 and September 9, 1981, to Donohue from the Minnesota Historical Society.) It is the clear intent of the state legislature to protect and preserve such areas. See for example, Minnesota Statutes §138.01 et seq. Moreover, an action to,preserve such historical resources may be brought under the Environmental Rights Act, Minnesota Statutes §l16B.01 et seq; State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84 (1979). IV. Site M is not intrinsically suitable because it violates SW6(1)(g) and is prime agricultural land. SW6(1)(g) prohibits a sanitary landfill in "an area which is unsuitable because of reasons of topography, geology, hydrology or soils." MPCA staff has narrowly interpreted this requirement to include only those factors set forth in the flowchart as steps 7-13. MPCA staff has concluded that problems related to SW6(1)(g) may be solved by non-unique and conventional engineering. (Intrinsic Suitability Flowchart for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities, p. 1,2) There is no authority for such a narrow interpretation. As discussed supra, it is clear that even if Site M meets the technical criteria, it barely does so and the overall topography, geology, hydrology or soils are not adequate to support a finding of intrinsic suitability. POPHAM, HAIK,.~CHNOBRICH. KAUFmAN & DOTY. LTD. Ms. Phyllis Rhea October 2~ 1981 Page Nine MPCA staff will argue of course that all of these concerns can be met by engineering that is not unique or unconventional. However, all of MPCA staff's conclusions are based on the limited information previously submitted by Hennepin County. The detailed analysis by Donahue and BRW shows that the MPCA's prior finding based on limited facts then available is no longer valid. The landfill siting process contemplates that a landfill when completed can be restored to its original use and that agricultural land be avoided. Testimony at the hearing by Mayor Olson and Exhibit B shows that Site M is prime agricultural land. Moreover, testimony at the hearings by others and reports submitted by soil scientists, which are hereby adopted by reference, prove that farm crops can- not grow on a landfill site because of the shallowness of the soil, the lack of ground water retention, etc. Moreover, the Agricultural Preserves Act clearly indicates the legislature's position that agricultural soils should be preserved and used for agriculture. Clearly then, the reference to soils in SW6(1)(g) included the preservation of such soils for agriculture, not landfills. V. Conclusion. Site M is not intrinsically suitable for the reasons outlined herein and discussed in more detail in Exhibits A, B, C and D. Those reasons are: 1. The groundwater and municipal drinking supply are not protected by an aquiclude. 2. Site M is too close to streams, wetlands and lakes. e Site M is within 300 feet of the flood plain of a stream. 4. Site M would adversely affect Lake Minnetonka, its watershed and Minnehaha Creek. 5. Too many homes would have to be condemned. 6. Too many private wells would be adversely affected. POPHAM, HAIK, SCHNOBRICH. KAUFMAN & DOTY, LTD. Ms. Phyll~.s Rhea October 2; 1981 Page Ten 7. The noise generated would violate MPCA standards. 8. There are historic or archeological sites on or adjacent to Site M. 9. Agricultural land would be destroyed. 10. It is not possible to solve the above problems by non-unique and conventional engineering. 11. Although Site M arguable may technically satisfy one or more of the steps in the flowchart, when viewed as a whole on a continuum, Site M fails. An analysis of the detailed evidence submitted by the City of Minnetrista shows that Site M is different from the other sites in many ways and that there is overwhelming evidence by independent professional engineers and traffic planners why Site M is not intrinsically suitable. This evidence was not available at the time of MPCA staff's and the Director's preliminary recommendation. This evidence justifies a new recommendation by the MPCA staff and Director that Site M is not intrinsically suitable or in the absence thereof, such a finding by the independent'hearing examiner. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Attorney for the City of Minnetrista BDM/j f Enclosures cc: Ms. Sims, MPCA (with enclosures) Mayor and City Council, City of Minnetrista (without enclosures) CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Waste Management Act of 1980 directs the Metropolitan Council to inven- tory eligible solid waste land disposal sites in the seven county Metropolitan area. The inventory will include the sites proposed by each of the seven Metropolitan Counties, which must adopt an inventory of four candidate sites. Hennepin County and its consultant have identified 13 potential sites, including a 300-acre site in the City of Minnetrista. Reducing the number of sites from 13 potential sites down to the mandatory four sites for the inven- tory is a lengthy and complex process. The City of Minnetrista is currently faced with the first of many steps or possibly the first and only step in this process, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) site certification of intrinsic suitability. No site in the Metropolitan Counties can be included in the Metropolitan Council's inventory of sites unless the MPCA certifies the site as intrinsically suitable. The proposed landfill site is in Sections 20 and 29, Township 117 North, Range 24 West, Town of Minnetrista, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County refers to this particular site as Site M. The site is bounded on the north by Hyland Road East, on the east by Hyland Road North, on the south by County Road 110, and on the west by County Road 92. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed landfill site. This study is an independent environmental evaluation of the potential effects of developing and operating a landfill at the proposed site in Minnetrista. This environmental evaluation focuses on those criteria most directly related to the site's intrinsic suitability, as defined in the ~luly 13, 1981, State Register. According to this document, these intrinsic suitability criteria are those which relate to "the inherent and natural attributes, physical features, and location of the site." This evaluation also addresses relevant social, economic, aesthetic, and land use factors which may be of value to the City of Minnetrista in future site evaluations. I , i >- ~ r I~ ,,, g =~ BI ~- ,,- , ,ti " ~ t I . ~ ~ . · ~ ~ ~---~ ~-- ~_.-~ .... -; , ~ t~l ...... I I ,a ~ ~ ~' : i' ...... / ~ i ..... ~ ( ~ ] - ~ - ~-' ; ...... _ , ~~.~- ~ ~- _ .... -. ,~ --- ~ , i '-, ~ : - ' . i ~-'/ .... "~ ' : .... ~ ~) (~-- :~ =~ t ' / :' '--:,~z~ ~,~ .... ,-x' t---= --~ ~ ...... ~------ ...... ~Xi ~-~ ~ ~:' I t. ~' ---- ~ -. L 4 '~ ' L ~Z~ . : - ~ , ' , CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS The environmental concerns presented in this section of the report have been developed to address the 13 intrinsic suitability criteria identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's, May 23, 1981, memorandum entitled, "Intrinsic Suitability Flow Chart for Solid Waste Disposal Facilities." A copy of this memorandum is included in Appendix B. Supporting data and dis- cussion are presented in subsequent chapters of this report. Additionally, those aspects of the evaluation which may be indirectly related to the intrinsic suitability determination are also included for consideration. INTRINSIC SUITABILITY EVALUATION 1. Less than 1,000 feet from a lake, pond or flowage? The City of Minnetrista agrees that the proposed site meets this criteria; however, the site is within one-fourth mile of Whaletail Lake and one and one-half miles of Lake Minnetonka. 2. Less than 300 feet from a permanent surface water stream? The City of Minnetrista agrees that the proposed site meets this criteria; however, the site is within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and less than one mile from Six Mile Creek. 3. Within a 100 year flood plain? The City of Minnetrista agrees the site meets this criteria. 4. Within a wetland? The City of Minnetrista agrees that the proposed active fill area of the proposed site as shown in Figure 2.31 of the 1981 Hennepin County Landfill Site Selection Study is not within a wetland. However, the City is concerned with the potential impact on the 23 acre wetland on the proposed site because of its apparent relationship to the surrounding wetland transition zone. The transition zone would be part of the active fill area. The level topography found in significant portions of the proposed site and the fact that nearly all of the tillable acreage on the site is drained by field tile suggest that most of the site is in a wetland transition zone. In some states, though not in Minnesota, the wetland transition zones are protected by regulation because of the hydrologic interrela- tionships between the land surface wetland and the subsurface wetland transition zone. The City of Minnetrista believes that evaluation of wetlands for the intrinsic suitability determination cannot be made solely on the basis of physical orientation to a wetland. This evaluation must also include the wetland's relationship to the surrounding area. As much as one-half of this site (based on site topography) could be considered a wetland transition zone with probable connection to the on-site 23 acre wetland and to the local, shallow, groundwater table system. 5. Would the site present a bird hazard to airports? The City of Minnetrista agrees that the proposed site would not present bird hazards to airports. 6. Is there karst development on the site? The City of lVlinnetrista agrees that the site meets this criteria. ?. Less than 1,000 feet from a park, highway, or occupied dwelling? Six residences are within the boundaries of the proposed site. Five would be within 1,000 feet of active fill area of the landfill. An addi- tional three residences along Highway 92 on the western boundary of the site would also be within 1,000 feet of the proposed active area. 8. Wetlands or public waters would be impacted during development? Although surface water runoff can be a fairly routine and quantifiable landfill design parameter, there are several specific concerns related to the proposed site. Perhaps the most important is the fact that Lake Minnetonka is the primary water body receiving surface water runoff from the proposed site. Both the state and local governments have expended considerable' effort in evaluating, and preserving the water quality .of Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the importance of evaluating the nutrient, sediment, and hydrologic contribution caused by a watershed alteration such as a landfill operation cannot be overemphasized. Typically, landfill designs include development of some type of surface water drainage control features to minimize site development and opera- tional problems and to reduce the generation of landfill leachate. Com- pacting of cover material, sloping, ditch construction, and covering with vegetation are several typical techniques. These site modifications will increase the volume of surface water runoff from the site. The per- centage of surface water runoff is expected to increase to 60 or 70 percent of the precipitation during construction and operation of a landfill as opposed to the existing runoff of about 40 percent. While a more detailed hydrologic study of the proposed site would be required to determine surface water runoff generation, it is estimated that runoff from an operational landfill for any rainfall event would increase by 75 percent. The hydrologic, nutrient, and sediment characteristics of the landfill runoff actually reaching Lake Minnetonka can vary, depending upon the operational procedures of the landfill and the amount of treatment provided in upstream wetlands or retention basins. The impact of the proposed landfill on water quality in Lake Minnetonka would require a detailed hydrologic and nutrient budget analysis. 4 Approximately 150 acres of wetland, including the 23 acre wetland on the proposed site, could be impacted by development of the proposed land- fill. The extent of these impacts would depend upon specific site design and drainage plans; however, some of the wetlands would apparently be impacted by watershed alterations required to manage or retain increased surface water runoff. These alterations may include measures such as ditching, widening of existing watercourses and retaining surface water runoff in wetlands by inst~lling flow control dams. Any of these measures would be inconsistent with the City of Minnetrista's wetland ordinance which expressly prohibits development in wetlands. According to this ordinance, any development that affects a wetland is prohibited unless a variance is issued by the City. Are there erosion, drainage or other natural processes occurring in the area that could lead to problems at the site or site failure? Because of the poorly drained soils, 15,000 to 20,000 feet of field tile currently drain nearly all of the tillable land on the proposed landfill site. Disruption of this drainage tile system resulting from the develop- ment and operation of the landfill could create significant problems with drainage. The 12 inch culvert which drains excess surface water and groundwater from the site under County Highway 92 has been reported to be ob- structed. 'A considerable volume of standing water near the point of site discharge indicates the inability of the existing tiles to carry current site runoff. Recurrent flooding problems occur in the urban areas of St. Bonifacius adjoining the intermittent drainage ditch which carries runoff from the site. Increased volumes of runoff generated at an operational landfill site would likely aggravate this flooding problem. 10. Would drinking water supply reservoir be impacted? The City of Minnetrista maintains through its site evaluation that the proposed site could have an adverse impact on the groundwater supply reservoirs of the area. Four primary groundwater supply reservoirs, or aquifers, are extensively used as potable water supplies. Water users both on-site and in the local area have wells which penetrate the glacial drift aquifer and the Jordan, the Franconia, and the Hinckley sandstone aquifers. 11. If present, is groundwater: Co A water supply? Capable of being withdrawn at a sustained yield of one gallon per minute? Recharging to another aquifer? The City of Minnetrista has thoroughly investigated the groundwater hydrology of the proposed site and in local areas and expresses the following concerns relating to water supply and water use in the area: 5 Within a one-half mile corridor of the proposed site, approximately 23 active private water wells are used as potable water supplies. Within a one mile corridor of the site, more than 45 wells serve as potable water supplies. These wells vary in depth; however, each of these wells penetrates one of the aforementioned aquifers. A number of private water supply wells in the area pump a sus- tained yield in excess of one gallon per minute and can be verified on available well log records. It can be demonstrated that ground- water users in the area ut~l{~.e the glacial drift aquifer and the sandstone aquifers for their water supply. To document this point, well log information for the area was collected and reviewed. Based on this evaluation, the following information is presented for consideration: Well No. 4, as shown in Figure 5, is within the site boundaries and was installed at a depth of 175 to 180 feet below the land surface. The well point was installed in a sand layer within the glacial drift aquifer. This particular well was installed in 1976 and is still in use as a private water supply. At the time of drfllir~g, the pumping capacity was 15 gallons per minute. In addition, a private water supply well located on-site is currently being used by Mr. Lawrence Weiland as a potable water supply for household and farm uses. It is approximately 35 feet in depth and is installed in the glacial drift aquifer. This well provides sub- stantially more than one gallon per minute. However, the exact quantity is not known. In summary, the City of Minnetrista emphasizes that the glacial drift aquifer is used extensively for potable water supply. Addi- tional site surveys of wells in the area would identify numerous water uses of this glacial drift aquifer. At this time, documenting the utfli~.ation of the ~lordan or the Hinctdey sandstone aquifers is unnecessary. Many well records are available to document their usage. The review of well log records indicates that the glacial drift under- lying the site is not homogenous in nature. The subsoil profile contains numerous horizontal layers which contain coarse textured sands and gravel. Water well records indicate that they are suitable for providing in excess of one gallon per minute pumping capacity. The concern is that contamination of the glacial drift aquifer would have a significant impact on existing water use in the local area. Furthermore, these permeable zones and layers could function as conduits for the rapid lateral and possibly vertical migration of contaminated water. 12. Is groundwater protected by an aquiclude? The hydrogeologic character of the local site area is complex and vari- able. Available geologic literature for the area indicates that the site is underlain by a pre-glacial river valley. A review of well log information 6 and documentation indicates that this is a unique geologic feature. This pre-glacial river valley eroded through the once underlying sedimentary deposits. In addition, their hydraulic character is listed for reference. These underlying sedimentary deposits are as follows: Eroded Ordovician Period deposits: 2. 3. 4. Decorah shale - confining bed. Platteville limestone - confining bed. St. Peter sandstone - aquifer. Shakopee - Oneota dolomite - confining bed. Eroded Cambrian Period deposits' · lordan sandstone - aquifer. St. Lawrence formation - confining bed. Franconia sandstone ~ aquifer. Dolomite, limestone, or shale layers are known to act as confining beds, or aquicludes, between the various sandstone aquifers. In a normal geologic setting, these aquicludes would function as natural hydraulic barriers to vertical inter-aquifer flow of groundwater. Underlying the proposed site and in the local area, pre-glacial river valleys have eroded through both aquicludes and aquifers. This eroded material has been replaced with varying textures of glacial drift. The glacial drift aquifer and the St. Peter, Jordan, and the Franconia sand- stone aquifers are probably all hydraulically connected. The problem is that leachate emanating from the landfill site could migrate through the glacial drift into either the Jordan or the Franconia sandstone aquifers because no aquicludes exist to restrict vertical groundwater flow. 13. Can the groundwater be monitored by routine methods? The groundwater system can be monitored by using routine methods. However, since the hydrogeologic character of the site is complex and variable, a detailed hydrogeologic study at the site would be necessary. Groundwater observation wells would have to be installed to establish groundwater flow patterns, aquifer conditions, and flow rates. In addition, multi~piezometer testing locations would be required to define the vertical groundwater hydraulics below the site. The primary concern with the groundwater monitoring system is that it be designed and installed in sufficient scope and detail to fully define the subsurface hydrology of the site. All water~bearing lenses and layers in the glacial drift aquifer would have to be identified and monitored. In addition, an adequate number of observation wells and piezometers will have to be installed in the Hinckley and Franconia sandstone aquifers to define their hydraulic characteristics. Adequate monitoring must be completed to guarantee that landfill activities would not contaminate these aquifers. 7 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Land Use The preservation of prime agricultural land is an important aspect of Minne- trista's overall land use planning effort. Through its zoning ordinances and planning policies, the City has taken significant action to assure that the rural characteristics of Minnetrista are maintained as an integral part of the community's overall living environment. The proposed landfill site is in an area zoned for commercial agriculture. A landfill on the proposed site would be inconsistent with Minnetrista's zoning ordinances and could significantly impact Minnetrista's land use planning and agricultural preservation policies because: Proximity to a landfill can be a major factor in locating new commercial and industrial facilities. A landfill at this site could put pressure on the community to develop commercial and industrial land uses in areas which are used for commercial agriculture and general rural use. Such "leap frog" development is contrary to the City's and to the Metropolitan Council's development plans. o A landfill on the proposed site may make it difficult to enroll existing agricultural properties surrounding the proposed site into agricultural preservation areas. Although this impact is not tangible or quantifiable, the landfill may cause people to sell their agricultural properties because they do not want to live next to a landfill, they have perceived a loss in the value of their agricultural land, and industrial or commercial developers will be applying pressure to obtain properties near a sanitary landfill. Economic Concerns Minnetrista's economic development plans are consistent with its land use plan. The intent of both is preserving the City's varied living environment and basic rural character. Consequently, economic and industrial develop- ment policies are .intended to encourage development of local goods and service centers rather than regional industrial and commercial centers. This economic development policy is consistent with the Metropolitan Council's "rural center" designation of the St. Bonifacius area. The proposed landfill is inconsistent with the City's industrial and commercial development plan because it could create pressures to develop as a "free standing growth center" as opposed to its current "rural center" status. A landfill would require development of a large tract of land, and would generate little local employment, which would be inconsistent with Minnetrista's planned economic development. A landfill may be financially burdensome to the community because of un- planned development pressures. The City could be forced to extend certain types of municipal services into areas not planned for development. This development could place a financial burden on the City if developments requiring muncipal sewer and water occurred in areas outside of the Municipal Urban Services Area. For example, if wells in the vicinity of the landfill became contaminated, a municipal water supply would be required to service 8 h those residences affected. Additionally, the landfill could affect the City's ability to provide adequate police and fire protection. The volunteer fire department which currently serves the City of Minnetrista may not be able to provide adequate protection for heavy industrial use such as a landfill. In addition, the proposed landfill will generate increased surface runoff and could force the City to invest in costly and unplanned stormwater management facilities. To assure that the City's environmental interests are maintained, Minnetrista may need to develop an in-house engineering staff and laboratory to indepen- dently monitor the landfill's performance and operation. This type of exper- tise would be an additional financial burden to the City. Historical and Archaeological The Minnesota Historical Society has recommended that a detailed historical and archaeological survey be completed on the proposed site because of known presence of historical and archaeological features in the area. A prehistoric burial mound is immediately adjacent to the proposed site, .and probability is high that the site has additional historical and archeologi~al features. The Minnesota Historical Society has indicated that the site's geographical relation- ship to Whaletail Lake and Six Mile Creek and the numerous wetlands and low lying areas could have been habitable shorelines in prehistoric times. Aesthetic Concerns In general, the City of Minnetrista is concerned that a landfill would signifi- cantly alter the community's rural character. The operation of heavy con- struction equipment and hauling trucks would create aesthetic impacts that are not easily mitigated. One of the specific concerns is the openness of the site and the difficulty that would apparently be encountered in screening the site from public view. According to a 1977 study entitled Sanitary Landfill Site Selection, prepared by the Hennepin County Department of Environment and Energy, "the open- ness of the site and the need for substantial screening, if the site could be screened at all, eliminates the site from further consideration." The operation of a landfill will generate fugitive dust and blowing debris. Because the prevailing winds in this region are from the northwest, the area southeast of the site would be the most severely impacted. Although opera- tional procedures such as daily cover, fencing, watering exposed soils, and prompt reseeding of completed slopes can minimize this problem, the City is concerned with the potential impacts in the areas to the south and east of the site. The City of Minnetrista is also concerned that the proposed landfill site will impact existing and planned recreational facilities in the area. Hyland Road, the eastern boundary of the site, is the only access road to a maintained public access on Whaletail Lake. Additionally, the planned development of a trail system along County Highway 110 and the proposed regional park planned for the south and east shores of Whaletail Lake could be impacted. The development and operation of a landfill would generate noise because of the operation of heavy construction equipment. Although the frequency, duration, and intensity of the noise generated by the landfill are not likely to exceed apphcable standards, they will be inconsistent with the surrounding rural setting. A more critical issue addressed m a separate transportation study prepared for the City of Minnetrista is refuse trucks hauling refuse to the landfill site. Plant and Animal Life The City of Minnetrista recognizes that the regional impact of the proposed site on plant and animal populations, as well as on rare or endangered species, is limited. The City is concerned, however, that the local move- ments of wildlife, particularly deer and migratory waterfowl, could be severely impacted. Fences, roads, and the increased activity in the area of the site would tend to affect both the aesthetic desirability and wildlife habitat of the area. Additionally, the City is concerned that existing wildlife populations would be replaced by nuisance species such as gulls, rats, mice, and various insects. 10 CHAPTER 3 SUPPORTING DATA AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVENTORY HYDROGEOLOGY Bedrock Characteristics Many geologic studies have focused on the bedrock characteristics of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Much data in the form of well logs and test holes is available for review and documentation. One of the better known research treatises of Metropolitan Area geology is Bulletin 27, entitled The Geology of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, University of Minnesota Press, 1936, prepared by George M. Schwartz of the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS). Since this document's publication, subsequent research by the MGS has verified Schwartz's evaluations. The general geologic setting of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, particularly in the City of Minnetrista, includes Paleozoic-Keweenawan bedrock series overlain by more recent deposits of well-stratified sedimentary rock sequen- ces. This particular sequence of sedimentary rocks occupies a shallow, generally southward plunging, trough-like structure known as the Hollandale Embayment. This Paleozoic-Keweenawan rock sequence consists of horizontal beds of limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and shale. A typical tabular listing of rock formations underlying the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, and a cross- sectional diagram of this vertical sequence is in Figures 2 and 3, respec- tively. One known anomaly in the structure of the Hollandale Embayment occurs roughly in the area immediately underlying the seven county Metro- politan area. Here, formational dips toward the center of' the Twin Cities area are independent of general dip trends in the Hollandale Embayment. In their order of development, the oldest rock formations underlying the Metropolitan area include Precambrian igneous rocks, which are primarily basalt and granite. The next geologic developments following the Precambrian Era included the Cambrian Period. During this period, the Jordan sandstone, St. Lawrence formation (shale, dolomite, sandstone, green sands), the Franconia sandstone and the Dresbach formation (gray shale with layers of sandstone) were developed. Following the Cambrian Period was the Ordovician Period during which rock development was characterized by sedimentary layers of shale, dolomite, and sandstone. These Ordovician deposits included the Oneota dolomite, New Richmond sandstone, Shakopee dolomite, St. Peter sandstone, Glenwood beds, Plattville limestone, Decorah shale, and Galena dolomite. The dolomite, limestone, and shale deposits serve as impervious barriers or aqui- cludes between the various sandstone deposits. The Ordovician Period was later followed by the Pliestocene Period. During this period, the unconsohdated soil mass or glacial drift was deposited in the area. Unconsolidated glacial drift deposits in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area were formed during successive advances and retreats of five glacial ice masses. 11 Figure 2 Stratigraphic Rock Formations Minneapolis-St. Paul Area of the ]{OCK FOIt~IATi¢)N~ OF ?lie ~IINNEAI'OLIB--ST. PAUL Period Formation Average Apl.trent l[ange Thickness in Well Logs (in feet) (in feet) Recent River alluvium 0--150 Pleistocene Glacial drift, etc. 100 0-400 Ordovician Galena top eroded 0- ~0 Decorah shale 75 0- 75 Platteville limestone $0 ~5- 35 Glenwood beds 5 2- 7 St. Peter sandstone 'lb'8 145-165 Shakopee dolomite 45 35- 60 New Richmond sandstone 11 0- 15 Oneota dolomite 80 70- 90 Cambrian Jordan sandstone 90 80-105 St. Lawrence formation 180 160-200 Franconia sandstone 65 45- 80 Dresbach formation 155' 125-200 Cambrian or Hinckley sandstone 2~0 Keweenawan Red Clastic series 1,01.~ (Lakewood well) Pre-Cambrian Basalt flows; grknites Unknown · The formations below the Dreshach are not exposed in or near the area, but are known from deep wells, no~ably at Stillwnter ~nd at Lalvewood Cemeteo', Minneapolis. Figure 3 Typical Geologic Cross-section through Hennepin and Ramsay Counties HENNE. PIN Co. RAMSFY Co. ~ J M I N ~ E A P 0 ~ I S S A t ~ I l~~~~~~~n~, ,o I ~ '% ~ '= ~'~ ~ ,,. iP Schwartz, George M., Bulletin 27, The Geology of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area, University of Minnesota, Prior to and during the Pleistocene Period, much erosion occurred in the Ordovician and Cambrian rock deposits. Deep erosional cuts in the bedrock formed pre-glacial and glacial river valleys in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. These old river valleys basically represent former river channels for the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. Figure 4 shows their known locations. During the Glacial Age, these river channels constantly changed location as a result of increasing and decreasing surface water flow. As hydrologic con- ditions permitted, these deep river channels were eventually backfilled with glacial drift. Since the last period of glaciation, the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers have assumed their present locations. The existence and location of these pre-glacial and glacial river valleys have been a point of research since the turn of the century. As illustrated in Figure 4, one of the deepest pre-glacial river valleys of the Mississippi is known to exist immediately below the Village of St. Bonffacius, extending in a north-south direction. As shown on Figure 4 enlargement, it has been estimated that river valley lies immediately below the proposed landfill site. The existence and location of the river valley has been documented by numerous well-drilling records. The base of this particular valley is at approximately elevation 480 (MSL). At this particular location, the valley was backfilled with approximately 500 feet of glacial drift material, and the pre- glacial river channel eroded down to the Franconia sandstone. Surficial and Subsurface Soil Conditions Surficial soil materials at the site are classified by the Soil Conservation Services (SCS) as members of the Lester-Peaty Muck soil association. These soils are typically composed of medium-textured and moderately fine-textured soils that developed in glacial till and level organic soils. This particular soil association is composed of several individual soil series which are indicatively of clay loam or silty clay loam texture. Surficial soil information is generally limited to the upper 60 inches of the soil profile. Subsurface soil conditions of the area can be interpreted by reviewing existing geologic literature of the area, private water supply well log infor- mation, and the three on-site soil borings conducted to primarily define subsoil conditions. Generally, subsoils possess characteristics indicative of glacial till deposits. Glacial till is unstratified glacial drift deposited directly by glacial ice and consists of hetrogeneous mixtures of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders. Private water supply well logs for the area indicate that the unconsolidated glacial deposits vary in thickness within the local area. Available private water supply well logs are attached in Appendix C. Till thicknesses along a west-east axis vary from 200 feet to 300 feet, respectively. Along the north to central to south axis, till thickness varies from 200 feet to 400 feet, respectively. Subsoil boring classifications indicate that the till deposit illustrates some degree of stratagraphic variability. Soil textures vary from silty clay or clay to sandy clay and sand. Boring data indicates that hori- zontal sand and gravel layers exist at various depths throughout the subsoil profile. This type of subsoil stratification is commonly associated with gla- ciated areas. Successive advances and retreats of glacial ice masses resulted 15 Il LI.J ! / ! / in the deposition of some of these distinctive homogeneous subsoil layers. A location map identifying these well locations is in Figure 5. In addition, soil logs for each of the three soil borings are in Appendix D. The on-site soil boring information substantiates the data available from the private water supply well logs. All three soil borings were advanced to a depth of 50 feet. Generally, the soil logs indicate that on-site subsoils are of glacial till origin. In addition, stratification of the subsoils is evident below the site. Detailed testing indicates that soil textures are predominantly sandy clay intermixed with some gravel. Subsoil sampling methods indicate that the glacial till is moderately to densely compacted. No laboratory gradations or permeability tests were performed on the subsoil samples collected on-site. The estimated coefficient of permeability suggested by the County's soil engineer using laboratory methods, would apparently range from 10.8 to 10-~ centimeters per second. Anticipated permeabilities of the more porous sand and gravel layers would be approximately 10-2 centimeters per second. Groundwater and Water Use in the Area The hydrologic character of any given area is determined by the complex interaction of surface water (i.e., wetlands, rivers, streams) and ground- water. Since groundwater supplies are recharged by surface water infil- tration, changes in surface water hydrology can impact the groundwater system. In contrast, alteration of the groundwater system can impact the character of the surface water resources both quantitatively and qualitatively. This hydrologic system remains in a dynamic state of recharge and discharge. Furthermore, a change in one member will ultimately change the other. The hydrologic characteristics of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are very complex. Numerous surface water bodies serve as recharge and discharge areas for underlying groundwater aquifers or water-bearing formations. Groundwater aquifers in the Twin Cities Metropohtan Area are very important since they serve as primary water supplies for private, municipal, and indus- trial water users. / /Many groundwater aquifers underlie the seven-county Metropolitan area.~ /Those aquifers having the greatest importance are the St. Peter, Jordan, \ /Franconia sandstones, the Dresbach formation and the Hinckley sandstone. / /Since these geologic formations are very porous and expansive, they provide I lhigh yields of good quality water. The most extensively used aquifer is the / [Jordan Franconia sandstone, the Dresbach formation, and/ sandstone with the ,w the Hinckley sandstone following in relative degree of usage. / /The aquifers within the glacial drift serve as primary supplies for many~ /shallow private water supply wells. However, water yields from these aqui-I ~fers are variable, and water quality is immediately susceptible to contamina-/ ,~ ~n by land surface activities. //'~uring earlier land use development, most private water supply wells tapped ~ / the glacial drift and the St. Peter and Jordan sandstone aquifers. These ..~[ aquifers vary in depth below the landscape and provided good water supplies. ~11,1 ~Decreasing water quality and increased demand in more recent years has [ forced previous shallow well operators to redrill to deeper water supplies, f kxxThis increased demand for quahty groundwater requires that the the Jordan// U !] I] q® lO LaJ ' I 0 I , I 0 ,,~ Z r.3 and Franconia sandstone aquifers be preserved as prime aquifers for present and future potable water supphes, w--- In the vicinity of the proposed site, many private, municipal, and industrial water supply wells penetrate the glacial drift and the Jordan and Franconia sandstone aquifers. Close to the site, 23 private water supply wells pene- trate the glacial drift aquifer and the St. Peter or Jordan sandstone aquifers for potable water. Within a mile of the site are 45 identifiable private water supply wells plus many more in the Village of St. Bonifacius which are not specifically located at this time. The location of private water supply wells in the area are identified in Figure 5. The hydrogeologic character of the proposed site is very complex since areas near the land surface serve as recharge zones for the Jordan sandstone aquifer. This recharge area surfaces northwest of Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the buried pre-glacial and glacial river valleys have dissected the Ordovician and portions of the Cambrian sedimentary rock layers. In these river valley areas, groundwater recharge to the Jordan sandstone aquifer may be directly through the glacial drift material. Regional groundwater flow patterns of the area, at least in the glacial drift aquifer, are to and from the many surface water bodies throughout the area. Current estimates indicate localized groundwater flow through the glacial drift is probably to the north to Whaletail Lake, and to some degree, toward St. Bonifacius and Lake Minnetonka. However, groundwater movement deep in the glacial drift material is probably heavily impacted by the pre-glacial valleys in the area. Surface Waters Nearly all the natural surface water runoff from the proposed landfill site is to Halstad's Bay of Lake Minnetonka and the Minnehaha Creek watershed. Less than five percent of the extreme northwest portion of the site drains to the north and west as a part of the Crow River watershed. The drainage areas of the proposed landfill site are shown in Figure 6. As shown in the drainage map, surface runoff in the southern portion of the site is generally south and west, with the discharge through a 12 inch drain beneath Hennepin County Road 92. From this point, flow is through a series of road ditches, wetlands, and drainage courses, and discharge of this sub- watershed is into Six Mile Creek. More than two thirds of the proposed site (220 acres) is drained via this subwatershed. An additional 80 acres south of County Highway 110 is also drained to Six Mile Creek. Nearly al/ of the southern portion of the site is drained by six, eight, or ten inch tiles. On the proposed site are approximately 15,000 to 20,000 feet of drainage tile. This network of drain tiles empties into the low lying depression near the point of discharge from the site where standing water is common most of the year. Surface runoff in the northern portion of the site is south and east to Halstad's Bay. Again, flow from the proposed landfill site would pass through a series of wetlands and watercourses and discharge into Halstad's Bay. Flows from the northern drainage area of the proposed landfill site leave the site through a culvert beneath Highland Road at the extreme north- eastern corner of the site. Some of the 80 acre northern drainage area is 18 0 ~ Z 0 tiled, but most of this area is untillable because of lowlying areas and wet- lands. The amount of runoff generated from the proposed site can be estimated by the rational formula (Chow, Handbook of Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Pubhshing Company, New York, NY, ]-964). According to the rational formula: Q Q = CIA where = Peak runoff flow in cubic feet per second = Runoff coefficient = Rainfall intensity in inches per hour = Drainage area in acres In order to apply the rational formula, the times of concentration (Tc) for the drainage areas must be determined. The time of concentration is the time required for water to travel from the most distant point in the watershed to the discharge point or point of reference. In this case, Halstad's Bay is the reference point for the northern drainage area and Six lVlile Creek for the southern drainage area. Using equations 21-5, 14-5, and Figure 21-4, from the Handbook of Applied Hydrology, the time of concentration (Tc) was determined to be 1.2 and 3.0 hours for the northern and southern drainage areas, respectively, as shown on Table 1. Based on the time of concentration (Tc), the appropriate rainfall intensity (I of the formula) is estimated using the one, two, and three hour storm intensity data, obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the' United States", Technical Paper No. 40, May, 1961. Tables 2 and 3 show the rainfall intensity information used to estimate surface runoff. Note that the 1.2 hour rainfall event has been interpolated from the one and two hour storm events. Based on the current agricultural land use, soil type, and topography of the proposed landfill site, an existing runoff coefficient (C of the rational formula) of 0.4 is assumed. This runoff coefficient assumption is based on the information presented in Table 21-21 of the Handbook 'of Applied Hydrology. The watershed areas (A of the rational formula) for the northern and southern drainage areas are 80 acres and 296 acres, respectively. The peak runoff rates from the proposed landfill site, using the rational formula (Q = CIA), have been calculated and shown on Table 4. One set of rates is based on a runoff coefficient of 0.40, representing current condi- tions. The second set of runoff rates has been calculated by using a C factor or runoff coefficient of 0.70, which is estimated to represent conditions at the site if it were developed as a landfill. Presently, the current peak runoff rates are retained in the low lying areas of the site and discharged slowly downstream. Considerable ponding has been observed during periods of significant rainfall, especially in the low lying area of the southern drainage basin near the point of discharge, in part due to the 12 inch culvert beneath County Road 92 being obstructed and unable to carry its maximum flow. ~ ~ 20 RESOLUTIOt~ NO. SO-~i RESOLUTION REGARDING HENNEPIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE LANDFILL SITE SELECTIONS. WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site Citizens Advisory Committee did select and rank potential landfill sites in Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the 10th ranked site identified is within the coporate limits of the City of Minnetrista; and WHEREAS, the 10th ranked site is within the City of Minnetrista's Commercial Agricultural zoned district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Minnetrista strongly opposes the selection of the 10th ranked site for potential development for the following reasons: 1. The site is located within the City of Minnetrista's Agricultural Preservation Zone District, which has been in effect since September 4, 1979. Development of a landfill site would have an adverse impact upon the City of Minnetrista's long standing commitment to agricultural preservation and totally ignore the following factors: A. The City Council of the City of Minnetrista placed a moratorium upon any further development of those areas of Minnetrista net serviced by municipal sewer in the summer of 1978 and directed the Planning Com- mission to undertake a study of agricultural lands. B. The Planning Commission, after a parcel by parcel review, determined that agricultural preservation policies were indeed necessary in portions of Minne- trista to: (1) preserve commercial agriculture as a viable and permanent land use and activity; {2) control untimely urban expansion; (3) to avoid conflicting land uses; (4) protect farming capital investments; (5) maintain agricultural lands as the best and most appropriate use of the land; (6) maintain open space; (7) preserve rural lifestyles; (8) protect existing environmental quality; (9) prevent premature and an undesired expansion of municipal facilities and services; Page ~ Resolution No. 56-81 Re: Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site C. The Planning Commission inventoried lot sizes, ownership patterns, existing subdivisions, current farming activities, suitable agricultural soils, current land uses and sensitive environmental features in order to establish a logical agri- cultural preservation district. D. After reviewing the inventory of applicable data, a commercial agricultural area was clearly delineated. E. As an outgrowth of that delineation, a minimum lot size of 40 acres was recommended by the Plann- ing Commission to the City Council. The recommen- dation included the placing of a restrictive ease- ment over 38 acres of the total 40 to prohibit any further residential development. F. The City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendations and enacted the proposed ordinance on September 4, 1979. This action was the culmination of a long study process, reflecteh the desire of the farming community in Minnetrista, and preceeded State of Minnesota legislative action by seven months. The ~ity Council action was based u~on a commitment to agricq, ltural preservation princ~p!es and not up0p the less meaningfhl basis of a tax break provided fo~'"in 'Chapter Nd. 566 of"Minnesota Statutes, adopted ~fter t~e City's ordinance. 2. The selection of the 10th ranked site flagrantly ig- nores or disregards the criteria established by Hennepin County for site selection as dated December 23, 1980, and attached as follows' A. "The disposal area and surrounding buffer shall not be within one-fourth mile of environmentally sensitive or unique wildlife areas." The proposed 10 site, as bounded by Hennepin County Highways 110 and 92 and Highland Avenue is not only within one-fourth mile of the environmentally sensi- tive area of Whale Tail Lake, it also totally covers Wetlands No. 20-P as identified in wetlands conservation areas, Hennepin Soil & Water Conser- vation District, dated 1977, which comprises 23 acres of wetlands and a drainage area of 163 acres. The proposed site is also within one-fourth mile of Wetlands 20-2 and 20-3 as identified in the same 7! Page 5 Resolution No.56-81 Re: Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site Hennepin County survey comprising 42.5 acres with a drainage area of 390.5 acres. Further, the Soil Development Guide prepared by Hennepin County Conservation District for the City of Minnetrista identifies Cordova, Hamel, Glencoe and peat and marsh soils within the proposed site, all of which are wet and environmentally sensitive soils. B."The actual disposal area, excluding buffer, shall not include or be within wetlands (types 3, 4 or S) (legal)." The proposed 10th site includes Wetlands No. 20-1, as identified above. This wetlands is type 3. C. "The actual disposal area, excluding buffer, shall not include or be less than 1,500 feet from the normal high water level of a lake or pond." Although Whale Tail Lake is just outside this 1,500 limit, the wetlands surrounding it, Wetlands No. 16-1, as identified in Wetlands Conservation Areas, is with- in 1,S00 of the proposed"~ite. The relationship beteen Wetlands No. 16-1 and Whale Tail Lake, a type S wetlands, is so interelated that a tampering of · Wetlands 16-1 ~ have a direct correlation to the water quality of Whale Tail Lake. The unique water quality and environmental sensitivity of Whale Tail Lake has been identified in the Metropolitan Council 208 Water Quality Plan. D. "The disposal area and buffer area shall not be in or adjacent to a park reseYve." The proposed 10th site will be in the near proximity of the regional park identified on Metropolitan Council's Parks & Open Space Plan for the east end of Whale Tail Lake. This will be a passive park and interconnected with Carver Park Reserve and Morris T. Baker Park Reserve. The proposed 10th site would lessen the City of Minnetrista and Metropolitan Council commitment to this park reserve development. E. "The disposal area shall not be within a designated agricultural preserve." Page 4 Resolution No. 56-81 Re: Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site The Solid Waste Landfill Site Citizens Advisory Committee and Hennepin County's Landfill Site Counsultant have flagrantly disregarded this criteria. As stated above, the area in which the proposed 10th site is located has been zoned for commercial agriculture since September 4, 1979. In the event that there is any doubt as to the City of Minnetrista's commitment to agricultural preser- vation, made prior to the State of Minnesota's commitment to agricultural preservation zoning, that doubt is dispelled in the attached Resolution No. 57-81 . 3. The site ignores the planning guidelines and statements as developed by Metropolitan Council over the past several years. In particular, the proposed 10th site is in complete contradiction to Metropolitan Council Development Guide: A. "The Metropolitan Area should consist of an Urban Service Area and a Rural Service Area. Metropolitan systems and urban services will be provided only with- in the Urban Service Area. Rural service standards will be met in the Rural Service Area, and persons choosing a rural lifestyle should not expect to re- ceive urban services." The proposed site would lessen the ability of persons choosing a rural lifestyle and necessitate the construction of an urban transportation network in a rural area. B. "Land uses should be primarily determined by natural characteristics of the land and the avail- ability of urban services. Urban development should not impair the functioning of vital natural systems." The proposed 10 site would severely damage the sen- sitive natural systems surrounding the Whale Tail Lake area, as outlined in Section 3. C. "The Metropolitan Council shall use its author- ity to promote a pattern of urbanization within the Urban Service Area that allows the efficient, orderly, and economic expansion of metropolitan systems for future growth and avoids premature and scattered ur- banization of rural.areas. Further development in urbanized communities and in cluster communities that are contiguous to the currently built-up area shall be encouraged." Page 5 Resolution No. 56-81 Re: Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site The proposed 10th site would create a premature expansion of urban services in Minnetrista's rural area and lessen the City of Minnetrista's effort, via its zoning and Comprehensive Plan, to stop scattered urban developments. D. "The development pattern.should promote less re- liance upon automobile transportation. The develop- ment of multi-purpose diversified centers to serve sub-'regional shopping and service needs should be facilitated to reduce travel. A more balanced distri- bution of employment concentrations in relation to population should be encouraged to reduce the length of work trips and increase the use of transit." It appears to the City Council of the City of Minne- trista, that there is an analogy in this policy that the Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site Citizens Advisory Committee has ignored. That is, sites should be selected in proximity to waste generation to avoid extremely costly transportation of waste from source point to landfill. From this standpoint, the proposed 10th site is as inefficient as any site identified. E. "The Rural Service Area consists of commercial agri- cultural regions, general rural use regions and rural centers. Metropolitan sewer service and urban level transportation service will not be provided to the Rural Service Area. It is the Council's position that the Rural Service Area should not accommodate large amounts of development because enough land area is available within the Urban Service Area to accom- modate forecasted growth and development. The Council will use the Metropolitan Development Framework Plan map delineations of these policy areas until local plans refine them." The selection of the 10th proposed site totally ignores this Development Framework Policy, for the above stated reasons. Further, the development of the 10th proposed site could totally negate this policy and the commit- ment to Agricultural Preservation in Minnetrista by necessitating additional urban services, which could then be used for further, unwanted, development. F. "Local units of government located at least partly in the Metropolitan Rural Service Area should adopt comprehensive plans and implementation programs ~hich are consistent with regional policies and plans and Page 6 Resolution No. 56-81 Re: Hennepin County Solid Landfill Site which are consistent with regional policies and plans and which achieve the purposes listed in Policy 19. The Council will use its forecasts as an indicator of consistency according to the guidelines specified in the Appendix. Comprehen- sive plans should determine if any lands within the local government's jurisdiction are suitable for agriculture on a long-term basis and give them specific planning and zoning support. Those areas where agriculture is determined not to be a suitable long-term land use are considered general rural use areas. General rural use lands should not be sub- divided because they lack supporting metropolitan and local facilities and services. Urbanization or subdivision areas should be planned in a general rural use area only in or at the periphery of a freestanding growth center or rural center where urban services are available or programmed." Again, the development of the 10th proposed site totally ignores a Development Framework Policy. Further, it ignores the Comprehensive Planning approach and zoning in the City of Minnetrista, which is the result of segmenting parcels of land into rational, compatible uses. The proposed 10th site is neither rational or compatible within this framework. Per the guidelines established by Metropolitan Council to evaluate polices 19 and 20, the development of the proposed 10th site would achieve precisely the opposite of that desired. The development of the proposed 10th site would: 1) encourage other uses than agriobusiness facilities, 2) would encourage potential development of less than one unit per 40 acres, 3) potentially force the development of sewer lines and water main in a long-term agricultural area, 4) encourage and perhaps even require the upgrading of existing roads and constructuion of new roads which would serve or encourage non-form :or non-rural de- velopment, 5) lessen nuisance restrictions for noise, animals, ordors and so forth to those re- quisite to the health, safety and welfare of the farm public and which do not inhibit normal agri- cultural practices and operations, 6) .lessen taxation mechanisms and practices which complement land use determinations: assess land at its planned use value rather than potential urban value, and Page 7 Resolution No. 56-$1 Re: Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site 7) exclude potential additional measures deemed rea- sonable and sound to promote agriculture and conserve existing agricultural land. 4. The site is located adj'acent to the City of St. Bonifacius. It's development would have an adverse effect upon the City of St. Bonifacius for the following reasons: A. The transportation of waste material to the proposed site would have a significant impact upon the St. Bonifacius business district. A convenient waste disposal truck route would be from State High- way 7 to County Highway 92 through downtown St. Bonifacius, detrimental to the built-up business area both in volume and nature of the traffic it generates. B. To accommodate the increased traffic, County Road 92 may have to be upgraded. Such upgrading would create problems in the downtown St. Boni- facius area. C. The site is one'fourth mile from the residential area of St. Bonifacius. Site development would be detrimental to that residential property in the .potential property value decrease and the desir- ability of the residential development. In summary, the City Council of the City of Minnetrista strongly opposes the selection and development of the 10th ranked land- fill site as identified by the Hennepin County Solid Waste Land- fill Site Citizens Advisory Committee, and asked that the Committee strike the 10th ranked site from its list, due to its inconsistency with the City of Minnetrista's long standing commitment to agricultural preservation, its contradiction to the criteria established by the Hennepin County Solid Waste Landfill Site Citizens Advisory Committee and incompatibility and disregard for the Metropolitan Development Framework Guidelines. Approved by the City Council of the City of Minnetrista on this 4th day of M~y , 1981, by a vote of $ Ayes and 0 Nays. Dated this 5th day of ATTEST' May , 1981. Mayor Gen Olson Chaript-~e -Pate rson, Clerk (Seal) · Conservation Rate Break. See details under RESIDENTIAL SERVICE. · Fuel Clause Adjustment applies to the amount of electricity you use. See details later in this folder. · Minimum Charge for this rate is $8,10. · City fees and state sales tax apply to your total bill. See details later in this folder, AUTOMATIC PROTECTIVE LIGHTING SERVICE This is shown on your bill as AUTOMATIC PROTECTIVE LIGHTING. The rate is not available for municipal street lighting. Type of Lamp Monthly Rate per Unit Area Units F48 T10/CW Fluorescent $6.95' 100W High Pressure Sodium 5.90 175W Mercury 6.25 400W Mercury 9.55 Directional Units 400W Mercury $11,50 400W High Pressure Sodium 14.65 1,000W Mercury 21.00 'Available to existing installations only, · Fuel Clause Adjustment applies to this service. See details later in this folder. · City fees and state sales tax apply to your total bill. See details later in this folder. FUEL ADJUSTMENT NSP's costs for fuel (coal, uranium, and natural gas) and purchased power, used to provide electricity varies trom month to month. When this cost rises above the amount established in the kilowatt-hour rates shown, the increased cost is added to your bill. When the cost decreases, the difference is deducted from your bill. NSP makes no profit from these adjustments. CITY FEES NSP pays several cities in its service area a percentage of its billings to customers in those cities. This fee is a requirement of our franchise or other agreement with the city. The percentage may vary from city to city and is shown on monthly bills to customers in those cities. NSP makes no profit from the collection and payment of these fees. NSP uses the following figures to collect the fees required by: Coon Rapids 3% Minneapolis 3% St. Cloud 3% *St. Paul 8.7% South St. Paul 5% West St. Paul 5.26% White Bear Lake 1.5% *Winona 1.5% er $2,55 6 7 INTEROFFICE MEMO Jon Elam - City Manager FROM: Bruce Wold - Poi ice Chief SUBJECT: Fire Siren DATE October 19.81 ,,, I have made the necessary adjustments on the fire siren to insure that it will not 9o off after 10:O0 p.m. or before 7:00 a.m.. If you have any further complaints or questions regarding this matter, please feel free to discuss them with me. BW/sh 1982 FIRE CONTRACT MATERIAL 1982 * 1980 ASSESSED FIRE CALLS VALUE % + % HOURS MOUND 46.51 + 57.50 MINNETRISTA 9.27 + 11.19 ORONO 24.66 + 11.42 SPRING PARK 10.86 + 18.21 SHOREWOOD 1.65 + 0.2 MINNETONKA BEACH 7.05 + 1.46 = TOTAL 104.01 2 20.46 2 36.08 2 29.07 2 1.85 2 8.51 2 FINAL = PERCENTAGE 52.00 10.23 18.O4 14.54 .93 4.26 TOTAL 100. * 1980 data used - Since 1982 data not completed. Can be revised as this data is entered. 1980 FIRE DEPARTMENT HOURS FIRE HOURS + RESCUE HOURS = TOTAL MOUND 2920 + 1956 : 4876 MINNETRISTA 643 + 306 = 949 ORONO 947 + 21 = 968 SPRING PARK 776 + 768 = 1544 SHOREWOOD 18 + 0 = 18 MINNETONKA BEACH 123 + 0 = 123 TOTAL 5427 + 3051 : 8478 PERCENTAGE 57.50% 11.19% 11.42% 18.21% .22% 1.46% 100. % o g o 0 ky- O' 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 o O ~. 0 o 0 O- o . · (A) 19~2 Operating (B) 1982 Equipment Fund (C) 1982 Fireman's Cost & Building Capital Relief Fund TO TA L Outiay $121,5OO. 16,O00. 3O,5OO. $167,550. MOUND MINNETRISTA ORONO SPRING PARK SHOREWOOD MINNETONKA BEACH $167,550. x 52.00% 167,550. x 10.23% 167,550. x 18.04 167,550. x 14.54 167,550. x .93 167,550. x 4.26 TOTAL 1982 $ 87,126. 17,140. 30,226. 24,362. 1,558. 7,138. $167,550. 1981 $ 65,392.26 14,865.12 24,958.88 16,874.79 '1~601.25 5,964.20 $129,656.50 FI~E DEPT. #32 4137 4138 4139 4210 4214 4220. 4221 4223 4227 4228 4310 4313 4319 4320 4321 4322 4350 4360 4371 4372 4382 4383 439O 4410 4411 4413 4420 45OO 4713 Chief's Salary & Officer's Pay Fire Drill Pay Salaries Office Supplies Copy Machine Operating Supplies, General Motor Fuels Cleaning Supplies Safety Supplies Fire Prevention Professional Services Audit and Financial General Maintenance Communications (Radio Replacement) Postage Telephone Printing Insurance Electricity Gas Service Other Equipment Repair Building Repair Rental (Radio Rental) Miscellaneous Conferences & Schools Dues & Subscriptions Other Contractual Capital Outlay Shop and Store Transfer 1992 PROPOSED 8,200. 6,OOO. 40,800. 25o. 25O. 9,OOO. 1,OO0. 150. SoO. 1,OOO. Soo. 5oo. 7,OOO. 2,000. 1OO. 95O. 3oo. 11,000. 1,5oo. 4,OOO. 6,500. 2,000. 3,OOO. 200. 7,5OO. 1,800. 25O. 4,000. 5OO. 198! 4,000. 5,5OO. 4O,OOO. 200. 25O. 8,000. !,0OO. 100. 6oo. 8oo. 4OO. 5oo. 6,ooo. IO0. 95O. 200. 10,000. 1,100 3,600 5,500 2,000 3,OOO 100 7,OOO 1,800. 25o. 4,OOO. 1,000. TOTAL EXPENSES 121,050. 107,950. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota 1981 Fire Formula Calculatlon of Fire Charges on Man-Hours Bas~s: Prior Year's Operation Cost (Contributed to Fire Plan by 1980 taxes) Cost of Equipment (flnal year 1983) 52,675.00 2O (~ P ~ Cost of Bldg. & Physlcal Plant 1~9~500.00 $35,000. expires 1986 25 20,000. expires 1995 20,000. expires 1996 84,500. expires 2005 (~> F = Equipment Purchased 1976 12~227.98 (depreciation starts 1978 final year 1982) 5 ~) F ~ Equipment Purchased 1975 18~441.00 (depreciation starts 1977 final year 1981) 5 11= 104 for Administration ~-~ (Total cost to be divided) Formula: s = E P F 11 U + V (C + 20 + 25 + 5-'--) T-~ ~ ASSESSED VALUE IN FIRE DISTRICT City Dollars Percentage Minnetonka Beach $5,824,754. 7.05 U = Minnetrlsta 7,657,989. 9.27 Total Orono 20,380,562. 24.66 Asses- Spring Park 8,973,776. 10.86 ment Shorewood 1,366,671. 1.65 Mound 38,439,410. 46.51 $82,643,162.00 100.00 USE OF FIRE DEPARTMENT HOURS 1974 Less Plus Total 1978 1974 1979 Sub Total Minnetonka Beach 639 105 94 628 Minnestra 4;083; 751 962 4,294 Orono 4,146 919 1,101 4,328 V = Spring Park 4,057 373 1,104 4,788 Shorewood 376 0 0 376 Mound 15,595 2,179 4,229 17,645 Minnetonka Beach 7.24 + 1.96 = 9.20 - 4.60 2 Minnetr|sta 9.53 + 13.40 ~ 22.93 = 11.465 2 Orono 25.00 + 13.50 ' 38.50 ' 19.25 U + V 2 2 Spring Park 11.10 + 14.93 ~ 26.03 - 13.015 2 Shorewood 1.30 = 1.17 = 2.47 = 1.235 2 Mound 45.83 = 55.04 ~ 100.87 = 50.435 2 Minnetonka Beach 4.60% $5,964.20 Minnetrista 11.465 14,865,12 Orono 19.25 24,958.88 Spring Park 13.015 16~874.79 Shorewood 1.235 1,601.25 Mound 50~425 65,392.26 100.00 129,656.50 1981 Charges New Fire Trk 1,551.30 3,866.45 6,491.85 4,389.17 416.49 17,008.64 33,723.90 $102,722.00 2,633.75 6,380.00 2,445.60 3,688.20 117,869.55 11,786.95 $129,656.50' Percentage 1.96 13,40 13.5o 14.93 1.17 55.04 100.00 Total 7,515.50 18,731.57 31,450.73 21,263,96 2,017.74 82,400.90 163,380.~0 MOUND MINNETRISTA ORONO SPRING PARK SHOREWOOD MINNETONKA BEACH 1982 FIRE TRUCK PAYMENTS PAYMENT % OF COSTS 1982 1981 $47,5O0. 47,5OO. 47,5oo. 47,500. 47,500. 47,500. Z X x x X X 52.00 10.23 18.o4 14.54 .93 4.26 $24,700.00 4,859.25 8,569.00 6,906.50 441.75 2,023.50 $17,008.64 3,866.45 6,491.85 4,389.17 416.4~ 1,551.30 TOTAL $47,500.00 $33,723.90 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 FIRE TRUCK SCHEDULE INTEREST $170,OOO. x 9% = $15,300. 140,000. x 9% = $12,600. lO5,OOO, x 9% = $ 9,450. 70,000. x 9% = $ 6,300. 35,000. x 9% = $ 3,15o. PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS + $30,000. = $45,300. + $35,000. = $47,600. + $35,000. = $44,450. + $35,000. = $41,3OO. + $35,000. = $38,150. TOTAL $46,800. + $170,000. : 5216,800. LEVY $47,6O0. $50,000. $46,700. $43,400. $40,1OO. S227,8OO. * * $11,OOO. balance over payments to be credited against 1986 or 1987 Capitol Outlay Fund CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota August 28, 1978 SUBJECT: Proposed Fire Truck The proposal of a Ladder Truck for the Fire Dept. establishes two costs: 1) Building expansion - $50,000.00- F ~/,~ 2) Cost of truck - 200 000.00 - ~27o~ , The cost of the building can be f~nanced from current funds. 8-25-78 1979 Income $41,355.22 11,377.00 52,732.22 Cash Balance Pay for Bldg. The cost of the truck based on 1978 costs would be divided between the communities as follows: , $50,000. $150,000. 1977 % Down Payment Balance Mound 48.24 - $24,120.00 $72,360.00 Minnetonka Beach 5.05 2,525.00 7,575.00 Minnetrista 11.23 5,615.00 16,845.00 Orono 21.75 10,875.O0 32,625.00 Spring Park 12,315 6,158.00 18,474.00 Shorewood 1.415 708.00 2,124.00 If a $50,000.00 down payment could be raised and the balance of $150,000.00 be spread over seven (7) years, the annual capital outlay payments would be as listed below, and financed by five (5) year bonds: Year Annual Chg + Trk & down payment + Bank % @ 7% = Total 1979 $11,777. $11,777. 1980 13,777. $21,000. 33,777. 1981 13,777. 22,000. 34,777. 1982 10,089. 20,000. $7,000. 37,089. 1983 7,644. 20,000. 5,600. 33,244. 1984 7,644. 21,000. 4,200. 31,844. 1985 5,634. 20,000. 2,800. 28,434. 1986 5,634. 20,000. 1,400. 27,034. If the above schedule is followed and once again based on 1977 percentages, the cost to reach community until the truck is paid for would be as follows: 1977-78 1979 1980 1981 Minnetonka Beach. 5~05 $595. $1706. $1757 Minnetrista 11.23 1323. 2793. 3905 Orono 21.75 2562. 7347. 7564 Spring Park 12.315 1450. 4160. 4283 Shorewood 1.415 161. 478. 493 Mound 48.24 5682. 16298. 16780 1982 $1873 4165 8O67 4568 525 17895 1983 1984 1285 1.986 $1679. $1609. $1436. $1365. 3733. 3576. 3193. 3035. 7231. 6926. 6185. 3035. 4094. 3922. 3502. 3330. 471. 451. 403. j383. 16007. 15361. 13717. 13042. Proposed Fire Truck page two If we sell bonds, 1979, and spread the cost over a five (5) year period with interest at 7%, we have the following figures: $200,000.00 expenditure: (* to be divided annually) Year Principal Interest Total * 1979 $40,000. $14,000. $54,000. 1980 40,000. 11,200. ~51,200. 1981' 40,000. 8,400. 48,400. 1982 40,000. 5,600. ~ 45,600. 1983 40,000. ~7800. 42,800. $150,000. expenditure: (* to be divided annually) 1979 $30,000. $10,500. $40,500. 1980 30,000. 8,400. 38,400. 1981 30,000. 6,300. 36,300. 1982 30,000. 4,200. 34,200. 1983 30,000. 2,100. 32,100. USE OF FIRE DEPT. HOURS PERCENTAGE INCREASES (DECREASES) 11979 MOUND 55.04 MINNETRISTA 13.40 ORON0 13.50 SPRING PARK 14.93 SHOREWOOD 1.17 MINNETONKA BEACH 1.96 1OO % 1980 57.50 11.19 11.42 18.21 .22 1.46 1OO Increase or Decrease +2.46% (-2.21%) (-2.08%) +3.28% (- .95%) (- .50%) ACTUAL HOURS 1974-78 AVERAGE YR. MOUND 3119.O MINNETRISTA 816.6 ORONO 829.2 SPRING PARK 811.4 SHOREWOOD 75.2 MINNETONKA BEACH 127.8 1979 4229 962 1101 1104 --0- 94 1980, 4876 949 968 1544 18 123 CHANGE 1980 VS.1979 + 637 - 13 - 133 + 440 + 18 + 29 (+39.9%) SPRING PARK INCREASES Ao OPERATIONS INCREASE $16,875. to $24,362. = $ 7,487. 1981 Percentage share for Spring Park 1982 Percentage share for Spring Park INCREASE 13.O15% 14. 540% 1.525% 198) 198~ 129,565 x .13015% 167,550 x .14540% 167,550 x .13015% TOTAL $16,875 $24,362. = $21,807. 1- $ 2,555. 2- $ 4,932. $ 7,487. 1 - Increase due to Percentage Increase 2 - Increase due to Actual Budget Inc 'ease B. TRUCK PAYMENT INCREASE 1981 $4,389,17 1982 $6~906.50 TOTAL $2,517.33 Due entirely to the fact that in 1~81 the Truck Payment Schedule was projected. In 1982 it is actual.! INCREASES IN COSTS FOR SPRING PAR~ i , OPERATIONS $7~487.21 TRUCK PAYMENT 1982 OPERATING COSTS MOUND $ 87,126. MINNETRISTA 17,140. ORONO 30,226. SPRING PARK 24,362. SHOREWOOD 1,558. MINNETONKA BEACH 7,138. $167,550. Of this increase, 57.06% is paid by Mc due to the fact that it was under est increases for each city on a percentag, MI NNETR I STA ORONO SPRING PARK SHOREWOOD MINNETONKA BEAC8 PAYMENT 700.00 4,859.25 8,569.00 6,906.50 441.75 2,023.50 7,5oo.oo = TOTAL 1981 TOTAL INCREASE* = $111,826.00 $ 82,400.90 $29,425.1~ = 21,999.25 18,731.57 3,267.6~ = 38,795.00 31,450.73 7,344.21 = 31,268.50 21,263.96 10,O04.5, = 1,999.75 2,017.74 (-17.991 = 9,161.50 7,515.50 1,646.O~ $215,O50.00 $163,380.40 $51,669.6~ or about 5% d slightly sis, are as more than last year. follows: 6.23 % 14.14 % 19.46 % - .05 % '3.16 % the regular formula The remaining Chuch Anderson Diane Arneson Bryan Rock Prod F.H. Bathke Co. Bowman Barnes Coast to Coast Continental Telephone Robert Cheney Jon El am Jack Farness Feed Rite Controls Flaherty Equip G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood Gerrys Plumbing Eugene Hickok & Assoc Henn Co. Chf Police PTAC Herbs Typewriter Hardrives, Inc Instrumentation Serv. Bob Johnson F.F.Jedl icki Long Lake Tire Barn Marina Auto Supply M i nnegasco Mound Hdwe Wm Mueller & Sons Minn Comm Mpls. Star & Trib Metro Waste Control Mound Fire Dept Navarre Hdwe N.S.P. NW Bel 1 Planning & Develop Serv Spring Park Car Wash Sheriffs Dept Henn Co. Nels Schernau Robt Shanley Summerhill Inv. Assoc 545.F~ 135.00 378.54 13.80 115.27 128.5~ 770.4~ 33q.o0 275.00 15. 27] 179. 26. 36. 85. 76. 175. 22 19,611. 1 O9,764. 75. 875 63,656. 18. 632. 76. 25. 3,168. 28. 112. 420. 4,156. 242. 3,660. 60. 2,365.0( 92. 58.( 8. 189. 3,ooo. Thrifty Snyder Drug Thurk Bros. Chev Unitog Rental Water Products Total Bills LIQUOR BILLS Blackowiak Real One Acquisition Regal Window Cleaning Johnson Paper Bradley Extermin. Kool Kube A.J. Ogle Butch's Bar Supply Coca Cola Day Dist. East Side Bev. Gold Medal Bev. Jude Candy City Club Dist Midwest Wine The Liquor House Pepsi Cola/7 up Pogreba Dist Thorpe Dist Tombstone Pizza Total Liquor Bills Grand Total --All Bills 8.05 3.68 219.00 429.16 216,546.72 32.00 675.OO 10.75 270.57 19.00 393.60 3,503.85 147.6O 270.18 3,530.10 4,862.55 117.82 197.O0 3,O63.85 843.40 1,132.51 275.25 3,093.31 3,356.55 29.00 25,823.89 242,370.61 CITY OF HOD~D, ~IN~ESDIA 1981 ~'A~AIN IMP ENGINEER.: NCCOHBS-I-O~UTSON 18.800 IND PK. BLVD CONTRACTO~ PLYHDUTH, lin ~:~41 HOUND., ] )ATE: 09/30/81 ~ CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE SUMHARY THIS IPI~i~IODTO DATE . ,_ oo IdORK COMPLETED COHHERCE BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 110) 'IATERIALS ON SITE COHHERCE BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 110) 110,988.1~ ~.D JUSTED TOTAL .ESS RETAINAGE - S:Z PREVIOUS, CUR.RENT TOTAL AHOLINT DUE: FOR IdOP~ COHPLETED TO DATE .ESS PREVIOUS PAYHENTS 0.00 :oo 110,988.85 5, S46.14 i'OTAL AMOUNT DUE 10~, 376.70 41,7~0.~3 · -- SUMHARY OF PREVIOUS PAYHENTS · 'STIHATE NO. DATE I 07/"31/81 8 08/31/81 .'NG INEER.: HCCDHBS--KNUTSON AMOUNT 87, ERG.ES 13,874.88 TOTAL 87, B46.ES 41,7E0.~3 CIIY DF ~DU~ID, HINNESDTA 1981 WATERHAIN IHPI CDH.½EI:~E ~3LILEUAP-,D (COUNTY ROAD ENGINEER: HCCOHBS--RNUTSON CONTRACTOR: F.F. 12800 IND PR. BL~ ~11 B PLYHOUTH, HN .~.g441 HOuND, )ATE: 09/30/81 PAYHENT SLIHHARY FOR WORK COHPLETED TO D ITEM ITEI~ NO. DESCRIPTION 1 4' DIP WATERHAIN E 6' DIP WATE~AIN 3 10' DIP WATERHAIN 4 HYDRANTS (NEW) 5 RELOCATE EXIST. HYDRANTS 6 6" CATE VALUES 7 10" gATE VALVES 8 FITTINGS 9 3/4" CONNECTION 10 1' CONNECTION 11 E" CONNECTION 1E 3/4" CURB STOP 13 1' CURB STOP 14 P" CURB STOP 16L~' SERVICE PIPE SERVICE PIPE ].7 E' SERVICE PIPE REPLACE CURB STOP ~ BOX 19 LO~ER ~ATER SERVICES 120 INSULATE IdATEP, HAIN E1 gRANULAR BACKFILL CONTRACT uNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 10.0 LF 16.00 E$O. 0 LF 13. O0 E,47~.0 LF 17.00 6.0 EA 800.00 . .5. 0 EA 4.50. O0 8.0 EA 300.00 5.0 EA 700.00 6,350.0 LBS 1.~0 59.0 E~ ES. 00 10.0 EA ES. 8.0 EA 100. ET.0 EA 60100 410 EA 70.00 3.0 EA 100.00 1,000.0 LF 6.00 ~00.0 LF 6.00 1250.0 LF 10. O0 10.0 EA 100.00 EAB. O LF 7.00 8,000,0 St:' 1.50 E,O00. O CY 3.00 50.0 LF 100.00 1.0 L.S 6,000.00 1,0 L.S 4O6.00 1.0 L.S 1,197.E~3 1.0 L.S 12,009.82 1.0. LS Z3 TEttPORARY I~TER SUPPLY E4 RPLC UNltARKEO CORP 31+00 ~5 LOW I~ @ CRANDUIEW E 110 126 LOW I~H @ CRANDVIE~I W 110 127 EXTRAS ADDED BY CITY .ICKI, lng. THIS PERIOD --~ :TY AHDLINT 124.0 3B4. O0 167. 0 P, 171. O0 3012.0 39,134.00 6.0 4,800.00 0.0 0.00 8.0 12,400.00 E.O 1,400.00 68S. 0 5,5~.7.50 EE.O 550.00 ~l" 0 SO ' 00 0.0 0.00 8.0 480. O0 0.0 0.00 ' 1.0 100. O0 1277.0 1,6612.00 8.0 48.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 100.0 300. O0 50.0 5,000.00 0.5 3,000. O0 0.0 0.00 0.0 O. O0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 ------ TO OUANTITY E4.0 E..~. 0 E,417.0 8.0 4.0 13.0 5.0 6,980.0 .~.0 11.0 3.0 30.0 1.0 3.0 8c~.0 86.0 90.0 0.0 316.0 8,1239.0 ESO. 0 SO.O O.S 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 AHOuNT 384.00 3, E76. O0 41,089. O0 6,400. O0 1,800. O0 3,900. O0 3,500. O0 10,470. O0 1,350.00 EW3.00 300. O0 1,800. O0 ' 70. O0 300. O0 5,370. O0 516. O0 900. O0 0.00 12,EIP.O0 12,358.50 ~0. O0 5,000. O0 3,000.00 406.00 1,197..~ E,005.82 E,E~9.00 TOTAL CDttliERCE BOULEVARD (COuNTY RDAD 110) 67,006.50 llO,~---~,BS '~TOr: F',",;' E~T.I.; , - --r-Z, i~.C; . CE: 4 '7~; C. CITY OF HOUND. ~]NI;ESDIA 19~1 ~ATERHAIN IHF'RD! COMMERCE BOULEgAF~) (COL~TY RDAD 110~ GINEER: KCCOHBS-19tUTSON J2BO0 IND PK. BLt~ PLYMOUTH, MN ,TI[: ' ITEM DESCRIPTION- TOTAL COHHERgE BO~_EVARD (COUHTY ROAD 110) ~EHE N I ~ IiCI(I, INC. LETT BLUD .E~G4 TOTAL E ITEH ~LUE 0.00 INUOICE PRICE TO DATE L~ITS ON SI~E TOTAL ITEH VALtE 0.00 £oHMEEcE BGULEVAP~) (COL~TY ROAD :NCINEER: HCCOHBS--KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: F.F. ~ICKI, INC. SP800 IND PK. BLV~) .~,11 I~,TLETT GL. VD PLYHDUTH, HN SS441 HOUND, ~N 55364 ~ATE: 09~0/81 ~ SUHHARY OF CHANCE ORDERS :HAN~E ORDER ND. 01 07/31/81 3,G.t3.3S :TEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 84 RPLC UNHARKED CORP 31+00 ES LOW Id~ ~ CRANDVZE# E 110 EG LO¥ IdH @ CRANDVIE¥ ¥ 110 .... · -'-PREVIOUS QUANTITY L~IIT PRICE 0.00 L.S 0.00 0.00 L.S 0.00 0.00 L.S 0.00 KEV/OUS CONTRACT PRICE 116,821.00 + CHANGE -CHANGED ! OUANTITY I/qlT PRICE 1.00 L.S 40G. O0 1.00 L.S I, 197.53 1.00 L.S 8,009.8~ AHOLINT DEDUCTED 613.3~ = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT AHDUNT ADDED 406.00 1,1B?.53 8,009.88 :Oi~T?.:.' ~TO,:-'- F'~'.',' EST:[Ii,%TE i-;E;. ,,-~.:-,'-'~' ~.. CITY DF HOG, D, HINItESDTA 1981 k~AIEF2IAIN I~PR~ CO½~EggE E~3ULEVAED (COUNIY ROAD 110> NIiINEER: HCCOHBS-KNUTSOH 'CONTRACTOR: F.F. ~1 18800 lNG PK. ~ ~11 ~ PLYHOU~, HN ~41 HD~D, ,A~: 09~0/B1 ~HARY OF CHANCE O~ERS ~ :HANGE ORDER NO, O~ 08/31181 :TEM ITEH . .PREVIOUS. NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY LetlT PRTCE 87 EXTRAS ADDED BY CITY 0,00 LS 0.00 'REVIOU$ CONTRACT PRICE 119.,834.3~ + CHANGE IRIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 1,tG,EEl.00 + CHANGE VEMENT5 .LICK'T, INC. ;TLETT BI.VD .-~--..CHANGED QUANTITY 1,00 LS 889.00 UNIT PRICE E,EBg. 00 AHOUNT DEDUCTED REVISED CONTRACT AHDUNT = REVISED CONTRACT AHOUHT AHDUNT ADDED 188,183.3~ .12.E, 1E3.~ October 9, 1981 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: 1981 Watermain Impro County Road No. 110 File (14730 Dear Mr. Elam: Enclosed is Payment Requel $63,656.17 for the above proje the end of September. This pr a few items. We should be abl of this month. Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 ,ement s t No. 3 in the amount of t. This is for work through ject is completed except for to final it out by the end 'ery truly yours,  cCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, (/ ~ohn Cameron INC. lr Enclosure Minneapolis- Hutchins ~n - Alexandria - Eagan October 9, 1981 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTI;',G ENGINli[RS I~LA~O SURVEYORS ,,iPLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 1980 Street Improvel Sections 2 Job #5248 Re: Dear Mr. Elam: Enclosed is Payment RequE $19,611.06 for work completed We have approved the request Hardrives in the above amount Minneapolis- Hutchins( ir Enclosures ents st No. 11 in the amount of ~hrough the end of September. ~d recommend payment to ;ery truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. lohn Cameron n - Alexandria- Eagan I I I U~ I-, I b~ I I I 000~' 0%0%~1000 I I I (AO I O) I I I 0000~00000 .m~~x. IIIIII IIIIIII 00000~0 OOID Z · 0 c~r H 0 0 · (D IIIIIIII II IIIIIIIl~ll IIIII IIIII~ · ! O%0 (1) 0 D 00000~ DDDDD 0000 ~~Owllll ommmmmr ~mrm 0000 IIIIIII IIII 111111 III I I ~0~00~00~0 0000000000 IIIIIIIIII 0000000000 IIIIIIIIII I w-, I I I I--,V'~O I f9 O0 I 00 000 O~ O0 I I o~o ~ o I 000 I O0 I O0 "o~ ~0 0 ! I.-, I I I I--. I ~.n (D 0 0 O~ CD ~0~ I I ~)~ I I I I (;DOO0 I I I I I I I I mmm mmm I I I 00(2:) I I I mmm 000 I I I I I I ~3ET 0 0 I 0 0 o~nu 0 ! I I I ! I I I O0 I I 0 I I I 0 · 0 0 IIIII 00000 IIIII 0 IIIIII 000000 IIIlll ~00000 ~00 ~ ~0 0000000~ 0000000~ MOUND, MINNESOTA 1980 Street Improvements - Section 2 Hardrives, Inc. Payment No. 1 Payment No. 2 Payment No. 3 Payment No. 4 Retainage Reduction Payment No, 5 Payment No, 6 Payment No, 7 Payment for Securities in Lieu of Retainage Payment No, 8 Payment No, 9 Payment No. lO Payment No, ll $286,571.30 $445,424.00 $282,712.80 $ 82,056.22 $ 46,157.68 $ 14,819.45 $ 56,449.22 $ 83,642.37 $ 24,527.83 $ 36,506.44 $ 25,306.12 $ 19,611.06 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSUlTINg ENGINEERS ~ l~,~D StlRVEYORS F PL,~,NNERS October 9, 1981 Reply 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Re: 1981 M.S.A. Street Imp. Tuxedo Blvd. & 3 Pts. Blvd. Job #5387 & 5388 Dear Mr. Elam: Enclosed is Payment Request No. 5 in the amount of $109,764.92 for work completed through the end of September. We have approved the request and recommend payment to Hardrives in the above amount. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ~Joh~h~n C a~ lr Enclosures Minneapolis- Hutchinson - Alexandria - Eagan CONTRACTOR. PAY ESTIMATE t,;O. OS PAGE HOUND, MN - I~ED0 ~AD ~ ~ POINTS ~ M~ ~81 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: HARDRIVES,~ INC. 18800 HWY 55 1800 HEHLOCK LANE PLYMOUTH, HN HAPLE I;RDqJ~, NN DATE: 0~/30/81 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE SUHMRRY -- THIS PERIOD liORK COHPLETED TUXEDO BOULEVARD HSAP 145-101-0~ THREE POINTS BOLLEUARD HSAP 145-106-01 HATERIALS ON SITE TUXEDO BOULEVARD HS~P 145-101-06 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD HSAP 145-106-01 8S,GG8.63 89,879.39 0.00 0.00 ADJUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 5% PREVIOUS, TO DATE E71,Bsg. 89 438,E60..53 0.00 0.00 1.1S, 548.08 704,880.48 CURRENT 5,777.10 35,P11.08 TOTAL ANOUNT DUE FOR tit:IRK COMPLETED TO DATE 109,764.98 LESS PREVIOUS PAYHENTS 0.00 TOI~AHOLINT DUE 109,764.98 669,009.40 S59,844.48 -- S~MARY OF PREVIOUS PAYHENTS -- ESTIMATE NO. DATE I 0S/31/81 8 0G/30/81 3 07/31/81 4 08/31/81 ENGINEER: McCOHBS-K?~UTSON AHOUHT TOTAL 104,149.81 104,149.81 137,10~. 89 841,859.70 804,175.39 445,435.09 APPROVED: CONTRACTOR: HARDRIqJES, INC. CO~TRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE ~{O. OS PAGE TUXEDO BOLLEUARD HSAP 145-101-06 ENGIIEER: HccoltBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: HARDRIUES, INC. 117.800 HllY ~ 'TEO0 HEHLOCI( LANE PLYHDUTH, Hid . HRPLE GRDUE, HN DATE: 09/30/81 -- PAYHENT SUHHARY FOR llORK COHPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH ITEH CONTRACT UNIiT NO. DES~Rll>TION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE OUANTITY I EOE1. S01 HDBlI. IZATIDN 1.0 kS ES,O00. O0 0.0 E E101.511 CLEAR ~ GRUB RD 1.0 LS 5,400.00 0.0 3 P104.S01 RHV CIIV. PIPE BS.O Ur 4.00 0.0 4 8104.501 ~V CONO C~G P5. O Ur P.O0 0.0 S P104.S09 P, HV H.H. OR C.B 1.0 EA EO0.O0 0.0 6 'EIOS.S01 COHHON EXCAV. 6,856.0 CY 3.77 1,106.0 7 8105.S..'.~SALt&ACE TOPSOIL SO0. O CY 4.ES 0.0 8 8130.501 llATER 11%0 gAL 8.00 0,0 9 EP11.c;o1 AGGR BASE Ct. P L~O.O TON 6.50 13,1 10 PP11.SOL AGGR BASE Ct. 4 3,000.0 TON ' 5.68 0.0 11 PP11.S01 Ab'OR BASE CL S P,980.0 TON 5.68 0.0 IE 8301.501 CONCRETE APRDNS 890.0 SY 18.00 438.0 11~1.S04 BIT. HATL HIXT 90.0 TON 165.00 45.7 1.S14 BASE COURSE HIX P,O00. O TON 11.51 969.3 15 8341.504 BIT HATL HIXT 100.0 TON 165.00 32.5 · 16 8341.580 llEAR COURSE HIX 1,900.0 TON /2.07 581.0 17 P357.508 BIT HATL TACK C 490.0 GAL 1.10 P45.0 18 E"A~8.501 BIT HRTL PRIHE E,8BO. O GAL 0.10 0.0 19 2503.511 tp" PCp ST SEW · 395.0 Ur 18.00 0.0 PO ES(X3.S11 15" PCP ST SEll 305.0 LF PO. O0 0.0 El PR03.SLL 18" PCP ST SEll 3S3.0 LF PE.O0 0.0 PP 2503.S73 IP, PCp CONc AP 1.0 EA 150.00 0.0 83 2503.573 18" AP ll/TC 1.0 EA 325.00 0.0 P4 P506.S06 CONST NH OR CB P6.9 LF 100.00 0;0 ES 250G.507 CONST HH OR C8 7.6 LF 70.00 0.0 P6 8506,S16 CAST. ASHBLY A 1.0 EA /25.00 0.0 P7 2506,516 CAST. ASFd3LY 13 10.0 EA EO0. O0 0.0 88 2506,581 ~NSTALL CAST]NC 11.0 EA 60.00 0.0 P9 2511.50;? HAND PLACED R.R 10.0 CY 30.00 5.0 30 E511,504 FILTER BLANKET S.O CY 10.00 0.0 31 E..A81.SOI 4" CONC WALK 13,P00.0 SF 1.PO /2,PPg. 0 32 2531.501 CONC C&G B-61B 5,930.0 LF 4.10 176.0 33 P.531,507 6' CDNC D~ PUM 90.0 SY 1B. O0 PP.0 2,4 P571.501 F& PLANT H TREE 30.0 TEE 119.30 0.0 3~ 2571.50P F& PLANT A TREE 30.0 TRE 119.30 0.0 5~ 2571,5~ F& PLANT H TREE 30.0 TRE 119.30 0.0 37a~71,S44 IR PLANT SHRUBS 10.0 SHR 10.00 0.0 38~75.501 AD.SIDE SEEDING 0.3 AC 175.00 0.0 39 2575.502 SEED HIXTUPE 5 15.0 LES 2.10 0.0 40 857=3.505 SDDDIRG B, O00. O ST 1.10 2,475.0 THIS PERIOD ----- AHDUNT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,169.82 0.00 0.00 85.15 0.00 0.00 7, BB4. O0 7,540.50 11, L.~.64 5,3G2.50 7, 0.12.. 67 P69.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150. O0 0.00 14,674.80 721.60 396. O0 0.00 0.00 · 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 P,'T22.50 ---- TO DATE QUANTITY 1.0 1.0 51.0 0.0 0.0 5,906.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 3,000.0 P,980.0 438.0 86.7 1,B4B.3 53.5 956.0 490.0 0.0 4.1.E. 0 P97.0 360.0 1.0 E9. B 9.5 1.0 ~.0 13.0 10.0 0.0 6,049.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ANOUNT 25,000. O0 5,400.00 PO4. O0 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 17,040.00 16,086.40 7, BB4. O0 14,305.50 Pi,PT3.93 8,827.50 ll,E~.B8 0.00 7,416.00 5, ~40. O0 7,E~.0.00 150.00 650. O0 P, 980. O0 665.00 /25.00 8,400.00 780. O0 300. O0 0.00 14,674.80 84, BO0.90 396. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,782.50 ONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO_ OS PAGE NOUND, MN - '[UXEDO ROAD ~ ~E POINTS ~ ~ 1981 T~EDO ~E~ H~P 145-101-~ -- PAYHEHT SUHHARY FOR MORA COHPLEll~D 1'0 DATE -- 44 SPEC 45 SPEC 46 SPEC 47 SPEC 48 SPEC 49 SPEC 50 SPEC 51 SPEC 5E SPEC 53 SPEC 54 SPEC 55 SPEC 56 C 58 SPEC 59 SPEC 60 SPEC 61 SPEC ---- HIS PERIOD .... TEH ITEH CONTRACT UNIT ~-- TO DATE ...... ND. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AHOUHT 41 E57~.511 NULCH HATERIAL 0.6 TON 150.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 4E E?ST.S1/ TOPSOIL BORRD¥ B20.O CY 6.00 PO4.0 1,704.00 2B4.0 1,704.00 43 SPEC PRD¥ STEPS 15.0 RI 50.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PRDg DRY RUB YALLS 5,490.0 SF 6.8~ 3,099.0 El,PPS.15 3,099.0 Pl,228.15 PRD¥ /~D3 GATE VAL~ 6.0 EA 135.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PROV LO¥ #ATERHAIN 150.0 LF B. O0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PRDV LO¥ ¥~TER SERV ?00.0 LF 7.00 0.0 0.00 25.0 175,00 PRO¥ EXT #ATER SERV 60.0 LF PO. O0 0.0 0.00 10.0 200.00 PROV CURB BOX ~, CC 2.0 EA 100.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 300.00 PRDV AD3 CURB BOX 40.0 EA 30.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 30.00 PRDV INSL SE# SERV 75.0 LF 5.00 1E.O 60.00 1E.O 60.00 PROV LOYER SE¥ SERV ESO. O LF 7.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PROV FEI SIGN POSTS 53.0 EA 15.00 15.0 E25.00 15.0 EES.00 PRDV Fbi R~-I SIGNS 4.0 EA 30.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PRDV F&I RT-I SIGNS 30.0 EA 20.00 15.0 300.00 15.0 300.00 PROV F&I IE~-I SIGNS '1.0 EA 75.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PROM F&I 8X6 ~ 1.0 EA 50.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PRO¥ AD3UST HYDRANT 3.0 EA ESO. O0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 PROV ADJUST HH 14.0 EA ~.00 0.0 0,00 0.0 0.00 PRDU RECONST N.H. 1.0 EA 250.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 500.00 Pi~U FIELD OFFICE 1.0 LS 3,000.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 3,000.00 ~:~ HUCK EXCAVATION 1,0~0.0 YD 4.0~ 0.0 0.00 1,376.0 5,531.5~ 63 GRANULAR F/IL E,I~O.O TON 5.~6 0.0 0.00 2,650.0 13,939.00 64 HIRAFI Fabric 780.0 SY 1.80 0.0 0.00 ~o5.0 1,557.00 TOTAL TUXEDO BOULEVA~) HSAP 145-101-06 85,662.63 271,959. B9 CONTRA£TOR PAY ESTIi'iATE NI3. OS PAGE HOUND, HN - TUXEDO ROAD & THREE POINTS ll~ HSA 198! TUXEDO BOULEVARD HSAP 145-101~0~ ENGINEER: HcCOHBSJ~UTS~N CONTRACTOR: HAP, DRIVES, IN:, li?.800 Hkff .SS 7EO0 HEHLOCK L6NE PLY½OUTH, HH HAPLE GROVE, HN DATE: 09/30/81 .- PAYHENT SL~HARY FOR HATER~ALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEH ITEH CDNTRACT UNITS INVOICE : UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SIT[ TOTAL IT[H VALUE INVOICE PRICE TO DATE UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITEH VALLE TOTAL TUXEDO BOULEVARD HSAP 145-101-06 0.00 0.00 'ONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. OS PACE HOUND, HN - IUXED0 B~AD & THREE POINIS BLeD ~ 1BSi ~EO0 ~E~ M~P 145-101-~ HccoHBS-KNUTSON 18800 H~ SS PLYHOUTH, HN 09/'30/81 ORDERNO. O! 0B/31/8! XTEH DESCRIPTION 68 HUCI( EXCAVATION ¢/:13 GRANULAR FILL 64 HIRAFI Fabric CONTRACTOR: HARDRIVES, INC. 'T'~OO HEHLOCKLANE HAPLE CRDVE, HN S~ARY OF CHANCE ORDERS -- E0,616.00 ' PREVIOUS OUANTITY UNIT PRXCE O. O0 YD O. O. O0 TON 0. O0 0.00 SY 0.00 CHANCED AHOUHT ANOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 1,OSO.O0 YO 4.0~ e,8~O. O0 TON S.B6 14,~1,00 7BO. O0 ~Y 1.BO 'REVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE ~0,448.0E + CHANCE 80,'61G.00 = REVISED CONTRACT ANOUNT ~l,¢JS.(E )RIG/NAL CONTRACT PRICE 330,448.0E + CHANGE REVISED CONTRACT ANOUNT ~1,0~8.0~ ~OI~T~ACTO~ PAY ESTII~ATE NO. OS F'ACE 57387~k8 E HOLED, HN - TUXEDO RDAD & THREE POINTS B~VD H,~ 198i THREE POINTS BOULEVARD HSAP 145-10~-01 ! NGINEER: HcCOHBS--~UTSON CONTRACTOR: HAl{DRIVES, INC. /2800 HNY cA 7200 HEHLOCK LANE PLYHOUTH, HN HAPLE GROVE, HN ATE: 09/30/81 I -- PAYHENT SUNHARY FOR NORK COHPLETED TO DATE -- ITEH DESCRIPTION POE1.50! HOBILIZATIDN E101.51/ E104.501 E104.501 E104.505 P104.509 2105.501 E105.5E5 2105.535 2130.501 21711.501 E:1711.501 P~I~501 231~.501 F331.504 2331.514 17341.504 2341.405 F'~?.50~ 2358.501 2503.511 E:50'3.51/ ESO3.S'r3 ~50~.50~ i7506.507 17506.516 2506.516 250~.516 2511.5~ 17511.504 R521.501 2531.501 2531.507 2571.502 17571.502 ~01 2575.502 P757.505 CLEAR & CRI~ RD RHV CLLV PIPE RHV CONE C~ RHV CONC PAVEHT RHV HH OR CB COHHON EXCAV. TOPSOZL BORRDW SALVAGE TOPSOIL WATER (H) ACCR BASE Ct. 4 AGGR BASE CL 5 CDNCRETE APRDNS BIT HATL ~IXT BASE CDURSE HIX BIT HATL HIX WEAR CDURSE HIX BIT HATL TACK BIT ~ATL PAINE /2' PCP ST SEW 15' PCP ST. SEW CONST HH OR CB CONST CB DESG H CAST ASHELY A CAST ASHBLY B CAST. ASHBLY C INSTALL CASTING HAND PLACED R.R FILTER BLANKET 4' CONC gALK CDNC C&G B-61B 6' CONC Dt~' PM F& PLANT H TREE FI~ PLANT A TREE F& PLANT H TREE AD.SIDE ~EDING ~ED HIXTU?~ 5 SODDINg CONTRACT UNIT, -- THIS PERIOD -- QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AHDUNT 1.0 LS 25,000. O0 0.0 0.00 1.0 LS 13,000. O0 0.0 0.00 154.0 LF 4.00 0.0 0.00 100.0 LF E. OO 0.0 0.00 31.0 SY 5.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 1700. O0 0,0 0.00 15,815.0 CY 3.77 0.0 0.00 500.0 CY 6. O0 7~. 0 432. O0 ?50.0 CY 4.25 0.0 0.00 EGO. 0 .GAL 8. O0 O. 0 O. O0 305.0 TON 6.50 11.7 76.05 6,150.0 TON 5.68 0.0 0.00 6,550.0 TON 5.68 0.0 0.00 4417.0 SY 18. O0 O. 0 O. O0 ~. 0 TON 165. O0 O. 0 O. O0 3,010.0 TON 11.51 0.0 0.00 170.0 TON 165.00 0.4 66.00 3,075. 0 TON 1E.O? 7.8 94.14 860.0 GAL 1.10 0.0 0.00 5,160.0 GAL 0.10 0.0 0.00 758.0 LF 18. O0 O. 0 O. O0 Co5. O LF 170.00 0.0 0.00 17.0 EA 150.00 0.0 0.00 31.0 LF 100. O0 O. 0 O. O0 13.2 LF 70. O0 O. 0 O. O0 2.0 EA /25.00 0.0 0.00 /2.0 EA 200.00 0.0 0.00 ~.0 EA /25. O0 0.0 0.00 16.0 EA 60.00 0.0 0.00 4.0 CY 30. O0 O. 0 O. O0 2,0 CY 10.00 0.0 0.00 20,~60.0 SF 1.170 0.0 0.00 9,B00.0 LF 4.10 0.0 0.00 10.0 SY 18. O0 23.0 414. O0 75.0 TRE i19.30 0.0 0.00 75.0 TRE 119.30 0.0 0.00 75.0 TP£ 119.30 0.0 0.00 0.7 AC 175.00 0.7 22.50 38.0 LBS 2.10 38.0 79. ~0 7,700.0 SY 1.10 1,275.0 1,402.50 -- TI) DATE QUANTITY 1.0 0.9 185.0 199.0 175.E 1.0 15,815.0 912.0 0.0 5.0 E50.8 7,100.0 5,901.0 544.17 148.0 3,147.0 /26.4 1,300.0 0.0 718.0 82.0 1.0 43.1 80.1 /2.0 16.0 2.0 1.0 18,808.0 9,716.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 3~.0 7, 7P5.0 AHOUNT ES, 000. O0 11,700. O0 740. O0 398. O0 /26.00 1700. O0 5, 47E. O0 0.00 40.00 .1,630.80 40,3E8. O0 33,517.68 9,795.60 174,420. O0 36,2171.97 170,8S6.00 E8,S43.13 0.00 /2,9174.00 1,~o. op 150.00 4,310. O0 1,407.00 ESO. O0 2,400.00 ESO. O0 %0. O0 60. O0 10. O0 22,569.60 39,835.60 414. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 IP2.50 79.80 8,497.50 CONTRACTOR. P~Y ESTIJ-t/~TIL- lqO. O~ P~ ~8~8~ HO~D, HN - T~EDO ~AD ~ ~E POINTS ~ H~ 1981 ~EE POINTS ~E~ H~P 14~1~-01 -- PAYHENT StJ~ARY FOR llO~ COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEN ITEH CONTRACT UNZT ND. DESCRIPTION OUANTITY UNIT PRZCE QUANTITY 41 E575.5/1 HULCH HATERIAL 1. q TON 150,00 1.5 4E SPEC PRDV DRY RUB. llALLS 5,350.0 ~ 6.85 3,604.0 43 SPEC PRDV ADJ GATE VAU,E 9.0 F.A 13~.00 0.0 44 SPEC PRDV EXT #~TER SERV 300.0 LF EO. O0 0.0 45 SPEC PRDV CURB STOP,BOX 8.0 EA 80.00 O. 46 SPEC PROV ADJ CURB BOX 30.0 EA 30.00 0.0 4'/ SPEC PROV Fbi SIGN POSTS 5B.O EA 15.00 48 SPEC PRDV Fbi RE-1 SIGNS 4.0 F~ 30.00 E.O 49 SPEC PROV Fbi R7-1 SIGNS SO.O EA PO.O0 ~3.0 50 SPEC PRO¥ Fbi N5-1 SIGN 1.0 EA 75.00 0.0 51 SPEC PRO¥ Fbi CORP CDCI~ B.O EA ~5.00 0.0 5E Fbi 15" ~P APRON 1.0 EA E37.00 0.0 '53 SPEC PRO¥ AD~ HANHDLES ~?.0 EA J_~.O0 0.0 '54 SPEC PRDV RECONST HH 3.0 F.~ ~'50.00 0.0 .~5 SPEC PRDV LOIER SEll SERV 150.0 LF ?.00 0.0 56 SPEC PROV LOM YATER SERV 150.0 LF 7.00 0.0 5~EC PROV INS. FORCEHAIN ~50.0 LF ?.00 0.0 51]~¥ER ll~TEP, HAIN ESO.O LF 8.00 0.0 --- THIS PERIOD AHOUHT ~?.5. O0 E6,057.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 390.00 60. O0 460. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ----TO OUANTITY 3,8M.0 El.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 E6.O ~3.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 31.0 E.O 0.0 0.0 95.0 0.0 DATE ---- AHOUtIT EPS. O0 E6, 0~7.40 E,835.00 0.00 80. O0 0.00 390. O0 60. O0 460. O0 0.00 ~.5~00 E37.00 4,80~.00 500. O0 0.00 0.00 665. O0 0.00 TOTAL THREE POINTS BOULEVARD HSAP 145-106-01 29,879.39 43E,EBO.53 COi,ITEACTOE PAY ESTIi~iATE NO. OS F'A~E MOUND, MN - TUXEDO ROAD & THREE POINTS BLVO HSA 1981 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD MSAP 145-1(~-01 ENGINEER: McCOMBS--KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: HARDRIVES, lng. 18800 N~ .~ 7800 HEHLOCK LANE PLYMOUTH, HN MAPLE GROVE, HN DATE: 09/30/81 -- PAYMENT SUHMARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE -- -- THIS PERIOD ITEM ITEH CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TO DATE TOTAL INVOICE UNITS TOTAL ITEM VALIF PRICE ON SITE ITEM VALUE TOTAL THREE POINTS BOULEVARD MSAP 145-106-01 0. O0 0. O0 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 494,0'~.80 + CHANGE 0.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 494,036.80 October 7, 1981 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 Dear Sir, Our bid for the 1981 Fall cleanup will be 4,500.00, which includes all dumping fees. Sincerely, f~'~o Zu~caro Westonka Sanitation P. O. Box 94 Navarre, Mn. 55392 472 1379