The URL can be used to link to this page

82-02-23CITY OF HOUND AGENDA HOUND, HINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL February 23, 1982 City Hall 5:00 P.M. /I. 17. 18. Minutes of February 9, 1982 Meeting Public Hearing: Delinquent Utility Bills Joint Meeting with Minnetrista (Confirm date and time) City Tax Rates for 1982 Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Warrants Pg. 335-338 Pg. 339 Pg. 340 Pg. 341 Pg. 342 Street Sealing Program & Plan (John Christianson) -Booklet enclosed Application for Bingo Permit a. Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church b. Mound Fire Department Planning Commission Items: a. Danny Jensen, 1673 Canary Lane - Lots 6 & 7, Block 5, Dreamwood - Side Yard Variance Request b. Lake Winds (formerly Bay Point Apartments) 4371Wilshire Blvd. - Sign Permit Test Hole - Bid Approval (George Boyer)- To be handed out 1982 MTC Bus Shelter Program Set Date for Public Hearing on Wetlands Ordinance - Suggest March 23rd Land Registration Case - Lot 23, Block 5, Arden (Authorizing Mayor and Manager to execute Quit Claim Deed over Lot 23) Resolution to Support Title IIIB Grant - Application of Westonka Senior Center (an improvement grant for a Senior Center in the Old High School Cafeteria - submitted by Westonka Community Services) House File #1904 - Special Service District Bill (endorse and refer to our Senator & Representative) Letters received on LMCD matter Payment of Bills Executive Session - Jim Larson on legal matters coming up Information/Miscellaneous Pg. 343 Pg. 344 Pg. 345-346 Pg. 347-352 Pg. 353-355 Po. 356 Pg. 357-359 Pg. 359-364 Pg. 365-368 Pg. 369-371 Pg. 372-374 Pg. 375-381 Pg. 382a Pg. 382-390 Page 334 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 26 February 9, 1982 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 February 9, 1982, at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Rock Lindlan, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Robert Polston, Gordon Swenson and Donald Ulrick. Also present were. City Manager Jon Elam, City Planner Rob Chelseth and City Clerk Fran Clark, and the following interested citizens: Florence Ess, Yvonne Swanson, Roger Magnuson, Randy Bickmann, Paul Pond, Jerry Longpre, Peter Ward, Donna Quigley, John Royer, George Stevens, Ron Carlson, Ron Norstrem, Diane A~ne~on, Dave Willette. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes of the meeting of February 2, 1982, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the February 2, 1982, Council Meeting as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - DUANE SCHALLER The City Manager explained that if Brighton Blvd. was brought up to M.S.A. Standards this right-of-way would be needed. He presented a map showing the right-of-ways that the city already has along Brighton Blvd. He also pointed out the Building Inspector's Memo which states that even without this right-of-way vacation the lots are buildable lots and the setbacks could be adhered to. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this request. The Mayor opened the public hearing as asked for any comments from the citizens present on this vacation. There were none. The Council discussed the need for a pedestrian walkway or sidewalk along Brighton Blvd. because it is narrow and winding. They also discussed the possible future need to bring this road up to M.S.A. Standards. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Ulrick moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-40 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION ON LOTS 20, 21, 22 & 23, BLOCK 26, WYCHWOOD The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - PARKING LOT BEHIND MOUND CLINIC TO TOM THUMB The City Manager explained that the City Attorney in checking these properties could find nothing which would indicate that the City of Mound has an easement over any of them. He also has written a letter to all the property owners and pointed out the following things that must happen if the project was to proceed. The letter was written January 7, 1982, and nothing new has happened since. 27 February 9, 1982 1. An appropiate easement must be signed with the City allowing for the street construction on the property. I' 2. An assessment ~ormula must be developed and agreed upon that will allow the abutting or benefiting property owners to pay for these construction costs. 3. Terms and responsibilities for the maintenance of this lot be mutually approved. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments from the people present. There were none so the Mayor closed the public hearing. Ulrick moved and Swenson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-41 RESOLUTION TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT BEHIND THE MOUND MEDICAL CLINIC TO THE TOM THUMB AT THIS TIME The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SIDEWALK SNOW BLOWER/SWEEPER BID The City Manager explained that only one bid was received today at the bid opening for the sidewalk snow blower/sweeper. .It was from Mac Queen Equipment, Inc. for a total of $34,126.00. The breakdown of this bid is as follows: 1. $26,244.00 Basic Machine 2. 3,430.00 Blower and Chute 3. 423.00 Truck Chute 4. 4,037.00 Sweeper The Council decided they would like to have a 12 month warranty, parts and labor, engine and machine instead of the 6 month warranty Mac Queen submitted. Swenson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-42 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE BID OF MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT, INC. FOR THE SIDEWALK SNOW BLOWER/ SWEEPER IN THE AMOUNT OF $34,126.00 WITH A FULL 12 MONTH WARRANTY ON PARTS AND LABOR, ON THE ENGINE AND MACHINE 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, in the amount of $79,855.85, when funds are available. Roll call vote was four in favor with Polston abstaining. Motion carried. V.F.W. GAMBLING PERMIT Swenson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #82-43 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE GAMBLING PERMIT FOR V.F.W. CLUB 5113 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. FEBRUARY 23, 1982, COUNCIL MEETING TIME CHANGE 28 February 9, 1982 The City Manager explained that by law the Council cannot meet after 7:00 P.M. on February 23, 1982, because of caucuses so the meeting will either have to be scheduled for another date or an earlier time on the 23rd. Swenson moved and Ulrick seconded a motion to reschedule the Council Meeting to 5:00 P.M., February 23, 1982. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. JOINT MEETING OF THE DOWNTOWN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE CITY COUNCIL The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the Downtown Advisory Committe. He then gave the guidelines for this meeting. Paul Pond, Chairman of the DAC, stated that now the Council has received the study plan and the objectives and the DAC is now soliciting the Council's input on what priority items should be worked on, funding and where they should go from here. There was discussion by the Council and the DAC on the following: 1. The Anderson Building - what should and could be done with it. 2. The intersection of County Roads 110 and 15 ° rerouting possibility. 3. The possibility of setting up committees from the DAC to work on short range, intermediate range and long range projects. 4. Keeping the DAC informed on possible businesses looking to settle in the Mound area. 5. Developing a plan for the beautification of the Downtown area. 6. The DAC and the Council want to see something done and will work together to make something happen in the Downtown area. 7. The Council will help look for funding for these projects as they are developed. 8. The City Manager and the City Planner have the resources to aid the DAC and the Council in implementing the plans as they are developed. The Council thanked the DAC for all their work and effort on the revitalization of the Downtown area. They felt the DAC has come a long way and are looking forward to continued progress on the plan and future implementation. Ulrick moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:25 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 337 BILLS ...... FLBRUARY 9, 1982 Blackowiak & Son 24.00 Holly Bostrom 225.50 Bill Clark 011 5,352.73 Coast to Coast 170.62 £urti~ IoOo 122.84 Commiss of Revenue 5,691.72 Capitol Rubber Stamp 9.75 Duane's 66 25.00 Davies Water 144.84 Jon Elam 11.01 Henn Co. Chiefs Police 15.O0 Eugene Hickok 1,180.70 Henn Co Clerk Dist Court 5.00 Iten Chevrolet 63.19 Illies& Sons 7,724.50 Instant Office Furn 129.O0 Koehnens Standard 15.94 Kustom Electronics 223.41 League of MN Cities 5.00 The Laker 110.33 Long Lake Ford Tractor 13.84 Lakeland Ford Truck 128.75 Marina Auto Supply 659.91 MacQueen Equip 388.15 Mound Fire Dept 4,360.85 MN Co. Attorneys Assn 25.00 Minn Comm 28.50 R.S. Means Co. 27.50 Mpls Otolaryngology 55.00 Wm Mueller 1,828.31 N.S.P. 5,670.23 Navarre Hdwe 72.90 Paper Calmenson 343.99 Planning & Development 760.00 Physicians Health Plan 4,366.35 P.E.R.A. 2,567.70 Rieke-Carroll-Muller 2,084.00 State Treasurer 1,554.00 Sea rs Roebuck 65.78 St. Paul Stamp Works 153.98 State Treasurer 1,426.84 Un i tog 376.95 Village Printers 49.65 Village Chevrolet 4.50 Westonka Sanitation 50.00 Westonka Cable TV 1,O32.46 Water Products Mound Police Reserve 484.00 R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc 2,884.00 Diseased tree Rebates 956.00 Mound Postmaster 600.00 TOTAL BILLS LIQUOR BILLS Griggs Cooper 1,358.58 Johnson Bros. Liquor 1,615.43 Old Peoria 952.92 Ed Phillips 972.62 Bl'ackowiak & Son 32.00 Real One Acquisition 746.21 Nels Schernau 9.68 Johnson Paper 259.88 Bradley Exterm. 38.00 Mtka Refrigeration 104.42 Koo1 Kube 69.50 A.J. Ogle 3,052.70 Butch's Bar Supply 375.10 Coca Cola 201.15 Day Distrib 2,826.60 East Side Bev. 3,082.95 Gold Medal Bev 169.30 Home Juice 30.76 City Club Dist 2,060.70 Midwest Wine 1,080.85 The Liquor House 1,267.O1 Pepsi Cola 214.50 Pogreba Dist 2,049.20 Thorpe Dist 2,813.95 Total Liquor Bills 25,384.O1 GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS 79,855.85 202.42 Aecount ~ 2-404-5559-41 11-013-1677-41 11-016-1736-11 11-019-1684-71 11-022-1610-10 11-022-1721-11 11-025-1661-21 11-028-1610-31 11-028-1656-51 11-028-1688-91 11-046-1740-01 11-052-5001-11 11-055-5037-81 11-070-1921-61 11-070-1944-81 11-070-4625-01 11-082-1767-81 1-085-4919-51 11-085-4948-41 11-085-4960-91 11088-2147-91 11-103-5764-51 11-103-5984-91 11-109-5925-91 11-109-5936-61 11-112-5917-01 11-155-2214-41 11-169-6048-31 11-169-6256-21 11-175-5448-31 11-187-5444-71 11-193-2146-91 11-220-2180-91 Delinquent Utility Bills Amount $310.20 } 46.08 55.08 64.07 110.91 78.99 62.46 45.72 82.20 109.08 67.62 91.21 144.36 109.50 58.80 109.34 117.74 72.48 46.63 85.89 69.34 63.80 53.84 50.58 30.40 72.52 262.94 127.58 75.35 93.48 94.62 119.00 82.84 $3064.66 2-18-82 February 12, 1982 TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER Sometime back, Mound wrote Minnetrista a letter requesting a joint City Council Meeting. Minnetrista agreed it was a good idea and developed a tentative agenda of four items. 1. Cable T.V. 2. LMCD 3. Development along mutual city boundaries of physical improvements. 4. West Edge Blvd. The meeting is tentatively set for Monday, March 22, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Mound Council Chambers. Do you want to add anything? Can we confirm that date? JE:fc February 12, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER This week the County finally finished up their 1982 mill rates for Mound. They breakdown as follows: City of Mound School Dist. #277 Vocational School Misc. Levies Wastershed District Hennepin County MILLS PERCENTAGE 1981 18.730 18.51 15.477 47.381 46.81 40.007 1.469 1.45 1.510 4.384 4.33 4.102 .O68 .O7 .O65 29.183 28.83 29.271 101.215 100.00% 90.432 Mound's rate went up 3.253 mills or about 21%. Mound's share of the total tax dollar in 1982 went from 17.11% to 18.51%, an increase of 1.40%. The secret is to try to hold 1983's levy at 1982's level and everything I am working toward is in that regard. A mill generates about $54,963.36. 101.215 mills times that means total property taxes for all property in Mound in 1982 will be about $5,562,255 or $599.38 per capita, not including special assessments. JE:fc RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE BANK WARRANTS TO THE CiTY OF MOUND WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, on occasion, because of circumstances beyond the City's control a bank overdraft occurs, and by law a bank must pay the legal claims presented to it by the City, and without an agreement approved by the City Council the bank is permitted to charge an interest rate equal to the prime rate, and with an agreement the City may borrow funds on "Warrants" which carry a maximum rate equal to that which can be paid for bonds, and is substantially below the prime interest rate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council hereby approves an Agreement by which the State Bank of Mound will pay ail "overdrafts" of the City using Warrants, which will result in a substantial savings to the City. Mayor Attest: City Clerk Mound, Minnesota Five Year Seal Coat Plan ~6173 Year One of the ~five years, 1982, plan shall include the following streets for patching and seal coating, which total up to 6.8 miles of street. On the next cycle of this five year plan, about 1/2 of the 1981 seal coat project would be added in, to bring the total to 8 miles. This would encompass the street projects of 1975 and ~arlier. 1982 Seal Coat Eagle Halstead Finch Otter Woodland Acorn Smaber Deerwood Jones Pine Sherwood Pheasant Maywood Setter Hidden Vale Ridgewood Eden Bay Ridge Fairview Bluffs Lane Chateau Bluffs Drive Woodbridge Highview Bayport Piper Cypress Charles Fernside Donald Avon Franklin Granger Tuxedo 'Beachwood Clyde Auditors Based upon the medium application rate, 1532 tons of aggregate and 30,650 gallons of emulsion would be used in 1982. These streets to be included in 1987 were seal coated in 198~. Gull Heron Paradise Enchanted Woodland Crestview Glen Elyn Three Points Shorewood Based upon the medium application rate, the totals for 1987 would be 1,802 tons of aggregate and 36,040 gallons of emulsion. Additional work would be needed on the following streets: Priest Lane, overlay Rustic Ridge Road, overlay Langdon and Gumwood, repaved These streets are in poor shape and should be done as soon as they can be budgeted. Year Two, 1983, of this schedule would encompass the streets built from 1976-1978 and total about 8.2 mile~. U~ing the medium rates of application, 1,850 tons of aggregate and 37,000 gallons of emulsion would be used. 1983 Avocet Belmont Wexford Bluebird Fern Carrick Canary Church Kildare Dove Basswood Carlow Eagle Cedar Kerry Finch Villa Black Lake Gull Pike Clare Heron Overland Shannon Jennings Centerview Tyrone Crestview Ashland Cavan Woodland Cardinal Galway Breezy Tuxedo Suffolk Waterside Evergreen Bedford Harrison Rosewood Essex Tonkawood Beachwood Montgomery Spruce Garden Denbigh Balsam Grove Cardigan Noble Longford Cardiff Glamorgan In 1984, Year Three of the seal coating schedule would include 7.5 miles consisting of the street construction.done in 1979. At the same application rate, 1,690 tons of aggregate and 33,800 gallons of emulsion would be used in this year. 1984 Wildhurst Brunswick Dale Wren Monmouth Glascoe Hillside Marlboro Canterbury Sparrow Afton Stratford Heron Leslie Radnor Summach Cambridge Lamberton Resthaven Manchester Island View Montclair Cumberland Devon Driftwood Hampton Glendale Dickens Drury Avon Hazelwood Burns Park Longfellow Paisley Emerald Hawthorne Gordon Lakewood Cherrywood Lanark Channel Sinclair Argyle Ruby Plymouth Alexander Cambridge Bedford Dundee Dorchester Donald Richmond Year Four, 1985, would encompass 6.6 miles of street consisting of the 80-1 street project plus the Three Points Boulevard 1981 street project. This being the smallest total miles of street, it seems to be a good place to add in the City parking lots. Excluding any parking lots and at the same rate of application, 1,500 tons of aggregate and 30,000 gallons of emulsion would be used this year. 1985 Gr andview Linden Be llaire Birch Sunset Rambler Hillcrest Walnut Alley Maple Alder Langdon Ironwood Bush Elm We stedge Sycamore Westwood Circle Diamond Oak lawn Wi llow Id lewood Aspen Holt Clover Highland Southview Glenwood Chestnut Me adow Forest Fairfield Re doak Bryant Dutch Three Points Year Five, 1986, consists of the 1980-2 street project and the 1981 Tuxedo Boulevard project, totalling 7.2 miles. By adding the balance of the 1981 seal coat streets, this would bring it up to 9.0 miles and use 2,035 tons of aggregate and 40,700 gallons oS emulsion at the same rate of application. 1986 Shorewood Lakeside Beachside Quail Resthaven Be lmont Basswood Lynwood Apple Fairview Chateau Edgewater Pecan Rosedale Hi ckory Sandy Arbor Northern Norwood Wi lshi re Bartlett These five years total 39.3 miles of street. Brighton Boulevard Brighton Common Leslie Bradford Piper Gladstone Warner Hanover Drummond Windsor Waterbury Phelps Seabury Sulgrove Aberdeen Roxbury Roanoke Dexter Amhurst Tuxedo I have figured a conversion factor in for the streets of different widths so the quantities will be based on a 24' surface width. RECEIVED FEB CITY OF MOUND 5 APPLICATION FOR BINGO PERMIT Date 7~ ~/ /~~--- Name of Applicant _~ ~ ~.~. ~ ~ /~ ~~2 (If an organization, give .organization name) Addres-~ &~ f~ ~ ~~'. Phone No.~'7 Bingo M anager(NAddressama) ~~/~o4~ '~~M.f_~-~~~ Address of where Bingo will be played ~. /' .&. ~ sheet 5. Dates and Hours Bingo will be played ~ '' - , ' (AttaCh if more room~-necessary) 6. Is Licen'se Fee' attached? Yes N6 Amount Fidelity Bond: (a) AmOunt (b) Name of Bonding Company * (Minimum $10,000.) (c) Expirati'on Date of Bond *Note: Fraternal-, religious, veteran and other non-profit organizat'ions may request the Bond t~ be waive'd. Please. indicate below if you are making such a request~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~o~ ~ ~ee Signatur~of pers~ making a!,plicatio! CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION FOR BINGO PER~4IT (If an organization, g'ive .organization name} 2. Address AJ' ~/'>.~ ~~-/' Phone No~/~~~ 3. B i n g o M an a g e r {N a%~---]~...~//~/f~/z~ ~/?~~ U Address of where Bingo will be played Dates and Hours Bingo will be pla;ed ':~7~~ ~ (AttaCh separate sheet if more room necessary) 6. Is License Fee attached? Yes N6 "'~' Amount 7. Fidelity Bond: (a) (b) AmOunt Name of Bonding Company * (Minimum $10,000.) (c) Expirati'on Date of Bond *Note: Fraternal-, religious,, veteran and other non-profit organizat'ions may request the Bond t~ be waive'd. Please. indicate below if you are making such a request'j I 1 Signature of person making applicatio CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Licensing Department 19 February 1982 Cigarette License Renewals Cigarette licenses expire the last day of February. We have received the following renewals: A! & Alma's Supper Club, 5201 Piper Road B & L Vending for Seton Mobil Service, Shoreline & Bartlett Blvds. Bob's Bait Shop, 2630 Commerce Boulevard Cardinal Oil Co. for Mound K Station, 2620 Commerce Boulevard Croix Oil Co. for Metro 500 Station, 5377 Shoreline Boulevard Gas Hut, Inc. # 7, 1730 Commerce Boulevard Jude Candy and Tobacco Co. for: n , ' ?, Hole-in-One Bake Shop, 5309 Shoreline Boulevard ~. American Legion Post 398, 2333 Wilshire Boulevard ~, Mound Liquor Store, 2324 Wilshire Boulevard Io.V.F.W. Club # 5113, 2544 Commerce Boulevard Mound Super Valu, 2240 Commerce Boulevard ~,Sage Corporation (Tonka Toys, 5300 Shoreline Blvd.) 4 Machines MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 25, 1982 Present: Chairman Russell Peterson; Commissioners Stan Mierzejewski, Frank Weiland, Liz Jensen, Gary Paulsen and George Stannard; City Manager Jon Elam; City Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjo~ie Stutsman. Also present were Phyllis Jessen and Margaret Hanson of the Wetlands Committee and Danny Jensen and Nancy Hooker. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January ll, 1982 were presented for consideration. On Page 2 - Housing Committee - delete name of Russell Paterson and add instead the name of Roy 0'Donnell and on the Commercial/Industrial Develop- ment Committee, add the name of George Stannard. Weiland moved and Jensen seconded a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Side Yard Variance for 1673 Canary Lane Lots 6 and 7, Block 5, Dreamwood Danny Jensen was present; he has changed his request for a 20 foot wide garage to be attached to the house, rather than 21 foot shown. There will be about 4½ feet between the proposed garage and the existing garage. Applicant needs 20 foot wide garage in order to have access through to the existing garage. Discussed having existing garage moved; it is in good condition, but on slab which would make moving of structure difficult. Roof line of the existing garage goes in opposite direction from that of the house. Stannard moved and Peterson seconded a motion to recommend approval of allowing garage be built providing there is a minimum side yard not less than 6 feet and the Planning Commission further recognizes the nonconform- ancy of the existing garage. The vote was unanimously in favor. Sign Permit - Lake Winds, 4371Wllshire Boulevard (Formerly Bay Point Apartments) Metes & bounds description, Auditor's Subdivision 136 Nancy Hooker was present representing Bay Point Associates Proposal is for one sign (presently there are two) with actual size of sign 6.7 feet by 5 feet plus the posts. Stannard moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend approval of the sign permit request conditional on the Police Chief's approval of the location for traffic safety. The vote was unanimously in favor. Phyllis Jessen, Wetlands Committee Chair, stated they had completed a new draft of the Wetlands Ordinance and that It Is based on a Metro Council sample--this one better suited to Mound's being built up. A copy to be sent to the members so that it can be discussed at the next meeting. Weiland moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. All in favor, so meeting adjourned to Discussion Meeting, February 8th. Attest: AGENDA FOR THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING dANUARY 25, 19R2 City Hall 7:30 P.M. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1982 BOARD OF APPEALS Danny Jensen, 1673 Canary Lane Lots 6 & 7, Block 5, Dreamwood - Map 2 Variance Request referred back by Council Bay Point Associates, 4371Wtlshire Boulevard Auditorls Subdivision 136 - Map 7 Sign Permit CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound. MN 55364 NORTH Plat of Survey for Steven~. ~ Leighton o. Lots'6 ann 7, Block 5, Dreamwood Hennepin County, Minnesota t / ',;./ . / -_7' Certf£i~ate of Survey: ,, I hereby certiDy that this is a true and correct representation o£ a survey of the boundaries o£ Lots 6 and 7, Block 5, Dream~ood, and of the lccation of ~ll buildings thereon. other tmpr~zements or encroachments. It does not purport to show Seale: 1" = 20' Date : 10-11-74 o : Iron ~rker Gordon R. Coffin Regg~o. 6064 Land Surveyor and Planner 4ong Lake, Mdnnesota APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF MOUND FEE $ zoNmG ME OF Address PROPERTY ADDRESS /f~, _~ ~_.--~--~ PLAT ~,v~- _ LOT Telephone Number ~~ ADDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY O [Az,/~/ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s BLOCK _ PARCEL · Telephone Numb e r VARiANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONT YARD I FT.] ACCESSORY lB UI LDI NG FT.} SIDE YARD ~L~ FT'] LOTSIZE SAR .1 LOT SQ. RD £O ~ ~T FOOTAGE N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. Z. 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 affected property owners showing attitude toward request. ,q~0V [ ~k,A~uilding permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the ~ . i~Juncil resolution or varzance granted becomes null and void. ~ dk~Variances are not t~nsferable. APPLICANT cf Signature DATE // IPLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION To deny 1-25-82 Recommendation to allow garage to be built providing minimum side yard not be less than 6 feet; ,'--~qnized the nonconforming ~×l¢fin~ ~3~% request. DATE Nov. 30, 1981 COUNCIL ACTION: 12-8-81 Council Commission. referred back to PlanningRESOLUTIONNO .... DATE ¢non-conforming use 3 ~ ? '~ TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official Variance request for Danny Jensen, 1673 Canary Lane December 7, 1981 I have met with Danny Jensen on Friday to discuss his proposed garage addition to his home. The existing detached garage is on a floating slab. I have explained to Mr. Jensen that he can not attach his addition to the detached garage. There would be nothing to prevent him from putting an overhead door at the rear and front of his new garage and thereby drive through to the rear garage. Due to the angle of the home on his lot, the proposed garage addition would be 2.3 to 3 feet from the South lot line. Property irons would be required to be marked at the time of the footing inspection and the existing detached garage would be required to be set away from the principal structure by five (5) feet. Zan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commissioners Jan Bertrand, Building Official Addition to the Zoning Ordinance Definition (1) Accessory Use of Structure December 7, 1981 I would like to expand on the definition of accessory structure and add the following sentence: "Accessory building shall be considered an intregal part of the principal building or struc- ture unless it is 5 feet or more from the principal building." A case in point is the Danny Jensen variance request. Please find attached a copy of his request. The existing detached garage is built on a floating slab type construction and the principal structure requires frost footings. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Attachment I do fully understand that the proposed addition to Lot 7, of prop~y known as 1673 Canary Lane, borders lot 8, of my property known as 1677 Canary Lane. This addition will be 2.3 feet from the lot line on Lot 7, which do~s not conform to the exlsting building set back requ~ements. I have also received a s~rvey of Lots 6 ~ 7 with a diagram of the proposed addition to the garage which shows the distance from Lot lines 7 ~ 8. I would have no objections if t~is variance was to be granted. £o w;o~ouu'~a '£0, tmoo u'[demzaH poo...~:uo.~ '~ .',(aOl-~ '4 pu~ 9 ~"-°'! jo LO ~0 the ' ~rdon P-' and planner bong I~ke, NAME OF APPLICANT Address APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF MOUND )~-~j~. 2 FEE $_35'00 ZONING )~,, ,'z'-;, ,' PROPERTY _~4%,' '~Lx/,4K'7-- ,~4K.f~,C'/~ PLAT [ 7 7~f c i PARCEL /~--/g /,/~.~<~L/~7~/'~= LOT B LOCK Te le phone _,~ ~3 Nmber~~DDITION INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address ---- Telephone Numb e r VARIANCE REQUESTED: NOTE: FRONTI I ACCESSORY [ YARD FT. BUILDING FT. SIDE YARD [ FTJ LOT SIZE [ FT.] FT. FOOTAGE Si ze of,. present s ign.~,: ~.~X N.C.u.¥- or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1: Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting 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 affected property owners showing attitude toward re que s t. u.ain council resolution ~ variance granted becomes null and void. / .~riances are not~ransferable/~ ~ ~ / / U~ [ 2 ~LICANT_ {~l~ IA /~~ DATE , ~ ,~ ~. Signature L_I?LAN~N~COM~SION RECOMMENDATION Approval of the sign permit conditional I on the Police Chief s approval of the location for traffic safety. DATE January 25, 1982 COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. DATE *non-conforming use O C' ~ =1 , ; _ oo~'~ .o 0 i~cm ~. i.~. 0 H 0 0 0 i Ob~ 0 Z Waboehe, Minn. --County Proj, S.A.P. 79-$99-~. -- Bids Close March 2, 10:30 ~ M, at Wabash& Owner, Webesha County, Robert W. Egan, P.E,, Co Hgwy Engr, Wabasha, 55981, taking bids. $.A.P. 79-599-13, Located 3.9 miles NE of Jct. C.S.A.H. No. 2 on Tw~ P~d No. 131 [n Oat(wood ''Township over Long Creek. Majo~ quantity of wk iS placing new fir beams and 22.6' - 25' - 22.5' x 24' treated timber panel spans on Bridge No. L-8984. Plane and specifs secured at office of Co Hgvvy Engr at Wabesha, 55981. Plan and 1 proposal, $10 counter price. Proposal only, per set $1 counter price. Add $2 for shipping charges and 1 set of plans compl with 1 proposal. Requests for plans and proposals must be accompanied by chk, craft or money order payable to Co Hgwy Dept. Bidders bond or Celt chk made pay- able to Co Treasurer Jn ami equal to or at least 5% of amt of bid. Wabasha, Minn. --County ProJ, S.A.P. 79-599-11. -- Bids Clooo March 2, 10:30 A M, at Wabasha. Owner, Wabasha CourtW, Robert W. Egan, P.E., Co Hgwy Engr, Wabasha, 55981, taking bids. B.A.P. 79-599-11, Located 2.7 miles E NE of ')ak Center on Township Rd No. 35 over W .Ibany Creek in Gillford Township. Major quanti- y of wk is Bridge No. 79529. 28' - 36' - 28' :ontinuous concr slab span, 28' rdway, 30 egress skew. ~lane and proposals requests must be accom- snled by chk, draft or money order payable to ,;o Hgwy Dept. Bidders bond or cart chk made payable to Co Treasurer in ant equal to or at least 5% of ant of bid. ~rWasoc8, Minn. --Co ProJ, B.P. 81- 604-11. -- Low Bidder. Bids closed Jan 26. Props received by Roy Nelson, Co Aud of Waseca Co at Waseca, on behalf of Richard P. Braun, Comsr of Trane, as agt for Co for constr of co proj listed below. Props will be opened and read publicly by Coast of Trans or his rep- resentative at Co Court House in Waseca, imme- diately after hr set for receiving bids. Construct Bridge No. 81518. S.P. Sq,-604-11 (CSAH 4} Minn Proj BR RS 6199(8), located over Le Sueur River, 4 miles S of Waseca. Low Bidder, S. W. M., Inc, Box 567, Walnut Grove, $238,605. Next 2 iow: Moser-Back- strom, Inc, Rte 1, Box 70C, Buffalo, $243,742; H. S. Dresser and Son, Inc, Box 67, Winona, $245,384. ~rWillmar, Minn. -- Downtown Redevelopment Project (Est $5.2 Million) --Plans Complete. Council to Meet Feb 3 when bid date will be set. Ovvner, City of Will- mar, 333 SW 6th st, Box 755. R. C. Hoglund, CIk. (612)235-4913 Engr, Short Elliot & Hendrickson, Inc, 222 E Little Canada rd, St Paul, 55117. (612)484-0272 Dea,-_.rip: Incl street beautification & hot water htg system; min storm & sanitary sewer exten- sions, street lighting & elec system, landscap- ing, watermains. Woodbury, Minn. --St Grading and Sewer Extensions, Rolling Acres 4th Addn. --Bids Claes Fob 23, 11 A M, in City Hall, at 2100 Radio Dr, Woodbury. Owner, City of Woodbury, William Krueger, City CIk, taking bids. Engr, Bonestroo, Roeene, Anderlik end Alsace, Inc, 2335 W Trunk Hgwy 36, St. Paul, 55113, Approx.' 11,200 cu yds common excav; 1,165 lin ft B" V.C.P. san sewer; 535 lin ft 12" and 15" RCP storm sewer; 14 ea sewer services and correlated wk and appurtenances. Plane and specifs obtained from office of Engr upon payment of deposit of $30. Bidder's bond naming City as obligee, celt chk payable to CIk of City or cash depoosit equal to at least 5% of ant of bid. SMALL CONTRACTORS We Have The Answers! We offer reduction of rerl tape and fast service on all your bonding needs including SBA bonds. Call for appointment. of THE FAIRFIELD COMPANY (612) 339-6891 1200 SECOND AVE. SO., MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 Waterworks 1kanaka, Minn. -- U~JlltJea and S1~ fo~ Brom end Dunhem Oaks Areas. --Bids Claes Fob 12, 11 A M, at City Hall Bldg, Anoka. Plan Holders. Owner, City of Anoka, Jerry Dulgar, City Mgr, taking bids. Engr, Short-Elliott-Hendrick~ofl, Inc, 222 E Little Canada Rd, St. Paul, 55117. Planl end speclfs obtained from Engr. Volume I inclds specifs and all working drawings except cross-sections for st constr. Voluem I is availa- ble upon payment of dpeosit of $50. Volume II consists of 27 sheets of cross sections for st constr. Volume II may be purchased for $25 per set with no refund. Celt chk for at least 5% or bid bond for at least 10% of ant of bid, made payable to City Treasurer, Blaine, Minn, --Lexington Avenue/Ball Rd Truck Wfrtormein. -- Bids Close March 2, 10 A M, at office of City CIk. Owner, City of Blaine, Joyce Twisto/, City CIk, taking bids. Engr, Consulting Engineers Diversified, Inc, 7708 Lake ay N, Osseo, 55369. 1,630 If 16" DiP watermain; 3,012 If 12" DIP watermain; 30 If 30" casing jack bore. Maple Plain, Minn. -- Lift Station Mods, 1982. -- Bids Close Fob 18, 2 P M, at City offices. Owner, City of Maple Plain, Donald Loebrick, City CIk, Maple Plain, 55359, taking bids. Engr, McCombs-KnutJon As~d=l, Ir~, 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, 55441. Replace two exist centrifugal pumps and con- trois with two new pumps and controls. Exist drywefl fir is to be modified by installing 2" grouted fir with sump pump pit, sump pump, associated piping, and controls. Exist bldg located over drywall is to be removed. Controls fo~ lift station are tO be removed from city sell and located above ground. Plans, and specifs obtained at office of Engr upon deposit of $50. Cart chk or bidder's bond in ant of not less than 10% of total amt of bid. llr Marietta, Minn. -- Waeteweter Collection and Treatment System. -- Bids Close Fob 26, I P M, at office of City Clk at City Hall. Plan Hold~f~. Owner, City of Mari- etta, James Llebe, Mayor, Marietta, 56257, taking bids. Engr, Wood, Graver and Asa4:p~l, Inc, 1306 West Co Rd F, St. Paul, 55112. Contr documents obtained at office of Engr upon payment of $50 for e8 set. Morton, Minn. -- Wasteweter Treatment Plant -- Working Drawings. Grant for Step 2 & 3 approved. Anticipate Spring bidding. Cont~ documents obtained at office of Engr Owner, City of Mcx-ton, 56270, Shirley Dove, upon payment of $50 for ea set. Bid bond pays- CIk, (507)697-6912 Engf, bee to order of City Clk for not less than 5% of Aseoc, s~,_..~,(~. Trdart,~fer rd. St PayF~SS4j~. ami bid. (,,J,~I,E~ 44-0 604 . --'_.. ~rBumsville, Minn. -- Deep Well Nos. 11 /' Mound, Minn. -- Test Holes. & 13 Improve Nos. 80WW-1A & 81WW-/ Close Feb 23, 7:30 P M, at offi.ce of ~C.i_ty .M. gr. la. '" Contr Awd. Bids closed Dec 18[ Owner, City of Mound, John Elam, City Mgr, Owner, City of Burnsville, Leslie Anderson, Cit~ 5341 Maywood Rd, Mound, 55364, taking CIk. Engr, Orr-Schelane-Mayeron & Asso~ bids. Engr, E. A. Hickok and Ina, 2(~21 E Hennepin ay, Mpls, 55413[ 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, 55391. <612)331-8660 I Plane end specifs_ obtained from. ?.ngr.on Cont~ Awd, S~perior 77, Inc, 9301 Bryant a~ deposit of sum of $20. Cart chk, bid bond or s. B,ooming,on, $217.190. I c.~?, ~,,os~t. ma~..?able to C~ty in ami of/ 10% of maximum bid Coon R.,plds, Minn. -- Pump House folk~ lu.~ m maximum DiG. Well ~tlS. Proj #81-5 & 81-6. -- Bids close~''''-'W'N~ · · IJF-]~lant March 1, 10 am, et office of Owner. Owner, No I Rehabilitation, ProJ #E6116 -- Low City of Coon Rapids, City Hall, 1313 Coon Rapids Bird, Coon Rapids. (612)755-2880. Betty Bell, City Clk, taking bids. De,clip: Pump house for well #16 with pump, control panel and related appurtenances. Planl and specs obtained from office of Owner upon dap of $15. Cash dap, cashier's chk, bid bond cr cart chk in ant of 5% required. ~ Kssson, Minn. -- Wastewator Treatment Plant (Est $2.5 Million) -- Awaiting EPA review. March or April bidding possible. Multiple contrs. Owner, City of Kas- son, 122 W Main st, 55944, Dolores Meyer, CIk. {607)634-7071 Engr, McGhla & Bstt~, 1648 3rd ev SE, Rochester, 55901. {507)289- 3919 Mech &Elec Engr, TSP, Engineers, 112 West ay North, Sioux Falls, 57104. (605)336-1160 De.clip: 2 bldgs; 21,000 Sf & 15,000 SF, concr block & poured concr; 1 with basement; slab on grade, steel bar joist, poured concr roof, metal roof deck, incl 2 slduge & pre-treatment clerlfiers, poured concr foundations. Bidder~. Bids closed Feb 1. Owner, City of North Mankato, 1001 N Belgrade av, 56001, Laurie Greenfield, City CIk. (507)625-4141 Engr, Ballon & Meflk, Inc, 515 N Front st, Mankato, 56001. (507)625-4 171 KOPPERS Specialty Coatings InertoI-Bitumastic-Ramuc Vinyl and Epoxy {or Water Pollution Control & Water Treatment Plants. Tanks, Reservoirs and Swimming Pools R. E. MOONEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1400 Selby Ave.. St. Paul. Minn. 55104 612-645-0641 FEBRUARY 5, 1982 55 801 American Center Building St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 6121221-0939 February 2, 1982 Mayor Rock Lindlan City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program Request for Site Recommendations Dear Mayor Lindlan: During the past nine years, the Metropolitan Transit Commission has installed approximately 600 passengers waiting shelters throughout the metropolitan area. Many of these shelter sites were identified and recommended by the cities in which they are located. The input from the cities has been valuable in assisting the MTC to locate the shelters where they would best serve the needs of the cities and their residents. At this time, the MTC is initiating work on a passenger waiting shelter program that will result in the installation of 48 shelters in 1983. Because of the lengthy site review and approval process, we are now requesting that each city provide a list of up to three shelter locations to be considered in this project. We are also requesting that your shelter recommendations be prioritized so that the MTC staff may initiate work on the highest priority site first. Should this site not receive the necessary approvals, the MTC staff would then initiate work on the second and third priority sites. Enclosed are two lists of shelter sites within your city: The first identifies those scheduled to be installed in the Spring of 1982 and the second identifies additional requested shelter sites the MTC has begun investigating. These lists may assist you in establishing your priority list. Along with Uhe location and direction of travel served, the requested shelter sites list indicates the passenger count. For a shelter to be considered in those instances where the count is less than 40, the MTC's guidelines require the city to agree 1) to participate in the cost of the shelter's construction and 2) to assume responsibility for routine maintenance. The required participation is met by either paying 10% of the cost of the shelter installation (not to exceed $600) or supplying the necessary concrete base (as per the MTC's specifications). Routine maintenance is defined as window cleaning, snow and litter removal, etc. The MTC retains responsibility for structural maintenance. If possible, please provide us with your shelter site recommendations by March 31, 1982. We will promptly respond with passenger counts for any · shelter sites you recommend that are not on the requested shelter site list, so you will be able to consider the matter of city participation. Should you wish to discuss further the MTC's 1982 Passenger Waiting Shelter Program and potential shelter sites within your city, please feel free to call. Sincerely, David C Palmquist Assistant Civil Engineer enclosure cc: Leonard L. Kopp, City Manager Gayle M. Kincannon MOUND Shelters To Be Installed Spring 1982 site # Location C-996 Bartlett Blvd. & Shoreline Blvd. CR. 6 II. Requested Shelter Sites None Requested WETLANDS DISTRICT Page I The City Council of Mound finds that there are wetlands within the 'City which, as part of the ecosystem, are critical to the health, safety and welfare of the land, animals and people within the City. These wetlands, if preserved and maintained, Constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets for existing and future residents of the City. Therefore, the purposes of this district are: 1. To provide for the protection, preservation, proper maintenance and use of specified wetlands. 2. To minimize the disturbance to them as to prevent damage from excessive sedimentation, eutrophication or pollution. 5. To prevent loss of fish and other aquatic organisms, wildlife and vegetation and the habitats of the same. 4. To provide for the protection of the City's fresh water supplies from the dangers of drought, overdraft, pollution or mismanagement. 5. To reduce the financial burdens imposed upon the community through rescue and relief efforts occasioned by the occupancy or use of areas subject to periodic flooding and prevent loss of life, property damage and the losses and risks associated with flood conditions. 6. To preserve the location, character and extent of natural drainage courses. DISTRICT BOUNDRIES This district shall apply to wetland areas which are specifically delineated on the official Wetlands Map of the City of Mound and defined as follows: Type 5 wetlands: Inland shallow fresh marshes. The soil is usually waterlogged during the growing season; often it is covered with as much as six (6) inches or more of water. Vegetation includes grasses, bulrushes, pickerelweed and smartweeds. These marshes may nearly fill shallow lake basins or sloughs, or they may border deep marshes on the landward side. They are also common as deep areas on irrigated lands. Type 4 wetlands: Inland deep fresh marshes. The soil is covered with six (6) inches to three (5) feet or more of water during the growing season. Vegetation includes cattails, reeds, bulrushes, spiderushes and wild rice. In open areas, pondweeds, naiads, coontail, watermilfoils, waterweeds, duckweeds, waterlilies or spatterdocks may be found. These marshes may almost completely fill shallow lake basins, potholes, limestone sinks and sloughs or they may border open water in such depressions. Type 5 wetlands: Inland open fresh water. Shallow ponds and resevoirs are included in this type. Water is usually ]an ten (10) feet deep and is fringed by a border of vegetation. Vegetation includes pondweeds, naiads, lery, coontail, watermilfoils, muskgrasses, waterlilies and spatterdocks. WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 2 For purposes of determining the application of this district to any particular parcel of land or water the above referenced map shall be on file in the office of the City Manager and shall be available for inspection and copying. WETLAND PERMIT Except as hereinafter provided in this ordinance, no person shall perform any development in a wetland district without first having obtained a wetland permit (hereinafter referred to as "Permit") from the City of Mound. Development shall include the construction, installation or alteration of any structure; the clearing or altering of vegetation or land and the division of land into two or more parcels. EXCEPTIONS The Permit requirements established by this ordinance shall not apply to: A. Emergency work necessary to preserve life or property. When emergency work is performed under this section the person performing it shall report the pertinent facts relating to the work to the City Manager prior to the commencement of work. The City Manager shall review the facts and determine whether an emergency exists and shall, by written memorandum, authorize the commencement of the emergency exception. A person commencing emergency work shall, within ten days following the commencement of that activity, apply for the issuance of a Permit. The issuance thereof, may require the permittee to perform such work as is determined to be reasonably necessary to correct any impairment to the wetland occasioned by such work. B. The repair or maintenance of any lawful use of land existing on the date of adoption of this ordinance. APF'LICATION FOR AND PROCESSING OF PERMIT A. A separate application for a Permit shall be made to the City of Mound for each development activity for which a F'ermit is required. Only one application need be made for two or more such acts which are to be done simultaneously on the same parcel. The application shall include a map of the site, a plan of the proposed development and the estimated cost of development. Other engineering data such as surveys and other descriptive information are also required. In order to determine the 'effects of such development of the wetland the City Council may require additional information including but not limited to the following: 1. A specific description of the type, amount and location of the development 2. A description of the ecological characteristics of the wetland 3. A conservation plan describing actions to be taken WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 3 to mitigate any detrimental effects of development and 4. Maps and data on soils, water table and flood capacity Of the wetland. When the proposed development includes the construction or alteration of a structure ~- sets of plans thereof shall be submitted with the application. B. The permit application shall be processed according to the procedures specified in Section~05 of the Zoning Ordinance which pertains to processing of conditional use permits. The Permit may be processed at the same time and in connection with the processing of an application for a building permit or any other permit required by ordinance of the City of Mound. PERMIT STANDARDS No Permit shall be issued unless the City of Mound finds and determines that the proposed development complies with the following standards: A. Filling A minimum amount of filling may be allowed when necessary but in no case shall the following restrictions on total amount of filling be exceeded. Since the total amount of filling which can be permitted is limited, the City, when considering F'ermit applications, shall consider the equal apportionment of fill opportunity to riparian land owners. 1. Total filling shall not cause the total natural flood storage capacity of the wetland to fall below the projected volume of runoff from the whole developed wetland watershed generated by a six (6) inch rainfall in twenty-four (24) hours. 2. Total filling shall not cause the total natural nutrient stripping capacity of the wetland to fall below the nutrient production of the wetland watershed for its projected development. 5. Only fill free of chemical pollutants and organic wastes may be used. 4. Wetlands shall not be used for solid waste disposal. B.Dredging Dredging may be allowed only when a boat channel is required for access to a navigable lake, for a marina or when it will not have a substantial or significantly adverse effect upon the ecological and hydrological characteristics of the wetland. Dredging, when allowed, shall be limited-as follows: 1. It shall be located so as to maximize the activity in the areas of lowest vegetation density. 2. It shall not significantly change the water flow characteristics. ze.~f the dredged area shall be limited to the mi~Wimum. al of the dredged material shall not result~ in a significant change in the current flow, or in a substantial destruction of vegetation, fish spawning d' WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 4 areas or water pollution. ~. Work in the wetland will not be performed during the breeding season of water fowl or fish spawning season. 6. Only one boat channel or marina shall be allowed per large-scale development. 7. In other residential developments, dredging shall be located so as to provide for the use of boat channels and marinas by two or more adjacent property owners. 8. The width of the boat channel to be dredged shall be no more than the miminum required for the safe operation of boats at minimum operating speed. C. Discharges 1. No part of any sewage disposal system requiring on-land or in-ground disposal of waste shall be located closer than 150 feet from the normal high water mark unless it is proven by the applicant that no effluent will immmediately or gradually reach the wetland because of existing physical characteristics of the site or system. 2. Organic waste which would normally be disposed of at a solid waste disposal site or which would normally be discharged into a sewage disposal system or sewer shall not be directly or indirectly discharged to the wetland. 5. Stormwater runoff from construction sites may be directed to the wetland only when substantially free of silt, debris and chemical pollutants and only at rates which will not disturb vegetation or increase turbidity. D. Building constraints 1. The lowest floor elevation of buildings, if used for living quarters or work areas~ shall be at least three feet above the seasonal high water level of the wetland. 2. Development which will result in unusual road maintenance costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitations~ including high frost action shall not be permitted. E. Vegetation No wetland vegetation may be removed or altered except that reasonably required for the placement of structures and use of property. CONDITIONS A F'ermit may be approved subject to compliance with reasonable conditions which are specifically set forth in the Permit and are necessary to insure compliance with the requirements contained in this district. Such conditions may include but are not limited to the following: 1. Limitation of the size, kind or character of the proposed work 2. Require the construction of other sturctures 3. Require replacement of vegetation 4. Establish required monitoring procedures and maintenance activity WETLANDS DISTRICT F'age 5 5. Stage the work over time 6. Require the alteration of the site design to ensure buffering 7. Require the provision of a performance bond 8. Require the conveyance to the City of Mound or another public entity of certain lands or interest therin. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zoning district(s) may be modified in furtherance of the purpose of this ordinance by express condition contained in the Permit. TIME OF PERMIT A permitee shall begin the work authorized by the Permit within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the Permit unless a different date for the commencement of work is set forth in the Permit. The permittee shall complete the work authorized by the Permit within the time limits specified n the Permit which in no event shall exceed more than twelve (12) months from the date of issuance. The permittee shall notify the Building Official at least twenty-four (24> hours prior to commencement of work. Should the work not be commenced as specified herein, the Permit shall become void. A. Extensions If~ prior to the date established for commencement of work, the permittee makes written request to the Building Official for an extension of time to commence the work, setting forth the reasons for the required extension, the administrator may grant such extension. B. Renewals A permit which has become void may be renewed at the discretion of the City Council upon payment of a renewal fee. If the City Council does not grant such renewal a Permit for such work may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures herein established for an original application. C. Notice of completion A permittee shall notify the Building Official in writing when he has finished the work. No work shall be deemed to have been completed until .... .-~ ~ ~approved in writing by the Building Official following such written notification. D. Inspection The City may require inspections of the work to be made periodically during the course thereof by a member of the Building Official staff and shall cause a final inspection to be made following the completion of the work. The permittee shall assist the administrator in making such inspections. RESPONSIBILITY; EFFECT A. Responsibility Neither the issuance of a Permit nor compliance with the conditions thereof, nor compliance with the provisions of this ordinance shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property. The issuance of any permit hereunder shall not serve to impose any liability on the City of WETLANDS DISTRICT Page 6 Mound or its officers or employees for injury or damage to persons or property. A Permit issued pursuant to this ~ordinance shall not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of complying with any other requirements extablished by law, regulation or ordinance. B. Special assessment The land within a designated wetlands district area for which a development or other restrictive easement is conveyed to the City shall not be subject to special assessments levied by the City to pay the costs of public water, sewer, curb, gutter or other public municipal improvements for which such assessments are authorized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429. C. variance The City Council may authorize in specific cases following appeal and hearing a variance from the provisions of this ordinance where the literal application of the ordinance would result in substantial inequitable hardship to an applicant property owner. In assessing hardship the City Council shall balance the severity of the physucal, social and economic effects of the literal application against the interests of the City in effecting the purposes of this ordinance as expressed above. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a hardship if a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. No variance may be granted which would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. A variance shall be granted in writing accompanied by specific findings of fact as to the necessity for the grant of the variance and its specific provisions. A variance request shall be processed in accordance with thr provisions of sectio~506 of the Mound City Zoning Ordinance. A-THoMAs WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A- PEARSON THOMAs F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER TTr JAMES D. LARSON LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL ~x PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:~ February 10, 1982 TELEPHONE (61:=') 338-8911 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Land Registration Case No. A19972 Dear Jon: I am enclosing herewith a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert C. Gove, Attorney at Law, representing West Suburban Builders, Inc. West Suburban is clearing up the title to Lot 23, Block 5, Arden. John Cameron has advised us we must keep the 20 foot easement over the southerly 20 feet of this lot. The company wants the City to dispose of its interest in this property other than over the southerly 20 feet. I have therefore prepared a quit claim deed from the City to West Suburban Builders, Inc. reserving a 20 foot easement over the lot. I have also prepared an easement from West Suburban Builders, Inc. which I am sending along with a copy of this letter to Robert Gove. I am sending this to him in triplicate with the idea he will return at least two signed copies to me and hopefully will record the other copy along with the quit claim deed which I propose to send him. I am therefore asking that you put on the next Council agenda a resolution authorizin~ the Mayor and Manager to execute th~-~ft claiTM deed ~,~-q~ot 23 Su~ect to retaining an easement ~or said lands ~or - street and utility purposes. Once this ha§ been enacted by the Council, please have the Ma~or and yourself execute the deed and return it to me and I will transmit it to Mr. Gove and along with that letter of transmittal will advise the Registrar of Titles of what we are doing. Since I will not be present at the meeting on the 23rd, it would be appreciated if you would call me ahead of time if there are any questions about this procedure. We are in effect trying to get a lot back on the tax rolls and clear up the tax forfeited status. CAP:ih Enclosures cc: Mr. Robert C. Gove V~y truly y~u~~, Ctr~lis Af Pearson, City Attorney OF~'~CE ~.7524 ROBERT C. GOVE, LTD. ATTORNEY AT LAW 2165 NORTH LILAC DRIVE GOLDEN VALLEY. MINNESOTA 65422 Yeoraa~.,' L, 195~ Dear ]r~r. Pearson: Enclosed you will find a copy of a Supplemental Per. orr in the aocve c.=. ~ If the procedure outlined ~.n the report is satisfactory, pleazr- '~ve the Council authorize the procedure and we can t?.en exchan['e the deeds. if yuu want me to prepare t: e deeds prior to the City advis e. Very truly yours, Robert~. '~ Oove Form NO. 3t-M--QUIT CLAIM DEED No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. 10 County Auditor by Deputy STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ None Date: ,19__ FOR VALUABLE CQNSIDERATION, the City of Mound, Minnesota a municipal corporation ~g Minnesota ,Gr~tor, herebyconveysandquitclalms to West Suburban Builders, Inc. a corporation underthelawsofMinnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota, describedasfollows: (reserved for recording data) under the laws of , Grantee, · real property in Ail of Lot 23, Block 5, Arden Subject to the grantor retaining a street and utility easement over the south 20 feet of said Lot 23. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. CITY OF MOUND Affix I),,'HTax ~t By Its Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ~ m. COUNTY OF Hennepin The foregoing was acknowledged before me this by the Mayo r of the City of Mound under the laws of Minnesota NOTAR,~£' ~^"~ o" SEAt. ~OR 6'i'"ER TIT'.E OR THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS): Curtis A. Pearson 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 By City ManaFer day of ,19~, and , and Uzty Manager ,a municipal corporatioo_ , on behalf of the said corporation .. 81ONATUR~ OF PERSON TAKINO ACKNOWLIrDOMENT Tax Stmtomonts for tho r,al property described Jn this In~m~t ~o~ EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this dny of , .7 19 , between West Suburban Builders, Inc., a Minnesota corporation part y of the first part, and THE CITY OF MOUND, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, party of the second part, WITNESSETH: That the part~ of the first part in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION to it . in hand paid by said party of the second part, the receipt of which is ~ hereby acknowledged, do es hereby grant and convey unto the said party of the second part', its successors and assigns, the following: A street and utility easement over, under and across the South 20 feet of Lot 23, Block 5, Arden This instrument drafted by: Wurst, Carroll & Pearson, P.A. 1100 ~S~d~ First National Bank But]ding Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Affects Certificate: State Deed Tax Due Hereon~ NOr IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed and delivered this day of , 19 Presence Of: West Suburban Builders, Inc. By Its And ]ts STATE OF MINNESOTA) ! SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ , 19_ , by and , of West Suburban Builders, Inc. a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. day of 300 Metro Square Building, 7th Street and Robert Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Area 612, 291-6359 February 8, 1982 To Whom It May Concern: Westonka School District No. 277 Human Health Services Grant Application Under Title IIIB of the Older Americans Act Westonka Seni~or Center Administration and Equipment Received 01/26/82 Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 10327-1 The Metropolitan Council has received an application for federal funds to accomplish the above referenced project. ~e federal procedures for review of these applications require that any potentially affected units of government, neighborhood organi- zations, groups, and human rights commissions be notified of the project and given an opportunity to comment. The interest of your com~nunity groups should be expressed by means of a letter describing the effect the project might have on your co~unity or the type of additional information you would like to receive. Upon receimt of a notice of your interest, if any, it is incumbent upon the Metropolitan Council to arrange a conference with the applicant for the benefit of all interested parties. if you desire to review the application, copies are on file'at the Metropolitan Council and in the offices of the applicant. Sincerely TAN COUNCIL. ~ohn Rutford~~ Referral Coordinator JR/ch An A~ency Created to Coordinate the Planning and Development of the Twin Citie~ Metropolitan Area Comprising: A~oka County O Carver County O Dakota County O HennepinCountyORam.eyCotxnty O SoottCountl/ O W.hingtonC~.~ RLFLRRAL WESTONKA SENIOR CENTER - administration and equipment Title IIIB Grant, METROPOLITAN AREA AGENCY ON AGING Westonka School District 277, applicant Donald Ulrick, Director of Westonka Commnity Services~Department Mound, Minnesota SUBURBAN COMMUNITY SERVICES ~70 ~ ' APPLICATION FOR PROJECT NU~[BER: METROPOLITA;~ COUNCIL SUITE 300 METRO SQUARE BLDG. 7TI! AND ROBERT STREET ST. PAUL, ~ZNNF-$OTA 55101 PROJECT GRANT UNDER TITLE IIIB OF MOLTIPT;RI~OSE SENIOR CENTERS THE OLDER AMER%C~NS ACT I. GE~R.kL iNFOR~/%TICN Westenka Co,~unity Services Westonka School District 277 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN' 55364 472-1600 Ext. 241 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, MN Hennepin Name at ?to!cc._LC,rue:or, £u.~erv,:r,r, or C;armna~or Gary K. Mayer Chairman, School Board Donald Ulrick, Supervisor Westonka Community Services S~g~nnMqJuIy 1982 and E~inq June 1985 £cginmng Jul), 1, ]982 ~nc Encmg_June' 30, 1! !l. CC~Z3UTAT!CN OF FUi{DS F~EQUES_-ZD & O. 16,403 14,763 Iii. GRANT AUTHORIZATION .~dfD ASSURANCES .koOnc--.n~ C~r~janizatlon To '~,n,S 4.?eu;.'ncnl Gary K. Mayer l,~j,j_, School ~oard Jan. ll, 1982 371 league of minnesota oities February 11, 1982 TO: FROM: RE: Mayors, Managers and Clerks Peggy Flicker, Legislative Counsel H.F. 1904 - League Special Service District Bill Please urge your legislators to support H.F. 1904 (Brandl, Schreiber, Novak, Dempsey), which would allow cities to establish special service districts and finance municipal services ~nd improvements within those districts. (The Senate companion does not yet have a file number. You may refer to it as the "League special services district bill, chief authored by Senator Linda Berglin.") special districts, cities would be able to provide the kinds of services they are~ already authorized to provide and finance them in whole or in part through special ad valore~ taxes, service charges, and/or local option special sales taxes. This bill 'is especially important in this day of service and revenue cutbacks, cities need a variety of ways to finance services that their citizens may want. The special service district concept allows more flexibility in matching "who pays" with "who benefits from the service." Cities now have the statutory authority to construct, operate and maintain a wide variety of municipal improvements and to use special assessments to finance them, under Chapter 429 of the Minnesota Statutes. However, the use of special assessments has several major drawbacks. First, Minnesota court decisions have been very restrictive in interpreting the requirement that the amount of the special assessment may not exceed the benefit to the property. The city must be able to show an actual increase in the market value of the property as a result of the improvement, and the assessment may not exceed that value increase. Second, the service charge provisions now in Chapter 429 do not adequately allow for financing of maintenance and operating types of costs. There are problems with both the scope of the statute and the meeting of the strict special benefit test. Third, certain kinds of municipal services, such as parking lots, are not currently authorized to be done under Chapter 429 (even assuming the special benefit test could met).., ) (OVER) 300 hanover building, 480 oedar street, saint paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 222-2861 . -3- mall would benefit adjacent property owners directly, and also would indirectly benefit a wider area. The flexibility of a special service district would allow a city to distribute the costs in a way that equitably reflects both direct and indirect benefits. A portion of the mall's capital and operating costs (40%, for example) could be specially assessed against adjacent property to reflect direct benefits. To reflect indirect benefits, the entire downtown could be designated as a special service district and an ad valorem tax levied on property within that district to finance the remaining 60% of the costs. As an alternative to an ad valorem tax within the special service district, property owners or businesses could be billed directly in the form of a service charge. Although service charges can be more complex to administer, they offer flexibility in how the charge is determined. For example, a service charge could be based on floor area and adjusted for type of activity (eog., office space vs. retail commer- cial) rather than being based simply on property values. WHAT YOU SHOULD DO Call or write your legislators and ask them to support H.F. 1904, or the "League of Cities Special Service District Bill." Explain briefly how your city might use a special service district. It is especially important to do this if your legislator serves on the House Local and Urban Affairs Committee or either the House or Senate Tax Committees. Attend the hearing on H.F. 1904 scheduled for noon, Tuesday, February 16, in Room 83 of the State Office Building in St. Paul. It is the Government Structures Subcommittee of the House Local and Urban Affairs Committee. Contact Peggy Flicker at the League office if you have any special interest in the bill and would like to testify in support of it at a legislative hearing or talk to key legislators about what it means to your city. PF:rmm February 2, 1982 CITY of OROI O Post Office Box 66' Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323- Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka City of Mound City Manager Jon Elam 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jon, The City of Mound has submitted to each community participating as a member of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District a letter requesting each member City to reconsider its participation in the funding of the District. The City of Orono strongly opposes this suggestion and wishes to suggest that perhaps this is the time to reaffirm our strong position in supporting the LMCD and its Board members representing the fourteen municipalities that have been so supportive of protecting our.most valuable resource, Lake Minnetonka. The suggestion that we, as participating members of the LMCD, do notshare in the mandate to regulate and protect our most valuable resource, Lake Minnetonka, which has been designated as a lake of metropolitan significance, does not seem to be consistent with our own individual City interests when considering the importance of all of our community plans, which are designed to encourage a strong business and residential atmosphere. Those of us who have been involved with legislative mandates have learned that the ones who get the job done are the ones who are actively involved in local community affairs and that is what the LMCD is all about. It is designed to allow the fourteen local lake communities as one body to make decisions at a local level, rather than at a state or federal level. I believe we have learned, particularly in most recent years, that this is the only effective and efficient way to balance the need to use and enjoy Lake Minnetonka today with the need to protect and preserve the lake for future generations. BUILDING & ZONING - 473-7357 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE - 473-7358 PUBLIC WORKS - 473-7359 February 2, 1982 Page 2 It seems to be totally inconsistent at a time when we all have experienced some decline in services to our lake area; an increase in the use of Lake Minnetonka by area-wide residents; a demand by the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies to provide more access to Lake Minnetonka, that we would now relinquish our local efforts and responsibility to manage Lake Minnetonka, which is mandated to protect and preserve the quality of our most valuable resource. This management can best be accomplished by local Lake Minnetonka cities. These comments are intended for your review and consideration for continued participation in the management of Lake Minnetonka through the LMCD. The City of Orono, as we believe all Lake Minnetonka cities, has a vested interest in the future of the lake and should now reaffirm its continued commitment to the management of the lake through the LMCD and its Board of Directors. Thanking you in advance, I am Sincerely, Wa lt~.j~?~"Benson Ciy Administrator Enclosure VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETONKA BEACH, MINNESOTA 55361 February 12, 1982 Mayor and City Council CITY OF MOUND 5431Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Your letter of January 25th was discussed at the last Minnetonka Beach Council Meeting. This is to advise that the Council and Mayor of Minnetonka Beach strongly support the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. We feel there is no reason to make any changes. Very truly yours, E.A. Bearg Ma yo r Village of Minnetonka Beach EABearg/sm cc: Lois Johnson tOO FiISE STF £ET. WAYZA'i'A. L.'t,~N. 5S3cJ1 P HOI',iE 473-0234 February 4, 1982 Mayor and City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Council Members: In response to your comm~i cation dated January 25, 1982 regarding possible legislative change restructuring the LMCD and its authority, the matter was reviewed by the City Council at its last meeting. The City Council has no problem meeting to discuss the concern, however, it has no particular criti- cism of the orgs~i zation at this point. Let me know if a meeting is scheduled and I will pass that information on to the members of the City Council. Yours very truly, City Manager DLB/js $7? P. O. BOX 452, SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 55384 · Phone: 471-9051 · ON LAKE MINNETONKA Mayor Jerome P. Rockvam 471-9515 Councllmembers Ellie Heiler 471-8304 Don Dill 471-9311 Randy Bickmann 471-7553 Ron Kraemer 471-7339 February 4, 1982 TO: Mayor and City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: LMCD Concerns At their meeting on February 1, 1982 the Spring Park City Council reviewed your letter of January 25, 1982 regarding concerns for the LMCD costs and its authority. The Spring Park City Council instructed that they would gladly participate in any meeting that might be called to address these concerns. However, until more specifics are proposed, the Council reserves any opinion until such specifics are considered. We will await a notice of such meeting. Since rely, The Spring Park City Council po CITY OF VICTORIA February 5, 1982 Mayor and City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN. 55364 In response to your letter asking for our participation in regards to LMCD. The City Council has agreed to send Maurice Leuthner, a council member, as our representative. Please inform us of the meeting date and time. Planner (6~.P) 4~3-2363 ,379 MAYOR Robert Ra$cop COUNCIL Jan Hauoen Tad ghaw Alexander Leonerdo Robert Gagne CITY OF Doug Uhrhammer SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 474-3236 February 10, 1982 Mayor & City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364 Dear Mayor & Council Members: Previous councils of Shorewood have been concerned about the structure of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the mandated dues payment system. We had some grave concerns that we felt shobld be discussed by all member cities and we should be happy to attend a meeting. Just the mayors and coucil members should be in attendance - no legislators or members of LMCD staff. Each city should tell what their concerns are and then a concensus should be reached as to what to do and how to do it. The letter from Mound in no way suggested that we disband the LMCD; it merely suggested we look at the structure. I think each organization should examine its effectiveness periodically. It's a good business practive. You then discover if procedures are correct and are accomplishing what they were designed to do. Sincerely, IOF SHOREWOOD Robert Rascop, Mayor RR:rd A Resident/a/Community on Lake Minnetonka'$ South Shore F bILLS .... FEB~,UARY 23, 1282 Acro Minnesota 235.12 Applebaums 23.54 Amer Heart As$oc 32.50 AirComm ~0.00 Jan Bertrand 14.30 F.H. Bathke 13.80 Baldwin Supply 30.52 Collins Electric 4,791.42 Capitol Electronics 928.O1 Continental Tele 938.62 Davies Water Equip 391.90 Domtar 488.04 Farmers Steel Co. 43.66 Genuine Parts 36.60 Hardrives, Inc. 45,145.75 Hardrives, Inc. 25,230.43 ISFSl 100.O0 League of MN Cities 20.00 Metro Clinic of Counseling 287.00 MN UC Fund 1,083.O0 MN Rescue & First Aid Assoc 15.O0 Montgomery Ward Ins. 473.30 Metro Waste Control Commiss 19,277.27 Medical Oxygen & Equip 46.10 MacQueen Equip 2,586.09 Minnegasco 4,O19.O8 Mound Super Valu 80.45 No Henn Community College 66.00 NW Bell Tele 60.30 N.S.P. 3,349.70 Pitney Bowes 105.50 Gordon Swenson 87.23 State Treasurer 5.00 Shaffer-Watson 372.00 Stevens Well Drilling 6,022.00 Spring Park Car Wash 58.00 Sterling Electric Co. 70.91 Seton Service 24.30 Sterne Electric 569.35 Thurk Bros. Chevrolet 286.30 Univ. of MN 45.00 Village Printers 99.75 Van Waters & Rogers Bob Wallin Heating Winner Industries Williams/0'Brien Assoc Widmer Bros. Xerox Lutz Tree Service Skyview Design First Nat'l Bank-St. TOTAL BILLS 334.32 33.31 20.09 7.~1 5,851.OO 593.50 1,365.00 7,500.00 125,508.OO 258,855.57 CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE SERVICE AREAS SYSTEM '!itness' Williar.~ O. MINNESOTA ELOODWOOD CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE OF MINNESOTA ~NORTH DISTRICT SOUTH A.THoMAS WURST C3ERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A. pi;ARSON THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT FAULCONER Tn' JAMES D- LARSON LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~' February 17, 1982 TELEPHONE (812} 338-8911 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Continental Telephone Dear Jon: You will recall that on February 5, 1982 a hearing was held before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission concerning their prior order of December 17, 1981. The Co,u~ission issued an order approving the filing for the depreciation schedule and the vertical service pricing. The vertical service pricing study will result in rate increases estimated to generate $1.4 million dollars of additional revenues. On February 5 we appeared after receiving your approval and advising you of that hearing. We are now enclosing three orders of the Commission. The first order rejects the filing which had previously been approved. The City of Mound and one resident from St. Cloud were the only persons present other than the department which was opposing and had opposed Contin- ental before. On February 9 the Commission met again and reversed them- selves on their order of December 17. I talked to the Assistant Attorney General on that date and she was elated and felt that our appearance at the February 5 meeting was very helpful. Mr. Larson is meeting with you and the City Council on February 23 to discuss whether the City is going to become an intervenor in the new rate case. I am enclosing the three orders which will help you and the council to have a little better handle on the history and the problems which will be before the Commission. The company is seeking an increase in its gross annual revenues of approximately $6,732,595. In our previous rate case my recollection is that we were arguing about roughly two million dollars increase, so you can see that putting 39.5 percent on top of the previous increase and 39.5 percent on top of the extended area services rates is going to result in a tremendous shock in the Mound exchange when the rates under bond go into effect on and after March 19, 1982. WURST, CARROLL & PEARSON Mr. Jon Elam Page 2 February 17, 1982 I am sending these orders on to you since Jim is tied up in another hearing and he will be able to discuss and explain them to you in detail on Tuesday. Very truly yours, uurnzs ~. Pearson City Attorney CAP:ms Enclosure cc: Mr. James Larson American Legion Post 398 DATE .TAN, 31. ]_982 GAMBLING REPORT GROSS: CURRENT MONTH ~1030.00 YEAR TO DATE $26,7a5.00 EXPENSES: ~AMBLING P~RM~T ~75.00 SALES TAX ~9.05 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: ~12a .o5 600.00 ~ 35o8. ~ 15,~50.0o PROFIT: DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: HILl,TOP SCHOOI, ~150.00 POLICE CHTEF AS~'N. 80.00 MANO 50.00 ¢280.00 t8~18.17_ CHECKING ACCOUNT ~2596.85 CITY of MOUND 5341 M A ¥'V, ,'3C, C, MOUND MINNESF:-',,A 55364 f612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official Arcade, 5571 Auditors Road February 19, 1982 This is a status report regarding the Council Resolution 82-16 of January 12, 1982. Today I checked the building at 3:00 p.m. to find the upstairs of the Laker area having improper door frames being in- stalled at the boiler/heating/cooling equipment area; combustible storage is not allowed in the boiler area and must be removed. Fire extinguishers have not been provided to the tenants. The exit at the rear of the Arcade remains barred; it has not been made available to the occupants. The wall between Mr. Rockvam's boat sales and dock building operation and Mr. Watson's arcade has not been completed. I talked to Mr. Watson and to Mr. Weber, the owner's contractor, re- garding the proper method of construction of the wall. No building permit has been issued. The Laker Office is partially vacant, the upstairs office portions were locked. Items gand h of the resolution pose a problem to the present owner. Mr. Weber feels it is not Mr. Nolan's responsibility to meet these requirements as his tenant has not yet purchased the building. I have not been contacted by Mr. Watson or Mr. Weber in the last couple of weeks. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms 20/82 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE DRIFTWOOD SHORES ASSN. NEW DOCK LICENSE & DUA VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public hearing at the LMCD office, 402 E. Lake St. (depot), Wayzata, at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 17, 1982, in the matter of a new dock license and a variance to establish dock use areas at Driftwood Shores Association, Lafayette Lane, Mound adjacent to LMCD Area 15, Harrisons Bay. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Lake Minnetonka Conservation District PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE SPECIAL DENSITY PERMITS Notice is hereby given that the Lake Minnetonka Conser- vation District will hold a public hearing at the Tonka Bay Village Hall, 4901Manitou Road (County Road 19) at 8 p.m. on Wednesday, February 24, 1982, in the matter of a proposed code amendment on Special Density Permits re- lating to the storage of more than one watercraft for each fifty feet of shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. Copies of the proposed ordinance are available at the LMCD office, 402 E. Lake St. (depot), Wayzata; phone 473-7033. Frank Mixa, ExecuCive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District · JAN 12 19.02 L.M.C-D. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE'RELATING TO STORAGE OF MORE THAN ONE WATERCRAFT FOR EACH FIFTY FEET OF SHORELINE: ADDING NEW LMCD CODE SECTION AND AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTIONS Draft No. 5 01-07-82 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that the LMCD Code of Ordinances shall be amended by adding new Section and amending Sections as follows: SECTION · SPECIAL DENSITY PE~4ITS. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The District has deter- mined that the intensity of use of Lake Minnetonka and the density of storage on the Lake has reached a level which necessitates the limitation on the construction of new docks and mooring facilities provided for herein. It is the purpose of this section to reduce environmental degradation of the Lake, avoid an increase in boat stor- age on the Lake without a corresponding increase in avail- able amenities and services for the boating public, and encourage facilities which enhance the use and enjoyment of the Lake by the general public. The District has recognized that the impact on the Lake of a given facility will vary depending on such factors as the compatibility of nearby uses, the type of boats or watercraft being stored, whether the boat storage is transient or perm- anent, the degree of boat storage and intensity of Lake use in a given area, and the level of services or amenities available to the public using the Lake. The District has determined through its various studies that a boat storage density of one boat stored per 50 feet of shoreline is generally appropriate for Lake Minnetonka and should be applied to the entire lakeshore while making provision for a special density permit pro- cedure in those instances where increased boat storage density may be clearly demonstrated to be a benefit to the Lake and to the most general public use of the Lake. Subd. 2. Special Density Permit. No person shall be issued a multiple dock or mooring area or commercial dock license for a facility which provides for a boat storage density greater than one boat stored per 50 feet of shoreline, unless a special density permit has been issued by'the District. The permit may be granted, denied, or granted with modifications. In the granting of any permit, the Board may impose conditions on the permit. The failure to comply with any such condition is ground for revocation of the permit. In exercising its discretion, the Board shall consider the provisions of this Code and the extent to which the proposed facility subserves the purposes of this section. Subd. 3. Application of Section. a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph b), this section shall not apply to mooring areas or sturctures which are licensed or lawfully in existence on the effective date of this ordinance. b) No change in the configuration of the mooring area or structure which results in an increase of water- craft availability units (as defined in Section 3.08, Subd. 2) may be made without first securing a permit under this section. When acting on such a permit appli-- cation, the Board shall not limit its consideration to changes or additions to the facility, but shall consider the entire facility of the applicant. Subd. 4. Density Permit Applications. Application for a Special Density Permit shall be made on forms pro- vided by the District and shall contain, among other things, (a) the name and address of the applicant, (b) the description of the property on which the facil- ity is to be located, (c) the name and address of the owner of the premises, if different from the applicant, (d) if the applicant is not the owner, an explanation of the interest which the applicant has in the property, (e) a showing that'all requisite permits, licenses~and approvals from the local municipality have been obtained and that the requirements of any other governmental authority have been met, (f) a plan showing the design and location of the facility, and (g) boat storage density applied for. The application shall include such other information as the Executive Director may require to assist the Board in consideration of the application for the permit. Permits required by this chapter may be issued after a public hearing by the Board. Proceed- ings for the issuance of a permit and the granting of a variance under Section 3.04 and a license under Section 3.08 may be combined and conducted as one pro- ceeding. The application shall be accompanied by a permit service charge computed as follows: For each Special Density Permit $100.00 For eaCh new watercraft or availability unit at the existing or new multiple dock or mooring area or commercial dock 50.00 Subd. 5. Special Requirements. a) Applications may be received for denisites greater than one boat per 50 feet but not greater than one. boat per ten feet of shoreline. b) In exercising its discretion in granting or denying density use permits, the Board shall consider certain amenities deemed beneficial to.the Lake and to the general public use of the Lake which offsets the effect of all or part of the increased density applied for. Such amenities may be from Group B, C and D below, but at least one must be from Group A. Group A - Public Access 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Public fishing dock or area Public launching ramp Car top (canoe or fishing boat) launching Fishing boat rental Small boat rental Observation decks or auto look-outs Public swimming beach Winter access Other Group B - Environmental Protection 1) 2)- 3) 4) Runoff water quality improvement Green screening and other vegetative cover Shoreline riprap Other Group C - Public Service 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Public toilet facilities Food service Emergency public towing service Other public emergency repair service on the Lake Weather service Public telephone Suitable parking Distribute boating safety information Sanitary pump-out facilities Other Group D - Other 1) Other - to be determined. Subd. 6. Review Considerations. a) Whether the facility will obstruct or occupy too great an area of the public water in relationship to its utility to the general public. b) Whether the proposed facility will serve the general public as opposed to a limited segment of ~he . public or a limited geographical area. C) Whether the proposed facility will be compat- ible with the adjacent water use area. d) ?~ether the proposed facility will be compat- ible with the adjacent riparian zoning.' e) Whether adequate water depth is available for the proposed facility without churning of the bottom sediments. f) Whether the proposed facility will create a volume of traffic on the Lake in the vicinity of the facility which will tend to be unsafe or which will cause an undue burden on traffic upon the Lake in the vicinity of the facility. g) Whether the proposed facility is compatible with the LMCD watercraft denisty classification criteria. h) Whether the facility will comply with the regulations contained in this ordinance. i) Whether the proposed facility will be compat- ible with the maintenance of the natural beauty of the Lake. j) Whether the proposed facility will affect the quality of the water of the Lake and the ecology of the Lake. k) Whether the proposed facility, by reason of noise, fumes or other nuisance characteristics, will tend to be a source of nuisance or annoyance to persons in the vicinity of the facility. 1) Whether adequate sanitary and parking facili- ties will be provided in connection with the proposed facility. m) Whether the multiple dock or mooring area will be structurally safe for use by the intended users. n) Whether the proposed facility will provide for additional permanent non-transient boat or watercraft storage on the Lake. o) Whether the detrimental impact of the Proposed facility will be 'reduced by limiting storage to boats which are not watercraft as defined in Section 3.01, Subd. 13. p) The use of special density permits on the Lake for the purpose of increasing non-riparian property · values is not a valid consideration in permitting such facilities. q) In acting on the application of a municipality under this section, density shall be computed by includ- ing all shoreline owned by the municipality. Subd. 7. .Special Density permits shall not be granted for any facility which includes boat storage facilities which are available only to persons having an interest in specified riparian or non-riparian real property. Subd. 8. Any chanq~ in the conditions under which a special density permit is issued will require applica- tion for a new permit. The granting of a special density permit shall grant no vested rights to the use of the Lake, and future regulatory action by the District may require modification or removal of the structure. Except as provided in Subdivisions 3 b) and 8 of this section, no subsequent special density permit applica- tions shall be required, provided, however, that the licensing of all facilities is subject to the annual review and regulation provided in Section 3.08. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Downtown Advisory Committee Rob Chelseth, City Planner 18 February 1982 Next Regular Meeting of the Downtown Advisory Committee A meeting of the DAC has been scheduled for Thursday, February 25, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. If you have a con- flict, please call Marge Stutsman at City Hall (472-1155) and leave word you will not be attending. Several very important topics will be addressed at this meeting, including a presentation by developers considering a retail commercial project in Mound, a discussion of input from the City Council/Westonka Chamber, and revisions to the list of downtown planning objectives. Looking forward to seeing you at this very important meeting. Rob Chelseth Planner Re/ms Encl. Minutes - Downtown Advisory Committee - February 9, 1982 - City Hall with City Council Present - Paul Pond, Jerry Lon~pre, Donna Quigley, Pete ~ard, george Stevens, Ron Norst'rem, Ron Carlson, John Royer, Frank Weiland Also present - Rob Chelseth, Diane Arneson, Don Ulrick, Bob Polston, Rock Lindlan, Jon Elam, Chuck Carlson, Pinky Charon, Gordy Swenson, Fran Jim Whitesell, Gary Paulsen, Duane Schaller, Bill Netka Mayor Lindlan opened discussion by declaring members would go through the proposals, decide which items are. germaine, and u~e those items as the tentative program. Polston suggested a timetable be set up for funding and implementation. Pond asked for questions from the council members. Polston asked what type of development was suggested for the Lake Langdon area. Ulrick termed the proposals "a wish list mixed with some realism". To raze the Anderson Bldg. is not realistic. Need to sort out what can be done from what can't be done. Need to clean up the list of proposals. Need to study circulation of traffic downtown. His dream is to make llO and 15 a 4-way intersection, close off Lynwood and develop the Lynwood area for shopping. Also likes store-door parking, wherever that is possible. Pond said we are too short of time, money, and effort to do them all. Committee needs to know priorities of the council members. Elam said any use of the Anderson Bldg. for something other than a road project would result in $70,000 being subtracted from the next state aid road project within the City of Mound. Polston thinks there are many possibilities for the Anderson Bldg. Charon thinks not that much would be changed even if the objectives were accomplished. Something's missing. I thought the purpose was to revitalize downtown. Pond read a few of the objectives he thinks would make a difference. With development comes shopping. What comes first - the chicken or the egg? Huseby said Mound has lost business for lack of space and growth climate. Ulrick thinks asthetic improvements and other shortterm measures help, but his real dream is demolition and major re-development. Shortterm work now should fit in to a bigger longrange plan. The lack of high volume roads will keep Mound a convenience shopping center. Future development depends on the plan, the strategy, and the economy of the country, Polston - pedestrian circulation and safety is a priority. Also the need to seek new businesses and promore locations. Also the need for elderly housing. Also the need to improve the appearance of downtown. Weiland supposed razing of the Anderson Bldg. and asked whether a nude bakery building standing there would be any improvement. DAC/2 Polston v(ould like to see the post office in the Anderson Bldg. Lindlan - the Anderson Bldg. will be standing there for a while' because of the $70,000 addition charge. It's more than the market will bear. Elam re-directed the meeting by saying the technical assistance for storefronts, etc. can be off the gorund by October. Planters can be used, but the City needs a detailed 'plan of where they go. Maybe somebody needs to drive to St. Paul and ask the railroad about fencing off the signal building. Elam mentioned the proposed shared-cost maintenance person. He continued with his priorities and telling what can be done internally. A comprehensive plan for Cty Rd 15 is way off, but we can have input for the post office plans and specifications. The City needs committee help in order to relocate crosswalks precisely. Costs for lighting are already 5% of the ciy's budget. We need a theme, but perhaps that is a task for the downtown merchants, Chamber of Commerce, etc. It would be a trage.dkv to lose all these opportunites, but many are beyond the ability of the city manager alone. There's an awful lot positive here that's workable. Ulrick - we need a list of what the City is going to do. The committee will do the rest. Norstrem - we are here looking for additional input. Ulrick - Rob Chelseth has the ability to work with merchants regarding upgrading storefronts, etc. Norstrem - committee needs a liaison to update us on plans and proposals in the works. Pond wants a clear message to give to committee. Mayor Lindlan did not submit one. Questionaires were collected. A sub-committee could work on streetscaping with Rob - focusing on downtown, perhaps with help from students from the U. of M. Chuck Carlson - in the past these plans have failed due to lack of financing. You need a financial feasability plan. Find the $$ first, then draw up a plan to spend them. "It's as simple as that". How are you gonna pay for it? Polston - "We're gonna have to get some money for these people" Pond - the committee looked at financing possibilities. But I feel torn apart. Are we looking for a big plan or for details? Swenson - "Let's give them a $ figure and let them go". Chelseth - Planners like a pie-in-the-sky dreambook, but realistically they end up doing incremental work, details, and then fill in as time goes by and as money becomes available. Pond - we will continue churning away. We will refine the plan and get to specifics. We'll come back to you for money requests. Adjournment came at 10:25 p.m. Diane Arneson, Secretary February 16, 1982 MINUTES MOUND CABLE T. V. COMt~ITTEE MEETING A meeting of the Mound Cable T.V. Committee was held on February 16, 1982 at Mound City Hall in the Council Chambers. Those present were: Helene Borg, Kent Borg, Larry Johnson, Harold Pellett, Dr. Ken Romness, Marsha Smith, Bruce Wold, Consultant Tom Creighton. City Manager Jon Elam, and City Clerk Fran Clark. Donald Ulrick was absent and excused. The City Manager gave a brief background on each member and how they were selected for this Committee. He then explained that the packet he passed out to the Committee contained some information he has acquired at different meetings and from the League of Minnesota Cities; a resume of the Consultant Tom Creighton and his experience in cable T.V.; a resolution on lobbying policy and a list of the Cable T.V. Committee members. He also explained that the City Council would like the Committee to develop a budget for their work on the Cable T.V. plan. The City Manager then introduced Tom Creighton. Mr. Creighton stated that the Committee's first step would be to decide whether the system should be municipally owned. He gave several examples of studies he has been involved with in the Metro area. The Committee felt that there should be an educational session for them to gain a better understanding of cable T.V. Mr. Creighton stated that he would conduct an orientation meeting for the Committee and any interested parties. The Committee decided to hold this orientation meeting on Thursday, March 4, 1982 and invite the City Council and some other local groups to attend. The meeting will be held at 7:00 P.M. Fran Clark, City Clerk Please note: Tom Creighton's phone numbers: 339-1290 Office 938-1818 Home Dr. Romness's mailing address is: 2208 Commerce Blvd. City clerk/County Administrator RATE INCREASE NOTICE On December 18, 1981, Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc. filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission a request for increased rates pursuant to Minnesota Statute 237.075. Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc. intends to place the new rates into effect on March 19, 1982. lities Commission must decide by December 18,'1982 how much of' f any) will be approved. If the full increase is not approved, the difference betweenthe requesteu increase and the approved increase, plus interest at the prime rate, will be refunded to customers in a manner to be determined by the Commission. Continental Telephone Company's proposed rates will generate approximately $6.7 million in additional revenues, or an approximate 17 percent increase in annual gross revenues. The summary below describes the average percentage impact of the rate increase. Individual rate changes may be slightly higher or lower. Class of Service Proposed Rate Increase All classes and grades of primary service 39.6% The staff of the Department of Public Service is conducting an investigation of Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota's books and records. Public hearings will be scheduled to hear testimony and comments about the proposed increase. Counties, municipalities, and individual customers will be notified if and when a hearing is scheduled in their particular area. Proposed rate schedules may be examined by the public during normal business hours at the Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul and at Continental Telephone Company's local business offices. Municipalities, counties, corporations, groups, and individual persons who wish to intervene or testify in the case should contact the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC I~TILITIES COI~LMISSION Ltllian Warren-Lazenberry Leo G. Adams Roger L. Hanson Terry Hoff~n Juanita R. Satterlee Chairman C6mtssioner Commissioner Comissioner Comissioner In the ~tatter of the Petition of Continental Telephone Company of Minnesota, Inc., for Authority to Change its Schedule of Telephone Rates for Customers within the State of Minnesota. DOCKET NO. P-4D7/GR-81-700 NOTICE AND ORDER FOR HEARING PROCEDURAL HISTORY Continental Telephone Company of' Minnesota, Inc., (Continental or the Company} filed a pettti'~n, pursuant to M. S. § 237.075, with the Minnesota Public Utilities Comission (the Commission) on December lB, lgB1, That peti- tion sought an increase in gross annual revenues of $6,732,595. On January 15, 1982, the Commission issued its Order'Accepting Filing and Suspending.Rates. On December 17, lgS1, under Continental Teleohone Company, Docket No. P-4OT/GR-Tg-SDO, issued an Order Approving Filings Subject to Further Proceedtn As part of that Order, the Commission approved a vertical service rate filing Continental. Continental _subsequently began billing cu~tomer~ for vertical services under those rates, which resulted in approximately $1.4 million in additional annual reveres. On February 9, 1982, the Commission rejected that vertical service filing, and issued its Order so stating on February 12, 1 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ' . I. JURISDICTION The Commission finds that a hearing is necessary in the above-entitled matter to determine the reasonableness of the telephone rate increases proposed by Continental. The Commission is authorized to conduct such a hearing'by M, S. § 237.075. II. PROPOSED RATES. The Company has proposed tncreasinp local exchange access service rates by 39.5 percent; EAS rates by 39.5 percent; public telephone service to 2S and has proposed increases in service connection charges and in terminal equip-' merit not increased after the December 17, lg81 Order in .CT~, GR-7g-SDO. ,4: A copy of the Company's requested rates is on file in the offices of the Department of Public Service and is Open to public inspection during normal office hours. A copy is also available for public inspection at the Company's local business offices. The Commission has s~spended the rate schedule filed by the Company the hearing ordered herein. However, the Company has notified the Commission it will exercise its statutory right to place increased rates into effect for service on and after Hatch 19~ 1982. In the testimony accompanying the Company's petition of December lB, lg81 the Company included the $1.4 million from CTC, GR-Tg-500, in its computation of revenues from present rates. Due to the Con~ntssion's January g, 1982 rejection of the underlying petition, the Company's computation which was correct at the .- time of filing is now incorrect. The Company will be ordered to correct its filing to remove the revenue effect of the rejected vertical service filing fr~ its computation of revenue under present rates, from its computation of revenue under proposed ratesL and from its rate schedules*affected by the rejection. Company ~ll also be ordered to re~ect the corrected computation in its tndivi dual customer notices before it submits them for Commission approval. The Commission finds that its rejection of the vertical services filing in CT~, GR-79-50D, does not require rejection of this petition, by virtue of the corrective action noted above. However, 'the Commission is constrained under M. S. § 237.075, subd. 5, as to the maximum increase it can grant the Companyi "In no event shall the rates [determined by the Commission) exceed the level rates requested by the telephone company, except that individual rates may be' adjusted upward or downward." ' Continental has requested an increase of $6,732,595. The Commission concludes it will be unable, at the close of this case, to grant the Company an increase in revenues greater than $6,732,S95, regardless of ~he Conmany's ability to show a revenue deficiency supporting a larger increase. The sion faced this problem in Zumbrota Telephone Company, Docket No. P-577 {December B, lgBO) at 2, where a telephone company entered into a stipulation a level $1,111 higher than the increase originally sought. The Commission "The' statutory prohibition is clear; the rate increase granted may not exceed the utility's request." While the Con~ission may approve rates for specific -2- services at the close of this cas~'t~t differ from those Continental has proposed, the overall revenue increase will be no greater than the $6,732,595 proposed. III. PROCEDURAL OtFFLINE The hearing on the p;tition will be conducted by a Hearing Examiner appointed by the Chief Hearing Examiner of the State of ~tinnesota and will be held in compliance with the applicable laws relating to the Public Utilities Commission, the Administrative Procedure Act (M. S. § 15.0411-1).052), the rulm$~ of the Office of Administrative Hearings (g MCAR § 2.201-2.222) and the Rules of Practice of the Public Utilities Commission {Minn. Reg. PSC $00-521), to thm extent that they have not been superseded by the rules of the Office of Admin(~! strative )leartngs. These rules may be purchased from the Documents Section of the of Administ6ation, ll? University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota The rules provide generally for the procedural rights of the parties including: rights to advance notice of witnesses and evidence, right'to a pre- hearing conference, rights' to present evidence and cross examine witnesses, and rights to purchase a record or transcript. Parties are entitled to tssuanoe of subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend and produce documents and other Any person intending to intervepe as a formal party to these hearings .submit..a Petition for Leave to Intervene ~Lo the Hearing Examiner and serve the petition on all existing parties. The petition must state how the Petitioner' legal rights, duties or privileges may be determined or affected by the Con~t sion's decision in the matter and shall set forth the grounds and purposes for which intervention is sought and shall indicate the Petitioner's statutory rigl to intervene, if one exists. All parties have the right to be represented by legal counsel, by a person of their choice or by themselves if not otherwise prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law. A )totice of Appearance must be filed with the Hearing Examiner within 20 days of the date of service of this Order if any party intends to appear at the hearing. The Notice of Appearance is not required if the hearing date is less than 2D days from the issuance of this Order. Potential intervenors shall attend the prehearing conference below with information which will facilitate the scheduling of hearings per- mitting all of the parties to present their evidentiary views in a nmnner and within a time frame which would be as fair and expeditious as possible. which may be discussed include: the reasonable time period required to ~ttel direct testimony for filing on all of the issues; the time period for preparat( of direct testimony by intervenors; recommended areas for hearings to receive public input regardinp the petition; time required for parties to prepare for depositions and other discovery; and other matters that will facilitate full mt Yair hearings on the petition. If persons have go6d reason for'requesting a delay of any hearing, the request must be made in writing to the Hearing Examiner at least five days prtc to the hearing. A copy of the request must be served on the Commission and all parties. Failure to appear at the hearing may result in the issues set out her~t) being deemed proven. A possible result is that the rates proposed by Continenl may be accepted by the Commission. Following the contested hearing, the Commission may approve ml) of any part of the proposed rate increase but may not approve an overall increase greater than that proposed by the Company. However, the Co~tsston may adjust rates for classes of customers to levels greater than those proposed by the Company and make other rate adjustments based upon the testimony of other parties. If no person contests the proposed rate increase at the hearing, the rates may be approved as proposed. Any question concerning informal disposition of this matter or discover of information should be addressed to Kenneth A. Nickolai, Special Assistant Attorney General, 720 ~merican Center Building, St. Paul, Minnesota; 612/296-$( All other questions concerning this hearing should be addressed to the Hearing Examiner assigned: Bruce Campbell Office of Administrative Hearings 4DD Sunsuit Bank Building 310 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 612/341-7602 ORDER 1. A contested case hearing concerning this matter shall be held, with a prehearing conference a~..~~ Friday, t~rch 5, 1982, in Courtroom Office of Administrative Hearings, Third Floor, 400 Summit Bank Building, 310 Fourth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415. 2. Continental shall facilitate in every reasonable way the investigal of the Department of Public Service. All parties shall furnish adequate within l0 days to all reasonable information requests from ~ther parties. 3. The Company shall keep records of sales and billings under the and proposed rates such that any potential refund can be determined by computi what'each customer's bill would have been during the refund period had the fin ordered rates been in effect and subtracting such amount from the amount actua paid by each customer during that period. 4. This Order shall be served on Continental who shall mail copies of same to all municipalities in its service area, all parties who filed petitio~ to intervene (timely or untimely) in its most recent rate proceeding before Commission {Docket No. P-40?/GR-?9-500) and to such other persons as the De ment of Public Service may request. 5. Public hearings shall be held ~t locations within the service the Company. 6. In addition to the individual notification as ordered by the Commis on January 15, 1982, the Company shall also publish notices of the preheartng conference, evidenttary hearings and public hearings in the form of newspaper display ads, at least l0 days prior to the dates of their conmencement, in newspapers of general circulation in towns within the Company's service t~rri The heading on the display ad, RATE INCREASE NOTIC£, must be minimum 30 point bold face type. 7. The January 21, 1982, Corporate Agreement and Undertaking filed by Continental is hereby accepted. 8. This Order shall be effective immediately. BY ORDER OF IHE COmmISSION SERWCE FEB 1 6 1982 (SEAL) RDY:CKS:Jyp