The URL can be used to link to this page

83-06-07,,~ /. ~0 I T¥ OF MOUND MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, June 7, 1983 7:30 P.M. - Council Chambers 1. Approval of Minutes of May 17, 1983, Regular Meeting Approval of Minutes of May 31, 1983, Board of Review 2. Tax Increment Financing A. B. Review & Adoption of City Policy Statement Report from City Manager & City Planner on Town Square Development C. Review of Steps Involved in TIF Program City Planner/City Attorney ~ PLANNING.COMMISSION ITEMS 3. CASE #83-226 - Gregory S. Pederson, 6087 Aspen Road Lot 18, Brookton MAP 4-A 12 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE 4. CASE #83-227 - Valerie Swenson, 5005 Avon Drive Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "B" SIDE YARD VARIANCE of 3.9 & 3.4 feet @ existing structure; and 25 foot~ FRONT YARD VARIANCE for garage addition; and LOT WIDTH VARIANCE MAP 8-D 5. CASE #83-228 - Charles Peugh, Signcrafters for 5025 Shoreline Blvd. (Burger Chef) Lots 3,4,5,6,36 & Part of 2 & 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit "F" SIGN PERMIT MAP 5-D 6. CASE #83-223 - Catalyst Properties, Inc. (Jim Nelson) Property located on Three Points Blvd. near Commerce Blvd. - Part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (Variance of Planned Development Area Section of City Ordinance & Conditional Use Permit (Suggested Date June 21, 1983) 7. CASE #83-224 - Doug Moodie & Michael C. Beatty, 4916 & 4908 Edgewater Drive SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (Vacation of a Fire Lane) (Suggested Date July 5, 1983) 8. CASE #83-225 - Paul A. Henry, 5056 Sulgrove Road Lots 7,8,13,~4,15&~Part of 6, Block 28, Whipple SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING (Conditional Use Permit/ Garage Size Variance) (Suggested Date June 21, 1983) Pg. 1240-1246 Pg. 1247-1248 Pg. 1249-1271 Pg. 1272-1282 Pg. 1283-1285 Pg. 1286-1294 Pg. 1295 Pg. 1296-1302 Pg. 1303-1311 Pg. 1312-1318 Pg. 1319-1335 Pg. 1336-1338 Pg. 1339-1347 Page 1238 9. Petition for Parking Ordinance Addition "Add No Parking Signs on the North Side of Sinclair Road from Westedge Blvd. east to the end of the pavement'l 10. Amendment to Chapter 39 - Licensing & Regulation ~f Dogs ll. Request for Extension of Subdivision of Land (Approved 6-8-82) 12. Review & Approval of Bids (Bid Summaries to be handed out at meeting) A. 1983 Island Park Water Improvements - George Boyer B. Fire Hall Addition -Jon Elam C. 1983 Street Repair Program D. City Hall Skylight & Roof Repair 13. Memo from Police Chief asking for Designation of Second Signer for Application for Training Reimbursement 14. Approval. for Submission to Hennepin County of Special HUD Application to Create "Revolving Loan Fund" for Commercial Loans 15. Memo on Microcomputer Purchase 16. Quotes for Repair of Well #3 17. Transient Merchant's License 18. Payment Request - Perkins Landscape - Mound Bay Park -$5,338.80 19. Payment of Bills 20. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter of Thanks for Stairs on Avocet & Bluebird B. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Materials C. Ihd. School District #277 Minutes D. Review - Metropolitan Council E. Information Material on Accessory Apartments F. Memo from Police Chief on Assaolts G. League of Minnesota Cities Building Memo H. Twin Cities Labor Market Information I. American Legion Post 398 Gambling Report J. 3 Newspaper Articles K. Calendar for June Pg. 1348-1350 Pg. 1351-1352 Pg. 1353-1359 Pg. 1360 Pg. 1361 Pg- 1362 Pg. 1363 Pg. 1364-1366 Pg. 1367-1392 Pg. 1393-1397 Pg. 1398-14OO Pg. 1401 Pg. 1402-1406 Pg. 1407 Pg. 1408 Pg. 1409-1422 Pg. 1423-1426 Pg. 1427-1428 Pg. 1429-1456 Pg. 1457 Pg. 1458-1473 Pg. 1474-1477 Pg. 1478 Pg. 1479-1481 Pg. 1482 Page 1239 82 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL May 17, 1983 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 May 17, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen, and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Swenson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Attorney.Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Manager Jon Elam and City Clerk Fran Clark. Councilmember Paulsen asked that the Council recognize that today is Syttende Mai (Norwegian Constitution Day). MINUTES The Minutes 'of the April 26, 1983, Special Meeting were presented for consideration. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the April 26, 1983, Special Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Minutes of the May 3, 1983, Regular'Meeting were presented for consideration. Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the May 3, 1983, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments from the citizens present on the list of delinquent utility bills. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-84 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,070.85 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUTOFF WATER SERVICE FOR THESE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING MAP.- B-1 TO R-4 - LOTS 24, 25, 26 & 27, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F" The City Manager explained that the Planning Commission has recommended denial of the proposed amendment and he thought that Dow-Sat of Minnesota the City's cable T.V. company has made an offer on this property so this could be the reason no one representing this item was present. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments on the rezoning. There were none. The City has received one letter from Lillian Vukas against the rezoning. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to deny the proposed amendement to the zoning map.. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 83 May 17, 1983 The next item on the'Agenda was a public hearing for a conditional use permit for Lots 24,.25, 26 & 27, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit "F". This item was skipped because Item A was denied. COMMENTS AND SU. GGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were no comments or suggestions from citizens present. ORDINANCE - ADDING SECTION 25.11, 25.11.1' AND~25.11.2 RELATING TO.ISSUANCE OF OPEN BURNING.PERMITS The City Manager explained that in order to have the Fire Chief authori~zed to receive applications and issue open burning permits, the Council must adopt Minn. Rule APC 8 as the guideline to be used.in issuing open burning permits. Peterson moved and Charon seconded the following. ORDINANCE #448 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 25.11, 25.11.1, AND 25.11.2 TO THE CITY CODE RELATING TO ISSUANCE OF BURNING PERMITS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 3.2 BEER PERMIT - MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT P~terson moved and Polston seconded a motion to authorize the issuance of a Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit to the Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. for June .10, 1983 to June 12, 1983. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOUND DEPOT USE The City Manager reported that Nancy Lauderdale has asked to use the Depot area at Mound Bay Park on Wednesday evening, May'17, 1983, as a gathering place for those desiring to publicly.destr'oy their rock records. This is an administrative item and does not need Council approval. The City Manager just wanted the Council to be aware of what was going to happen. MOUND TROLLEY BOAT CENTER, INC. - AMENDED OPTION AGREEMENT The City Manager reported that the. Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc. has signed the Option Agreement on the Lost Lake property but has amended one portion. That portion is number 4 which, if the Council accepts it will read as follows: "4. Mound Trolley Boat Center, Inc.'may become a defendant or may be named as an interested party in the property registration action. They hereby agree that they wil'l' no~ dppdse the Ci't~'~ ~ffdrts'io regis'ter"the-~dperty:"' The City Attorney did not foresee any problem with the amended item. Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-85 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE AMENDED OPTION AGREEMENT ON THE LOST LAKE PROPERTY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Hay 17, 1'983 REFUND OF LICENSE FEES (RESTAURANT AND DANCEHALL) - TOH WATSON The City Manager explained that Mr. Watson has asked that the fees for the Restaurant and Dancehall Licenses be refunded. $200 for the Dancehall and · $5 for the Restaurant. He went on to explain that Mr. Watson ha~ four extra machines.in his arcade which he did not have licenses for. The amount of the license fees for these machines is $1OO.OO. He suggested deducting the $100.OO from the $205.00, leaving a net refund of $105.00. The Council agreed. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion directing a refund 'to Mr. Watson of $205.00 with $100.00 deducted for machine licenses that were not obtained ($25.00 per. machine - 4 machines). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager pointed out that the City has received a letter from Mrs. Moy's attorney stating that Mr. Watson has been legally evicted from the site. REFUND FOR REZONING APPLICATION - VERN VEIT, LosT LAKE SUBDIVISION The City Manager reported that Mr. Veit has requested a refund of the $100.OO he paid for a rezoning application which was denied. The City Manager is recommending denial of this request because the City incurred .legitimate costs reviewing this application and'it would not be a good policy to refund fees when the request is denied. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to. deny the request for a refund of the $1OO.OO rezoning application fee for Mr. Vern Veit. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1983 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM - PLANS & SPECS - SET BID OPENING DATE The City Manager reported that all the Mound street repairs have now been coordinated into one package and are ready to be approved and a date set for the bid opening. They are: 1.- Bituminous Overlay on Cemetery Road 2. Bituminous Replacement, Ridgewood Road (Watermain Break) 3. B~tuminous Curb Replacement 4. Basketball Court, Brookton Park 5. Concrete Curb and Gutter Replacement 6. Sidewalk Construction, County Road 15 7. Halsted Avenue Street Improvement, Alternate 1 Since this list was made 2 more items need to be'added: 8. Woodcrest of Mound 3rd Addition Miscellaneous Repair Work on Setter Circle and Deerwood Lane 9. Central Business District (CBD) Parking Lot The suggested bid opening date is June 6, 1983, 10:30 A.M. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-86 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 1983 STREET REPAIR PROGRAM ITEMS 1-9 AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS TO BE OPENED JUNE 6, 1983, AT 10:30 A.M. 84 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 85 May 17, 1983 1983 FIRE HALL ADDITION ~ PLANS & SPECS - SET BID OPENING DATE The City Manager explained that this addition will be a storage area and will be funded from the 1983 Fire Capital Outlay Budget. The plans and specifications were submitted for approval. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-87 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS · FOR THE 1983 FIRE HALL ADDITION AND ORDERING THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS TO BE OPENED JUNE 6, 1983, AT IO:OO A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE ORDINANCE SUMMARY The ordinance summary of Ordinance #446 City of Mound Cable T[V. Franchise was submitted for approval. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUTION #83-88 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE SUMMARY FOR ORDINANCE #446 - CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NEW FIRE DEPARTMENT PUMPER TRUCK The Fire Department is in need of a new pumper truck. They have prepared plans and specification for the pumper truck and would like Council approval. Financing would be thru five year certificates of indebtedness. Because other'communities contract with Mound for fire protection are paying.Part of the cost of new equipment, the Fire Dept. will be inviting the area contract cities in to discuss the purchase of this new pumper. Polston moved and Charon seconded the following resolution. RESOLUT ION #83-89 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR A NEW PUMPER TRUCK FOR THE FIRE DEPT. The vote was unanimously in favor.. Motion carried. A bid date will be set later after discussion with the other contract cities. GRAVEL DRIVEWAYS The City Manager submitted a memo on the problem of gravel driveways washing down into streets and storm sewers. The Council discussed this briefly. No action was taken. PAYMENT OF BILLS Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $172,929.99, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. May 17, 1'983 CHANGE ORDER - MOUND BA~ PARK - LAWCON The Park Director is asking that the Council consider sodding Mound Bay Park instead of seeding~because it will make the park usable now. The cost of 9000 yards of sod shduld be within $200.00 of the total project budget. Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve Change Order #1 Lawcon, Mound Bay Park, in the amount of $8,550.00 for the sodding of the park.. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS/INFORMATION A. Westonka~Area Chamber of Commerce Newsletter - May, 1983. B. Hubert H.· Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs - May Events and Calendar. C. L.M.C.D. - "Save the Lake" Campaign letter. D. American Legion Post #398 Gambling Report for April, 1983. E. Ehlers &~Associates - Newsletter May 1, 1983. F. Memo from ~ark Andrew, Hennepin County Board - Re: Shade Tree Program. G. Minutes - The Planning Commission~·Meeting April 25, 1983. H. Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Notice of Annual Meeting May 26, 1983. I. Letter from Minnesota Dept. of Energy, Planning and Development regarding Minnesota Energy Conservation Service (MECS) PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE Mayor Polston appointed Councilmember Gary Paulsen as Council Representative to the Planning Commission until Councilmember Swenson who is ill returns. Paulsen 'moved and Peterson seconded a motion to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon~Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk 'BILLS ..... MAY 17, 1983' Air Comm 1,05OtOO Acro Minnesota · 10.67 Blackowiak & Son 56.00 Babler Automotive 23.00 Butch's Bar Supply 195.56 Bill Clark Standa£d 4,108.30 Robert Cheney 334.00 City Club Distributing 3,034.75 Chapin Publishing 37.20 Coast to Coast 38.71 Coca Cola Bottling 122.O0 Day Distributing 2,742.30 Jon Elam 11.00 East Side Beverage 3,346.46 Feed. Rite Control 218.40 Glenwood Inglewood 43.80 Genuine Parts 53.07 GMG Truck Center 69.92 Illies& Sons 882.25 Kool Kube Ice 104.O0 Herman Kraft 49.50 Koehnen. Standard Serv 162.36 Lehn Electric 372.35 Lawco Co. 237.47 Miller Davis 5.05 Marina Auto Supply 414.50 Minnegasco 1,428.26· Mound Fire Dept 4,820.00 Mound Locksmith 38.00 Mound Super Valu 15.59 Wm Mueller & Sons 1,488.29 Mtka Po,rtable Dredge 3,000.00 Northland E1ec Supply 100.78 N.S.P. 8,808.41 A.J. Ogle Co. 1,801.15 Pepsi Cola/7 Up 238.50 Pogreba Distributing 3,560.55 Porter Seal 17.31 Regal Window Clean 10.75 SOS Printing 312.20 Nels Schernau 10.23' Shepherds Laundry 53.00 Spring Park Car Wash 122.80 Don Streicher Guns 40.30 T & T Maintenance 50.25' Twin City Home Juice 19.20 Thorpe Distributing 4,080.15 Widmer Bros. 512.70 Water Products 579.00 Anthony's Floral 25.00 .Acro Minnesota 161.25 Badger Meter 444.20 Holly Bostrom 138.O0 Berry Auto 13.70 Jan Bertrand 12.05 B & M Proclean Serv 50.00 Continental Tele 1,'103.99 Gary Cayo 2.50 Empire Crown Auto 10.OO First Bank Mpls 16.O0 Eugene Hickok 12,576.12 William Hudson 3.76 J.B. Distributing 51.84 Johnson Paper 75.86 Robert Johnson 14.30 Internatl City Mgmt Assn 244.00 Island Park Skelly 1,136.00 Kromer Co. 646.70 LOGIS 1,610.39 The Laker 171.35 Lyman Lumber 153.47 Doris Lepsch 30.00 Lutz Tree Service 3,795.00 McCombs Knutson 3,882.00 Minnegasco 6.28 MN Recreation &~Park 96.00 Minn Comm '28.75 Mpls Oxygen 21.O0 Navarre Hdwe 150.41 Popham Haik 1,519.85 Pitney Bowes 55.50 Reo Raj Kennels 109.00 Real One Acquisition 335.03 SOS Printing 56.85 State Treas. .15.O0 Timberwall Landscaping 605.60 Unltog Rentals 137.91 Griggs Cooper 2,804.98 Johnson Bros Liq. 3,170.10 Lakeland Ford Truck 57,880.65 Metro Waste Control 26,126.47 Old Peoria Co. 1,O10.87 Mike Palm 150.OO Ed Phillips & Sons 2,504.55 John A Richards 60.00 Dr. Bernie Rottach 6.00 Mike Savage 150.OO ThompsOn-Faaberg 579.44 Anne Tobias 65.00 TOTAL BILLS 172,929.99 May 31, 1983 BOARD OF REVIEW Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of ~he City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341 Maywood Road in said City on May 31, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary Paulsen, and Russ'Peterson. Councilmember Gordon Swenson was absent and excused. Also present were: City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Milt Hilk. The Mayor opened.the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners a chance to question the.market value placed on their property by the County Assessors as of January 2, 1983. These values will be used as the base for taxes payable in 1984.. He explained that each person would be heard and the the Board of Review will reconvene on June 14th and bring back their final decision on each property. The following persons responded to the call to be heard; they all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. 1. dames T. Brown (Representing Tonka Corporation) - PID #13~117-24 34 0066 Main Building in Mound 2. Jean Olson - PID #14-I17-24 43 0032 2270 Langdon Lane 0033 o John Tombers 1737 Avocet Lane 2151 Apple Lane Michael W. Murray 2712 Shanhon Lane - PID #13-117-24 21 0025 - PID #13-117-24 42 0007 - PID #1'9-117-23 23 0074 5. Rock Lindlan (Representing Jude,Oas.& Smith) 2361Wilshire Blvd. - PID #13-117-24 34 OO51 thru 0058 6. Rodney Larson 2976 Highland Blvd. - PID #23-117-24 41 OO16 7. Donna Whitman 5028 Enchanted Road - PID #13-117-24 il 0072 8. Priscilla Anderson 5938 Idlewood Road - PID #23-117-24 42 0007 9. Eugene Garvais 6272 Red Oak - PID #14-117-24 32 OO10 OO4O 10. Donald Chemberlin 4841 Island View Drive - PID #25-117-24 ll 0035 ll. Du~ne Norberg 6015 Aspen Road - PID #14-117-24 31 0024 ~88 May 31,1983 12. Bud Skoglund 6823 Bartlett Bl~d. - PID #23-117-24 14 0020 0019 0021 13. Patrick (M~ke) Ruhr 5133 Emeral~ Drive 14. Ralph Reeves 2559 Avon Drive 15. Robert Derner 2700 Rosewood Lane 16. Thomas ~Eliasen 4753 Island View. Drive 17. Ron Gehring 3215 Charles Lane 18. Donald Block 4860 Bedford Road - PID #24-117-24 13 0016 - PID #24-117-24 12 0018 - PID #23-117-24 24 0044 PID #30-117-23 32 0058 - PID #25-117-24 21 0113 - PID #24-117-24 41 0061 19. Ron Norstrem 4957 Island View Drive - PID #25-117-24 12 0003 20. Paul Henry 5056 Sulgrove - PID #25-117-24 12 O191 21. Duay~e Terlinden 1744 Avocet ~ PID #13-117-24 24 0006 22. Oswin Pflug - 4440 Denbigh - 4851 Shoreline Blvd. - PID #19-117-23 24 0001 - PID #13-117-24-44 0016 23. Wm. Netka 2313 Commerce Blvd. - PID #13-117-24 33 0020 Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to reconvene the Board of Review on June 14, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Councilmember Paulsen commended the Fire. Dept. for their involvement in the Memorial Day Parade. Fran Clark, City Clerk Tax Increment financir~: What is it? Tax increment financing refers to a funding technique that" utilizes increases in a~sessed valuation and property taxes attributed to redevelopment to pay for public redevelopment costs. Tax increment financing may be used to provide public funds for:. (1) ~ _redevelooment or rehabilitation of deteriorated areas of the city~ (2) ~-~sis~ance to f~eilitate th~ construction 'of low-moderate income housing; (3) the oromnt{nn nf economic development and the provision . '0f'." employment, oppor!uniti~s in the city.' Th~ difference in the assessed valuation and tax revenues generated by the property within the district after new construction has occurred compared with the assessed valuation and amount of tax revenues generated by the property prior to the establishment of the tax increment is called the tax increment. This difference in assessed valuation and tax revenues is determined annually and is used to repay indebtedness or current redevelopment costs. Statutory Authority. 1. Empowering S tatu.tes. (1) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462.411 et. seq. Minnesota Housing and Redevalopm'ent~Authority Act (2) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 472A.0i Municipal Development District Act (3) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 458.192 Port AuthOrity Act (4) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 474.01 Municipal Industrial Development Act (5) Minnesota Statutes Chapter 362.01 Minnesota Rural 'D &velopment Finance Authority Act (6) None of the above statutes contain provisions authorizing tax increment financing, but each of these statutes provides eligible local units of government with the power to designate a project or district in which tax increment financing may be dtilized. In short~ any project utilizing tax increment financing as a source of revenue reauires the citation of two statutes,, one creating the project area and specifying its purpose, and one establishing the meats of financing the project through the creation of a tax increment financing district. Graphic Representation of Tax Increment Financing District during implementation and site preparation. Case A -- decline of original assessed valuation due to acquisition and clearance. Case B -- increase in assessed valuation due to reassessment and inflationary appreciation creating a modest captured assessed valuation and a potential tax increment. ASSESSED VALUATION DATE OF PLAN CASE B ADOPTION POTENTIAL INCREASE DUE TO ~ REASSESSMENT, WITHOUT I SUBSTANTIAL REDEVELOPI~,ENT .I,~ FROZEN TAX BASE CASE A POTENTIAL EFFECT ON ASSESSED VALUATION IF' SUBSTANTIAL :AC~UIS.Z~]'O~ "OR CLEARA,~CE OCCUR < TIldE. '. ~- PROJECT COh'~PLETED So..ure¢ Journal of Housing: May 1977 4 Oraphic Representation of Tax Increment Financing District after new construction is assessed and taxable. VALUATION -l' Application of mill rate to increased assessed value with redevelopment (captured assessed value) provides 'annual tax increment. ' ' .} PROJECT FROZSN TAX CO.~4PLETED Source: Journal of Housing: May 1977 Tax Increment Districts Three genera] types of tax increment financing districts are permissable according to the 1979 Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act. These district types include redevelopment districts, housing districts, and economic development districts. The term "district" is used to identify a parcel or set of parcels that comprise the essential tax increment district. Redevelopment districts are those districts which involve the removal of ~ or the improvement of ~in order to place the land in a buildable c6~ndit~on. Such a district shall either involve "(1) land (that) is predominently occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements (70 percent of the parcels in the district are occupied) and more than 50% of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation (renovation totaling at least 50% of the appraised value of the original building and site) or clearance.; or (2) land (that) is predominantly occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other im'pro~'ements (7.0 percent occupied) and 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard and an additional 30 percent of the buildings rare found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships~ overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildir~c~s not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety and general well-being of the community; or (3) land (that) is not predominantly occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements, but at least 80 percent of the total acreage of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the.. project which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing the land for use, not including utilities, if any, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of said preparation; or (4) property consist(hug) of under-utilized air rights existing over a government-owned highway, street or right-of-way; or (5) property consist(ing) of vaca~.t, unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used railyards, rail storage facilities or excessive., or vacated railroad rights-of-way." Redevelopment District: New Construction, Rehabilitation and Public Improvements As one migh~ surmise from the definitions presented above, it is the condition of the property prior to the initiation of the redevelopment d~strict as opposed to what is constructed upo. n the property that will ultimately determine if the district is 'a redevelopment district or some other type of district. A redevelopment district may thus involve the construction of · residential, commercial or industrial land uses'as replacements for the blighte.d land and/or improvements. Housing districts include "a district or that part of a district, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and' moderate income, as defined in Chapter 462A, Title II of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar · present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated Under any of those acts". The inclusion of housing districts in the 1979 Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act is designed to provide authorities and municipalities with a leveraging tool to "write-down" the cost of land or public improvements thereby enhancing the feasibility of the housing project. Housing districts may be developed regardless of the condition of the property prior to the initiation of the housing project. Vacant land with no adverse soil, drainage, or water table conditions or depth to bedrock problems may be utilized for a housing district or property rendered blighted by virtue of the condition of the land or improvements upon the land may constitute a housing district. In the latter situation where blighted conditions are determined to exist, the housing district can be interchangeably classified as a redevelopment district if it meets the tests of blight as outlined in the definition of a redevelopment district. Housing District: Land Write Down and P ublic Improvements · ? The final type of project that may utilize tax increment financing is the economic development district. Economic development districts means any district not meeting the requirements found in the definition of redevelopment district .or housing district, but which the authority finds to be in the public interest because: It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or (2) It will result'in increased employment in the municipality; or (3) It will result in preservation or enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. TraditionaLly, economic development districts have involved the use of tax increment financing to provide assistance in the development of ~ndustrial parks or commercial-industrial sites. The tax increment generated by industrial development has been used to help finance the cost of public improvements such as raods, sewer and water and the installation of other utilities. As new buildings are constructed in an industrial park, the assessed valuation generated by the structures is captured by the municipality and the tax increments derived from this captured assessed value may be used to defray the 'public improvement costs associated with the development of the industrial park. Economic development districts may involve the construction of market rate housing, commercial or industrial land uses upon raw land having no impairments affecting the economic feasibility of developing the land. Such a district could also involve development in an area predominantly o~cupied by buildings, streets, utilities and other improvements and le~s than 50% of the structures are in need of substantial renovation or clearance. The economic development district 'is intended to be an immediate, short-term source of tax increment leveraging to spur private development as opposed to the redevelopment district or housing district where a lor~-term public sector commitment is assumed. The economic development district is therefore limited to an eight year period for capturing assessed value as compare.d to the redevelopment district or housing district which are each limited to a twenty-five year term for capturing assessed value and tax increments. Eeon6mie development districts may encompass a number of public improvements a~soeiated with the development of a city. However, municipalities and authorities are advised to be ~udi¢ious in their establishment of economic development districts. Some communities have been known to utilize tax increment financing as a means for offering an incentive to a business or company to abandon their facilities in another city in favor of relocating in the community. This "beggar they neighbor" syndrome is bound to perturb the community losing the industry and the employment opportunities it provided, as well as encourage the Minnesota Legislature to discontinue the use of tax increment financing for economic development. The restrictions associated with the use of tax increment economic development districts 'are general amd subject to liberal interpret, ations. However, care should be taken in the establishment of economic development districts or any other type of tax increment financing district to insure conformance with the Limitations imposed by the Act and the implied restrictions for the use of tax increment financing. Findings. Prior td the establishment of the tax increment financing district, the municipal governing body must make the following findings: .(1) That the proposed tax increment financing district is a ~redevelopment district, a housing district, or an economic development district and the specific bases for such determination. (2) That the proposed development or redevelopment district, in the opinion of the municipality, would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably forseeable future and therefore the use of tax'increment financing is deemed necessary. (3) (4) That the tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of. the municipality as a whole. That the tax increment financing plan will ~fford maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the municipality as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the district by private enterprise. (s) (Only app)Jcabl'e to Seven County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area m~{nicipalities.) That the municipality elects to have the tax increment computation for the purposes of contributing to the fiscal disparities pool be removed from the commercial-industrial property in the tax increment financing district or to have the contribution to the fiscal disparities pool come from outside the tax increment financing district thus allowing maximum tax increments to be used to retire project debt. These findings should be included in th'e resolution establishing th~ tax increment financing district. Upon adoption of this resolution, the murdcipality or authority should transmit the tax increment financing plan to the office of the county auditor and request certification of the properties or tax parcels which comprise the tax increment financing district. The effective date of the certification of the tax increment financing district will be the date the certified copy of the resolution approving the establishment of the tax increment financing district and the tax increment financing plan are received by the office of the county auditor. Once the municipality or authority has received notification that..the tax increment financing district has been certified, the municipality or authority may begin to implement the tax increment financing district. Determining the Economic Feasibility of Tax Increment Financing Proposals General Comments Prior to the completion of any documents to establish tax increment financing districts or entering into any agreements with prospective developers, the project manager should review the proposal to determine if the proposal will generate enough assessed valuation and tax increments to cover project costs, the timing of expenditures and the timing of construction ~'nd revenues. The feasibility study may be prepared by the city or authority as its expense or by the developer or proponent of the project proposal. If the developer is to assume responsibility for the feasibility study, the city will want to review the figures and data submitted for accuracy in timing and amount. If city or authority staff does not have the time or there is not sufficient revenue in the budget to complete such a study, the city may consider having the developer deposit a sum of money in escrow and using this money to pay for staff time devoted to the study. Similarly, the escrow account proceeds may be used to retain outside technical consultants. A. Cost -- Revenue Approach 1. Prepare preliminary budget Acquisition -- use two times assessors market value and judgment of an appraiser 10 Relocation -- use ~4,500 per tenant and f15,500 per owner- occupied household; businesses require professional counselor. Demolition -- $2,000 for owner income disruption, use $1,500 to $3,000 per wood frame, 10 cents a cubic foot for commercial. Public improvements -- any streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer, water or other utilities required for the site improvement. Estimated Cbs{s Paving Residential (32'-44') Industrial (44'-52'). Sidewalk Alley Paving (14') $85 to $120 per LF $150 to $200 per LF $1.10 to $1.50 per sq. ft. $35 to $40 per LF Water 6"-12" main 16"- 24" Service liens to stop-box $45 to $50 per LF $55 to $70 per LF $650 to $1,000 each Sewer 9"-18" mains 24,,-48~ TV Survey Service lines to curb C.B. runs-(by paving) $45 to $55 per LF $60 to $130 per LF $5 per LF $500 to $800 each $50 per LF Parking Lots Base, paving, curb & landscaping +_$6,000 Piling and Soil Exchange Average per lot (residential) 1000 sq. ft. house (industrial) 80,000 sq. ft. warehouse (commercial) 30,000 sq. ft. office multistory +_$12,000 $12/sq. ft. +_$175,000 $2-3/sq. ft. +_$250,000 $ 8/sq. ft. Tax increment financing is a technique that uses increases in property valuation attributed to redevelopment with a specific district area to pay for public redevelopment costs. The assessed value of the tax increment financing district at the 11 time it is establi~hedl-w/il continue to be allocated to the respect!ye taxing jurisdiction/ (county, school district, municipality, etc.) as though no district existed. The application of the mill rate to the current assessed value will provide the jurisdictions with a level of property taxes currently derived from the property. As redevelopment occurs and property values increase, the assessed value of property in the tax increment financing district will increase above the .original assessed value. Application of the mill rate to the increase in assessed value of property produces the tax increment. The tax increment is placed in a special redevelopment fund of the municipality or authority to pay for th~ public costs of redevelopment. In this manner, redevelopment is used to pay for all or some of the public costs associated with the process. The following example will illustrate the process. Assuming a municipality designates a tax increment financing (TIF) district as is illustrated below in Figure 1. The original assessed value Figure 1: Tax Increment Financing District in 1980 District Assessed Value Payable 1981 Mill Rate Property Tax PARCEL A New Construction Begins = $500,000 (January 2, 1980) = 135 (Determined October, 1980) = $67,500 (Payable 1981) 12 (OAV) of tbe-TIF district in 1980 is $500,000 and the mill rate is 13S generating a tax of $67,500. The city acquires a parcel of land (Parcel A), relocates the occupants, clears the building 'and sells .it to a developer who in 1921 completes construction of a new building. Two years later in January 1982, the completed and occupied new building and land are assessed at $200,000. At the same time, other properties in the district have increased in value so the assessed value of the TIF district excluding parcel "An is now $525,000. The total assessed value of the tax increment financing district including Parcel "A" is therefore $725,000 with $200,000 of the increase due to new .construction and land in Parcel "A" and $25,000 attributable to adjustments to property values by the assessor. Comparing the value of the property of the TIF district in 1980 when the original assessed value was $500,000 and the total assessed value of $725,000 in the TIF district in 1982, results in a difference of $225,000 (See Figure 2 below)2 The difference Figure 2: Tax Increment Financing District -- January 2, 1982 Assessed Value $525,000 New construction completed Assessed value: $200,000 Total Assessed Value (TAV) Original Assessed V alu e (OAV) Captured Assessed Value (CAV) TAV - OAV $725,000 - $500,000 = $725,000 (January 2, 1982) = $500,000 (January 1, 1980) = $225,000 (January 2, 1982) = CAV = $225,000 1982 Payable 1983 Mill Rate = 135 (Mill rate is same in 1980,'81,'82) (Mill rate is determined by county auditor and is based uponbudgetary needs of each taxing jurisdiction for the following year.) between the total assessed value (TAV) in 1982 and the OAV in 1980 is called the captured assessed value (CAY). It is the application of the 1982 mill rate for taxes payable 1983 of-135 Ip q? to the January, 19~2 c~ptured assessed value that provides the t~ increment attributed to the TIF district in 1983. CAV x Mill Rate $225,000 x 135 = Tax Increment =. $30,375 The tax increment sum of $30,375 would be remitted by the county auditor to the local governing body or authority for its redevelopment fund in .July and December.* The OAV of $500,000 continues to generate property taxes of $67,500 (OAV x Mill Rate) which are allocated to the respective taxing ju~.!sdictions in proportion to their mill levies. *Delinquent taxes collected after the October 31 collection date are remitted in February of the following year. The tax increment financing plan is separate from, but designed to compliment the redevelopment plan by providing an analysis of the economic consequences of the use of tax increment financing. A tax increment financing plan shall contain a statement of objectives of an authority or municipality for the improvement of a district and a development program for the district ·including a list...of property within the district that the authority or municipality intends to acquire and a list of activities scheduled to occur and improvements to be constructed. ALso to be included is the existence of redevelopment contract, the parties involved and the schedule for completion of the activities subject to contract. The plan shall also contain the most recent assessed value of taxable property within the district; the estimated .captured assessed value of the district at completion; the duration of the districts existence; an estimate of the impacts of tax increment financing on the assessed values of all taxing jurisdictions in which the district is located in whole or in part; the sources '.of revenues to be used to finance or otherwise pay public costs, the amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred and an estimate of the cost .of the tax increment financing district. This last element should be incorporated into the plan in the form of a line item budget. Such a budget will usually contain the following costm (1) Acquisition (2) Relocation (3) Demolition and Clearance (4) Site Preparation (5) Public Improvements (6) Planning (7) Legal (8) Engineering · (9) Administration 14 (10) Bonding Costs (11) Capitalized Interest (12) Contingency Once the redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plans are prepared the authority or municipality transmits the plans to the local planning commission to insure conformance with the local land use or comprehensive plan.' In addition, the authority or municipality must provide an opportunity to the members of the county board of commissioners of any county in which any portion of the proposed TIF district is located and the members of the school, board of any school district in which any portion of the proposed TIF district is located to meet with the authority or municipality depending upon which body will administer the proposed TIF' district. The authority or municipality shall present to the members of the county board of commissioners and the school board its estimate of the fiscal and economic impacts of the proposed TIF district. The members of the county board of commissioners and the school board may review and comment upon, but may not prevent the 'municipality from approving the creation of the TIF district. The county board is entitled to a 30 day review period before the City may have the TIF district certified by the county auditor. Closely related to the budgetary line items which reflect the public costs of redevelopment through tax increment financing ". is the determination .of revenue and revenue sources required to pay for these public costs. Assume the authority or "municipality will acquire three deteriorated properties, relocate residents or businesses, demolish the structures and clear the site. The site is then sold to a developer for the 'constrUction of a new commercial facility. The total budget will be assumed to be $150,000 ($111,750 in capital costs and $38,250 in capitalized interest costs) and the new commercial facility will generate an annual tax increment of $16,190. The authority could enter into an agreement with the municipality whereby it would issue $150,000 in general obligation bonds at an interest rate of eight and one-half (8.5%) percent on behalf of the authority. The authority would then use the bond proceeds to finance the public costs associated with the redevelopment project. The accompanying debt retirement schedule is provided to illustrate the manner in which the $17,190 annual tax increments and the $15,000 in land sale proceeds in 1981 may be used to retire the bonded indebtedness according to the 19 year debt retirement schedule. (See Figure 3, Pg. 16 for Tax Increment Financing District Debt Retirement Schedule.) 15 The initial three years of rhe debt retirement schedule involves the payment of interest but no principal on the general obligation bond. These three years are referred to as the capitalized interest period and are a portion of the bond proceeds used to make the initial three payments when no tax increment revenue is yet available. The capitalized interest amount of $38,250 is part of the $150,000 general obligation bond proceeds. Once the new construction is completed and assessed (usually a two to three year period), a tax increment will be generated and the pr/nc/pal and interest payments may be financed from the annual tax increments received by the authority or city. 16 1~I. District quakification and Planning A. Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing Plan After designating a site for the. project area and anals~zing the economic feasibility of proposals for the tax increment financing district(s), the municipality or authority must prepare the redevelopment plan and tax increment finance plan. The need for a redevelopment or development plan (redevelopment plan) is not specified in the 197.9 Tax Increment Financing Act. However,. most of the base laws utilized in conjunction with tax increment financing do have a statutory requirement for ~er_al edevelo ment lan. The Minnesota Housing and Redeveloper Authority Act-~ lViinnesota Statutes,, Section 462.411 et. sea. establishes the requirement for a redevelopment plan (Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.515) and the plan is to be transmitted by the housing and redevelopment authority to the planning agency of the municipality for its study. The Municipal Development District Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 472A, requires the municipality establishing the municipal development district to adopt a development program (Minnesota Statutes, Section 472A.03) or plan to guide the improvement of the development district. The Port Authorities Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 458.16, Subd. 2) for the regulation, future development and improvement of_the port district that is consistent with the comprehensive plan of the community. .The Municipal Industrial Development Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474, subjects the property 'acquired by a housing and redevelopment authority to a redevelopment plan (Minnesota Statutes, Section 474~15). Each project is subject to the approval of the Minnesota Commissioner of Securities and some documentation of the proposal is necessary. The Minnesota Rural Development Finance Authority Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 362A, also requires the approval of the commissioner of economic development of any contemplated project (Minnesota Statutes, Section 362A.06) and preliminary documentation of the proposal may be requ. ired. The purpose of the redevelopment plan is to provide a legal guide for the planning and implementation of a redevelopment, development, port, industrial development or .rural development district/project area. The plan enunciates the "powers" or the legal authority for the involvement of the municipality or authority in the development process. Besides being a guide for the physical develot)ment and the continual management of property in the [{roject area, ~he plan offers the opportunity to express the social goals of the municipality or authority in facilitating the redevelopment scheduled to occur. The plan also offers an opportunity to relate the redevelopment district/project area to existing comprehensive plans or design frameworks of neighborhood, municipal, regional or other geographic entities. 18 IV. B. Project Planning' A city considering the use of tax increment financing should begin the'process by identifying areas of the city where tax incremeflt financing may provide a viable financing mechanism for development or redevelopment proposals. The city may consult the marketing studies comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to: determine what acfivities or types of development are compatible with existing land uses and consistent with the plans and ordinances of the city. The city, or local public agency of the city such as. the housing and redevelopment authority or port .authority, should next review the economic feasibility of each development or redevelopment proposal If one or more of the proposals appears to be economically feasib]e, the city may proceed or direct the housing and redevelopment authority or port authority to proceed with the establishment of a tax increment financing district. The initial step in the establishment of a tax increment financing district is to delineate the project area and the tax increment financing district(s) within that project area. Recalling from the legal authority section, the project area must be established in accordance with one of the statutes that empower the municipality or authority to become involved in the redevelopment process (Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 362A, 458.192, 462.411, 474A, 474). It is only within the boundaries of this project area that the municipality or authority is authorized to carry out the public purpose embodied in the respective community development statute. Within the project area, the municipality or authority designates the tax increment financing district. The TIF district may have the same boundaries as the project area or the TIF district may be composed of scattered or non-contiguous parcels within the project area. Only those parcels identified in the finance plan will be considered to compose the tax increment financing district and generate tax increments. (See Appendix I for a geographic representation of project area and tax increment financing districts.) District Implementation Implementation consists of the actual securing of a means to finance the public costs associated with the acquisition of property, the demolition of structures and clearance of the land, the preparation and grading of the site and the installation of public improvements and disposition of the site to private enterprise for development. Additionally, implementation will entail the coordination of the timing of new construction and rehabilitation and the timing of the construction of public improvements such as streets, curb and gutter, sidewalks, storm and sanitary sewers and utilities. The plamning and implementation phases may be expected to consume ten to twenty percent of the staff time of the city staff member who oversees the 19 planning and implementation phases. Implementation begins with the negotiation of an agreement between the hity and the private developer. Such an agreement will imply the notion of shared risk between the city and the developer and provide recourse to the city pursuant to Minnesota .Statutes, section 273.75, Subdivision 5, in the event of the deveJoper does not commence or complete construction. Upon completion of the agreement with the developer the municipality may conclude the issuance of general obligation or revenue bonds in order to provide the municipality with a source of capital to finance the public planning and implementation costs. These costs include reimbursing the city or authority treasury for planning costs such as plan preparation and property options or appraisals and any legal costs for the completion of · resolutions required by the authority and municipality in order to designate and create the tax increment financing district. The bond proceeds may be invested at a more favorab, le rate of interest within the arbitrage regulations established by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and withdra~m in order to finance capital costs such as property acquisition, payment of relocation benefits, payment for demolition and site clearance work, payment for public improvement materials and their installation and non-capital costs such as administration, legal and engineering' and the interest payments on the bonds during the capitaliza.tion period before any tax increments are accrued. The negotiations with property owners to acquire property and the initiation of condemnation proceedings through the' powers of eminent domain authoriZed in the Port Authority· Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 458.192, Subd. 2), the Municipal Housing and Rede,',elomment Authority Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.445, Subd. 2), and the Municipal Development District Act (Minnesota Statutes, Section 472.08, Subd. 1) will be the' likely initial implementation step once the bond proceeds are available. Similarly, if appraisals were not prepared during the planning phase~ the city should engage the services of a real estate and a relocation appraiser in order to determine the figure ' upon which to base negotiations and to determine if any property within the structure should be included within the n-egotiation as part of the price of acquisition. Some machinery and other personal property in commercial or industrial structures may be eQnsidered to be immoveable fixtures and therefore considered to be part of the real property acquisition price. The relocation appraiser or consultant will meet with the business owner, whether he be the property owner or the tenant, to determine moving exl~enses amd what items may be relocated as moveable fixtures. The relocation consultant may also determine moving expenses and settlements for the :owners or tenants moved from residential property. 'Payment of relocation benefits is required for all public sector displacements pursuant to the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act, Minnesota Statues, Section 117.52-56. 2O After property has be n acquired and property and bus ness or bouseh01 s have been relocated, the municipality or authority may let contracts for any demolition and clearance work required. Similarly, the municipal public works department or an engineering and construction firm may be retained to begin the removal of the existing public infrastructure and its replacement with new public improvements and utilities. While pub*lie improvement replacement occurs, the city or authority should be disposing of property for redevelopment. All property acquired by the city or a local public agency may be disposed of without public bidding, but only after a public hearing if the agency handling the transaction is a municipal port authority (Minnesota' Statutes, Section 458.196, Subd. 4) or a municipal housing and redevelopment authority (Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.525, Subd. 2). If the city council is disposing of the property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 472A.03, no public hearing is required among statutory cities and home rules cities are bound by the conditions of the local charter. Once property disposition has taken place according to the terms and conditions of the agreement between the authority or city and the developer, the authority or city need only monitor the timing of the new '~onstruct{on or rehabili~tation {f the terms of the agreement called for substantial rehabilitation of a structure. The timely completion of new construction or rehabilitation kc important as the tax increments resulting from the increases in assessed value associated with the new construction or rehabilitation will be used to amortize the debt service according to the debt service schedule. Case Studies Background: Case I The City o'f Cottonwood is an agricultural community with a popUlation of 921 located in Southwest Minnesota. The need to diversify the local economy as a result of the decline in the actual number of farms and in the farm population and the need to improve the safety, transportation and land uses in the area that the city has available for industrial use were identified as the chief priorities. A United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) for the purpose of economic development was determined to be most feasible means for financing the necessary improvements required to achieve the economic development goals of the City. The City of Cottonwood has used local resources to encourage the development of industrial and commercial jobs in the community. In 1973, the city purchased eight acres of land that had previously been occupied by a mink farm for future development and to eliminate a health hazard. In 1974, Mid Continent Millwork bought an old creamery building located adjacent to the mink farm area. The business has grown to 83 employees involved in the manufacturing of cabinets and other finished products. The 21 plant has been expanded and has'Icre~ted fire protection, traffic and land use problems. The city has attempt.ed to allevi~,te these problems by increasing water main capacity, providing a temporary service road to Mid Continent Millwork and buffering the plant from residential areas with trees and other screening material but permanent solutions were necessary. In 1981, the City of Cottonwood submitted an application and received a HUD Small Cities single purpose Community Development Block Grant for the necessary public improvements in the industrial area. The City received a $217,020 grant of which $18,000 or 8.3 percent was allocated to administration. This money was leveraged with approximately $70,000 in tax increment revenue to finance the c6sts associated with the economic development pr({posal. A previous application for CDBG funds with no local .commitment of funds was rejected. The local tax increment program appears to have provided the satisfactory amount of local financing to enable the city to receive the grant. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Industrial Park Public Improvements and Downtown Redevelopment. City of Cottonwood Budget For Project Costs Public Improvements Access Road~ Bridge Road Easement Water and Sanitary Sewer Planning and Platting for Industrial Park $122,100 73,920 3,000 59,840 7,500 Administration Plan Prepaffation ' Bonding Legal 12,000 5,000 3,500 1,500 $288,360 22 ' Revenue Sources P ubl~¢ Improvemehlm A teems Road 'Bridge Easement Water and Sanitary Sewer Planning and Platting for Industrial Park CDBG Tax Increment. $122,100 ;-- 73,920 -- '3,000 -- -- $59,840 7,500 Administration 10,5000 1,500 Plan Preparation 2,500 2,500 Bonding 3,500 3,500 Legal -- 1~500 '$219,500 $68,8450 ..Background: Case II The City of Grand Rapids is a Northern Minnesota "iron range" community of 8,070 population. Essential industries in the area include tourism, retailing, mud the Blamdin Corporation, manufacturers of wood and paper products. The City had been contacted by two different developers interested in building a commercial shopping center in the downtown area and a third developer who proposed a comfmercial mall for an undeveloped area on-the suthern edge of the City. Both proposals for the new commercial center' in the downtown central business district involved the use of tax increment financing to pay for public costs associated with the acquisition and clearance of Property. FeasibiLity studies analyzing both proposals were prepared and in both cases it was determined that the public costs for property acquisition, relocation of businesses and residents, demolition of structures, clearance of the site, removal and relocation o{ utilities and preparation of the site for new construction and parking were prohibative. However, the city decided to seek additional revenue sources in order to enhance the feasibility of the proposal submitted by the second developer. The development proposal involving the construction of a new enclosed commercial center in the downtown area and the proposal for an enclosed shopping center on the southern boundary of Grand Rapids led to development of a comprehensive development plan for the revitalization of the downtown central business district. The proposals and the appai-ent competition generated as a result of new' commercial development appears to hae provided the impetus for the downtown revitalization program. 'The downtown revitalization program now includes plans for the development of the Depot Commons area, the rehabilitation of the Central School, the rehabilitation of buildings and the installation of public improvements. 23 The revenue sources the city 'originally sought in 1981 to cover costs associated with the downtown revitalization program included the $600,000 single purpose, economic development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a $111,000 Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission (UGLRC) economic development grant, a $400,000 Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant through the United States Department of Commerce and approximately $400,000 in tax increment proceeds. Additionally, an undesignated amount of Iron Range Resource and Rehabilitation Board funds were to be used to finance public improvements inside and outside of the TIF district The present (1982) revenue sources include a special, assessment totalling $11i,000 to replace the UGLRC funds and a reduction of the EDA grant to $279,000. With money to finance the public redevelopment costs secured by the city, the city and the second developer began to negotiate an agreement for the development of the one and one-half block site for the retail center and parking. The second developer and the city could not agree to terms for redevelopment so the city began to search for a new developer. The search went as far as the south end of town. The prospective developer on the south end of town agreed to enter into negotiations with the city for the development rights for the downtown site. A development agreement was soon negotiated and it included a land disposition amount of $312,000 so .the city more than accounted for the funds lost as a result of the reduction in the amount of the EDA grant. The developer decided to forsake the fringe site for the downtown site. This should solidify the downtown central business district as the primary market area for the city and the sec6ndary cities and unincorporated areas it 'serves. The city had originally been given an October 1, 1981, deadline by HUD to obtain additional funding for the project and to have leases for 50 percent of the commercial space before funds could be spent. An extension to March 1, 1982, was met as both funding commitments and the developer's agreement guaranteeing lease commitments and debt service payments for the tax increment general obligation bonds were executed. 24 DO WNTO WN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT City of Grand Rapids Financing Package for Public Redevelopment Costs Estimated Project Costs Acquisition of Property Relocation Demolition Administration and Contingency Bond Costs Parking Lot Site Work and Improvements Utility Relocation $. 679,000 144,000 36,000 175,000 50,000 250,000 100,000 100,000 $1,534,000 Revenue -- Sources Increment CDBG Other Acquisition $129,000 Relocation 144,000 Demolition -- Administration and Contingency 100,000 Bonding 50,000 Parking Lot 121,000 Site Work -- U tility Relocation -- $550',000 -- _ -- $ 36,000* $544,000 50,000 25,000 -- 129,000' -- 100,000' --. lO0,O,p@** $600,000 $390,000 *Economic Development Administration (EDA) Public Improvement Grant of $279,000. **Special Assessment Revenue of $111,000. The administration, contingency amount of $25,000 will be financed from special assessments, the EDA grant and Iron Range Resource and Rehabilitation Board. 25 May 31, 1983 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed are two proposed Pol.iFy. Statements involved in Tax-Increment Financing. They are separate because they cover the two types of projects that the Council may become involved with under State law. The attached brochure explains the differences between an Economic Development Tax-Increment Project and a Redevelopment Tax-Increment Project. Lost Lake would be an Economic Development type project because we would not be redeveloping a site, i.e. tearing down buildings, acquiring land, etc. Town Square would be a fairly typical Redevelopment Tax-Increment Project, i.e. renewing a site that is either in a state of deterioration or has a number of substandard buildings. I hope these policy proposals outline the various safeguards you feel are needed. If we adopt them, we will be one of only three or four cities in the Metro area that have such planning polici'es. Having these policies with Tonka~s building staring us in the face will be very useful. In addition, this further reinforces or clarifies our total economic development efforts. Finally, for political or other purposes, you might want to publish and hold a public hearing on these proposals as a way to defuse future criticisms. JE:fc CITY OF MOUND POLICY STATEMENT TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 5-31-83 Minnesota Statutes place the responsibility for approving Redevelopment Projects with the City Council. In addition, the financial planning of such projects require the close involvement and approval of the City Council. The administrative responsibilities for such approval may rest with the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) or be retained by the City Council. Because different projects may require different approaches, it is necessary that the City have a policy~in regard to these projects. The purpose of this policy statement is to establish the City's position with respect to the processing'of requests for, and the creation and implementation of, tax increment financing districts for redevelopment purposes. STATEMENT OF POLICY APPLICABILITY It is the policy of the City of Mound to remove, prevent, or reduce blight, blighting factors or the causes of blight (M.S.A. 462.421, Subd. 13) in order to protect, property values and the tax base of the City. For those purposes it may be necessary to create tax increment redevelopment districts in selected portions of the City and to fund public improvements or public redevelopment costs for private development within such districts. Creation of tax increment redevelopment districts or requests for tax increment funding of improvements may come as the result of City initiative, Housing and Redevelopment Authority actions, or a private proposal. It is in the public interest that the creation of tax increment districts and the financing of improvements with tax increments be made only after the City has been fully informed concerning the proposal and its current and future prospects, and has been able to thoroughly investigate it. Where a company or individual is requesting creation of a tax increment district or the financing of improvements via tax increments, that company or individual will be required to furnish all information needed for such investigation and may be required to assist in the costs of the City's analYtical efforts. It shall be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the greatest extent feasible the processing of all requests for ~ tax increment projects so that no undue delays are experienced by the applicant. -1- However, nothing herein shall be construed as representing a commitment on the part of the City to create tax increment districts. POLICY The following policies will. be observed in the Council's consideration ~ of tax· increment projects: 1.· Benefit to the City: For purposes of determining benefit of a proposed tax increment district or project, both its estimated economic and other benefits shall be considered. 'The economic benefit is the increased tax base that will result, not only in terms of the absolute increase in the tax base, but also with respect to how great an increase will be received from a given, public investment.~ Equally important is the contribution the proposal makes~to eliminating blight, preventing the spread of blight, or supporting other parts of a City redevelopment plan that achieve those ends. The removal of ~particularly detrimental land uses or b'uildings, or the pro- vision.of especially needed services or types of development are benefits that will be considered in evaluating requests. 2. Character of Improvement: A viable project should typically~be able to pay the cost of streets, utility service, site preparation,· etc. It·is recog- nized, however, that redevelopment projects often involve extraordinary costs not associated with typical development projects. Costs to acquire and remove existing structures and costs associated' with changing the image' of a declining area are examples of·such extraordinary costs. In determining improvements to be funded with tax increments, the City will consider the extent to which these improvements are~ or are the result of circumstances, unique to a redevelopment situation. 3. Demonstration of Need: A request for tax increment financing shall demon- strate that feasible alternative financing is not available and that the assistance applied for rs needed in the amount requested. As such, the developer may be asked to submit a proforma (prospectus), an estimate of the costs and revenues of the project, and other information as deemed essential for analysis by the City. Such ana~lys'is will either'b~ made by Staff or through a consultant when considered necessary. 4. Risk to the City: In addition to the other considerations, favorable consideration for tax increment financing will be based on when the develop- ment is expected to occur and the certainty that the tax increment will be received. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, rather than General Oblicatlon Bonds, -2- will be.used to fund improvements to be repaid with tax increment. Applicants for tax increment financing of improvements will be required to sign an acceptable written agreement with the City of Mound setting forth the responsibilities of. the applicant with.respect to the project. The performance of the applicant under such contract shall be supported by presentation.of a suitable financial guarantee. PROCEDURE The following procedures will be utilized in reviewing tax increment financing proposals: 1. A written request shall be submitted to,the City Manager's office by the person:or firm requesting the City and HRA to utilize their tax increment financing capacity. The request shall contain, at a minimum, the information in the pre-application form. 2. Upon submission the request shall be reviewed by'a committee~consisting of the Planning Consultant, City Consulting Engineer, Finance Director and HRA Executive Director and its Chairperson,.and chaired by the City Manager to determine, on a preliminary basis, whether the proposal appears to be feasible. 3. The application and supporting financial, data shall be submitted to the City's Financial Advisor for review. (i.e. Miller & Schroeder) ' 4. The pqeliminary proposal shall be placed on the next regularly scheduled agendas.of the HRA and. City Council for their preliminary review. At those times, the developer may make a presentation, and'Staff will' make preliminary comments concerning the perceived feasibility of the p~oject. 5. Based on the preliminary review, the applicant may elect to-file a formal application with the City, accompanied by a fee of.$100.OO which shall only be refundable at the time of signing a /edevelopment contract in the event the project is'approved. 6. Upon the filing of a formal application, Staff shall proceed to complete a tax increment financing analysis which shall examine in detail, the proposal's financial viab|li.ty, benefit to the community, etc. 7. The developer shall be responsible for holding at least one (1) meeting wi.th residents and property owners in and within 350 feet of the proposed tax increment district and to formally report the results of such a meeting or meetings to the City Council, Planning Commission and HRA at the time that the tax increment financing analysis is presented to the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA as discussed in Step 8. / 275 8. Upon completion of the tax increment analysis, a recommendation will be made to the Planning Commission, City Council and HRA. Based upon' that recommendation, the Council and HRA may authorize the Staff to commence negotiation of a redevelopment project. 9. Negotiation of the redevelopment contract prepared by the City AttOrney and Staff. I0. Simultaneously with the negotiation of the redevelopment contract, a tax increment financing, plan and redevelopment plan will be prepared by Staff with notification being provided to. Hennepin County and the affected School District, if such plans have not already been adopted. II. If a redevelopment plan is needed, such plan shall be transmitted to the Planning Commission for review and comment.. 12. The HRA will be asked to approve a redevelopment contract and a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan in the event such plans are needed. 13. The City Council will be asked, to approve the redevelopment contract and, if necessary and (after the appropriate public hearings'if necessary) a tax increment financing plan.and redevelopment plan. 14. The adopted plans will be filed with Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota. 15. Tax increment bonds are is. sued. Attached is a timetable for.each.of the steps delineatedabove. -4- T I META BL E TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The following timeline shows the minimum estimated time needed to complete each step in the preceding process. A minimum time of 22 weeks is indicated with 34 weeks possible required. The actual length of the process for any given project will be a function of the size, complexity, and public policy issues associated with that project, so that longer periods may be required for especially.complex or controversial projects. STEP 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 lO ll 12 13 14 I$ TOTAL WEEK ! week 2 weeks 1 week 4 weeks* I week 4 weeks Simultaneous with Step 6 3 weeks* 2 weeks Simultaneous with Steps 8 and 9 2 weeks 2-3 weeks** 1-2 weeks 1 week; 1;6'weeks** 31 weeks May take up to 4 more.weeks depending on when request is submitted. Council sessions and regular HRA meetings are held only once or twice per month. ** May take 2 weeks more due to meeting schedule. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Legal name of applicant: Address: CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ASSISTANCE Telephone Number: Name of contact person: DISTRICT INFORMATION Addendums shall be attached hereto addressing in detail: 1. Location'- include a location map with exasct boundaries of projected development as proposed. 2. Size - describe the Size of the proposed project in terms of acres. Show parcel boundaries, if known. Use -'describe the proposed uses for the property, by parcel, if known. Value - list the estimated market value to result from the project by yeaK and by parcel, by building or other appropriate spatial subdivision. Timing - describe.the timing of the development improvements. Public improvements - identi.fy.the public improvements requested to be financed through the district and the timing of such improvements.' Impact - to the extent feasible, identify: a. New jObs to be created. b. Valuation to be added. c. Other assests to accrue to the community. e Traffic.- to the extent feasible-, identify: a. Projected vehicle counts caused by development of the district. b. Impact on existing traffic arteries. c. Plan for traffic flow. Need - explain why the improvement is not one that would normally be financed by the private developer and why the costs of the improvement' cannot be paid by the applicant. OTHER INFORMATION: Provide any further information you feel may assist the City in assessing the merits of this proposal. -6- CITY OF MOUND POLI C Y 5TATEHENT 5-31-83 TAX INCREMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS The purpose of this policy is to establish, the City's position with resPect to the processing of requests for, and the creation and implementation of tax increment financing districts, for economic development purposes. APPLICABILITY It is the policy oflthe City of Mound to insure stable employment and a stable tax base. New industrial, commercial and residential development can assist the City in achieving these objectives. In a limited number of cases, the City will consider applications from qualified companies or individuals for the creation'of a tax increment district to provide all or a portion'of the funding for the public improvements necessary for such developments. Such applications will be considered where it can be financially shown that the project will not take place'without the'assistance of a program of tax increment financing. Additionally, 'funding for such improvements will only be:considered where it would be'consistent with the applicable provisions of State law and this Policy,'where the public benefit of the improvement can be clearly demonstrated., and where the cost of such improvement"is considered by the City-Council to be extraordinary. It i.s in the public interest that the creation of tax increment districts occur only after the City has been full'y informed concerning the proposal and its current and future prospects. Protection Of the City's interests requires thorough investigation of any such request. The company or indi'vidual requesting creation of a tax increment district will be required to furnish certain information and assume the costs of the City's efforts. It shal] be the expressed intent of the City to expedite to the greatest extent feasible, the processing of all requests for the creation of tax increment districts so that no undue delays are experienced by the app]icant. However, nothing herein shall be construed as representing a commitment on the part of the City to create tax increment districts. POLICY The following policies will be observed in the City's consideration of the creation of these tax increment districts. 1. Benefit to the City: For purposes of determining benefit of a proposed tax increment district, both its estimated economic and other benefits shall be considered. The economic benefit is the increased tax base that -,- will result, not.only in terms of the absolute increase in tax base, but also with respect to how great an increase will be received from a given public investment. A 4:1 ratio of.estimated market value increase to the amount of tax increment assistance requested shall be used as an approximation of the return necessary for a minimally adequate project. Other benefits of the proposal' to be considered include land dedications (for public use), etc. The developer will normally be expected to pay for:municipal service~ costs attributable to the pro]ect'during the tax increment's ~ife (i.e. snowplowing, street sweeping, fire protection, ~olice protection, etc.) except in those instances when the C. it¥ Council deems such contributions as unnegessary. 2. Character of Improvement: Only extraordinary costs.associated'with the installation of public improvements shall be considered for financing through tax increment. A viable project should typically.be able to pay 'for the cost of street extensions, utility service beyond the street right-of-way, specific si.te preparation costs relating to specific building construction, i.e. earth work, landscaping, etc. 3. Demonstration of Need: A request for tax increment financing shall demonstrate that feasible alternative, financing is not available and that the assistance applied for is needed in the amount request'ed. As such, the developer will be asked to submit a proforma. (prospectus), an estimate of costs and revenues of the project and any other information as deemed essential for. analysis by. the CitY. Such.analysis'~ill ~ther be made by City Staff o~ through a. consultant when the star necessary.. 4. Size of Project: Because of.the time and cost involved in analyzing a request for tax increment financing, and because tax increment financing should only be;used in those instances where the project will have a demonstratable positive impact on the community as a whole, requests for tax increment financing of less than$500,OO0 will not be considered as a general rule.. A request of this minimum size would require a development to increase the market value of the property by $2,000,000 assuming the 4:1 ration noted.above. 5. P.ro~ect Certainty/Financial Guarantees: In addition to the other factors, favorable consideration for tax increment financing will be based on when the development is expected to occur, the demonstrated capacity of the applicant to successfully complete the development and the certainty that the tax increments will be received. Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, rather than General Obligation Bonds will be used to fund the improvement to be -2- repaid with tax increments. Applicants for tax increment financing of improvements will be required to sign an acceptable written agreement setting forth the responsibilities of the applicant and the City with respect to the project. The performance of the applicant under such contract shall be supported by presentation of a financial guarantee in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit. PROCEDURE . The following procedures.will be utilized in reviewing tax increment financing proposals: I. A written request shall be submitted to the City Manager's office by the person or firm requesting the'City to utilize its tax increment financing capacity. The request shall contain, at a minimum, the information specified i.n the pre-application form. 2. Upon submission to the City Manager's office the request shall be reviewed by a committee consisting of the Planning Consultant, City Consulting Engineer, Finance Director and other consultants as deemed necessary, and chaired by the City Manager to determine, on a preliminary basis, whether the proposal appears to be feasi6le. 3. After Staffi~review, the preliminary proposal shall be placed on the next regularly scheduled agenda of. the City Council for its preliminary review. At that time, the developer may.make'a presentation to the Counc'il, and Staff wi.ll make preliminary comments concerning the perceived feasibility of the project. 4.Based.on.the City Council's preliminary review, the applicant may elect to file a formal application, accompanied by a non-refundable fee of $2,000.00. 5. Upon the.filing of a formal application, Staff shall proceed to complet~ a tax' increment financing analysis which shall examine in detail the proposal's financial viability, benefit to the community, etc. 6. The developer shall be responsible for holding at least one (1) meeting with residents and property owners in and within 350 feet of the proposed tax increment district and to formally report the results of such a meeting or meetings to the City Council at the time that the tax increment - financing analysis is presented to the City Council, as discussed in Step 3. 7. The developer shall submit the overall plan to the City Planning Commission for its review and recommenations as to the appropriatness of the proposed project within the context of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and anyother applicable City ordinances. Included in this shall/~/ -3- be the comments relating to planning that came from the Staff Committee reviewing the tax increment proposal. 8. Upon:completion.of the tax increment financing analysis, a recommendation will be made to the City Council. Based upon that recommendation and that of the Planning Commission, the Council may authorize the City Attorney and City Staff to commence negotiation of a development contract. 9. Negotiation completed on the development contract prepared by the City occurs. 10. Simultaneously with the negotiation of the development contract, a tax increment financing.plan and development district plan will be prepared by Staff, with notification being provided to. Hennepin County and the affected School District. 1t. The City Council will be asked to°approve a development contract, tax increment financing plan, and development district plan, after public hearings with published notice and notice mailed to residents in and within.350 feet of the project. 12. The adopted plans will be filed with Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota. 13. Tax increments:bonds are issued. -4- LU N"I .[NOIN'I:a9 0^9~ qO~=:m~4~O0 Z 0 ~ KO m 0.) C 0 ~ t. (: ~,, ;,,,'lC) 'I:) 0 Z ~ OJ (- IJ U C .C '0 .-- ~- ~ :3 ; C C · -- ~i 0 ~) 0 0 Ji 0 (.~ .-- 0~, 03~i ~i 0 ~- ~0 ~- ~- 0 0 · .... ~:~ (~ ~ ~ Z I~o0 mmmmmlmmmm~ ~ ~ ~,mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ,~ N t r~ i ~ N r~ Z L~ 0 .J 0 Z co o Ico °~° 0 n,.' Z 0 ~ t.3 v ?- ~- 0 X FROM: DATE: SUBJ: John Elam and Members of the Mound City Council Mark Koegler, Consulting City Planner ~ June 1, 1983 Town Square Tuesdays discussion of the Town Square tax increment project will utilize three items: The Town Square Feasibility Study - 1983 prepared by Smiley Glotter and Associates. My memorandum of May 4, 1983 (enclosed) outlining the procedural steps of the project. ® Material contained within this correspondence which is an addendum to Item 1 above. The City Council has held several meetings to review the general characteristics of the Town Square tax increment financing proposal. As a result, the Council and staff have a good working knowledge of the project. Therefore, this report will concentrate primarily on the procedural and scheduling aspects of the program with additional verbal comments addressing any questions that you might have. Since the last meeting, the project boundaries and included parcels have been modified slightly and now consist of the following: Property Acquisition Parce 1 Owner Market Value 1 Medical Properties, Inc. $ 20,700 2 Eugene Bickman 86,400 6 Tcm Giesen/Paul Busche 45,000 7 City of Mound --- 8 Ben Meinhardt 4,900 9 David Bcyd 38,600 10 M.E. Mueller 92,400 14 State of Minnesota 3,000 15 Broich A~ency 220,600 16 Broich A~ency 31,100 17 City of Mound -- 18 City of Mound (Anderson) 50,000 19 Wm. N. Johnson 64,100 20 Medical Properties, Inc. 190,500 21 Mecical Properties, Inc. 1,400 22 M.E. Mueller 49,000 23 M.E. Mueller 800 24 Shepherd/Morrison 41,500 25 Shepherd/Morrison 2,500 $942,500 The change mandates the adjustment of the preliminary increment projections as follows: Assessors Market Value Relocation of 11 Properties @ $10,000 Demolition Legal Administration Land Cost Charged to Town Square Tax Increment to Mound Property Tax - 1983 $ 1M @ 8.5% - 15 year $1,000,000 x .1182 = Total Tax Projected Market Value Project Tax (Note: $ 942,500 110,000 45,000 50,000 75 000 $1,222,500 $222,500 $1,000,000 $38,655.32 $156,855.32 $3,750,000 + $163,000 + the above information has been provided to staff by SGA.) Referring to the memorandum of May 4, 1983, Step 1 is essentially complete, and the City must nc~ act upon Steps 2 and 3. Step 3 calls for a preliminary determination of the feasibility of the project. This determination should be made utilizing the information as amended in the Town Square Feasibility Study - 1983. In reviewing the data, this office has a concern with the assumption that the properties within the district can be aoquired for no more than the assessors market value. In order to clarify this issue, I contacted the Hennepin County Assessors office to obtain data on the sales price of ccmmercial property versus the assessors market value. Unfortunately, the available data for Mound was inconclusive. If any assumptions can be made, however, the general trend seems to indicate that properties are selling for very close to the assessors market value. Further information on this issue can be collected as the process continues. Upon review and discussion of the Feasibility Study, if the Council concludes that the project is preliminary feasible, Step 3 will be complete. At that time, it would be appropriate for the City to instruct staff to prepare a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan. The components of this plan are outlined in the May 4, 1983, memorandum and will draw heavily upon the information contained in the Town Square Feasibility Study - 1983. %he following is a suggested outline for the preparation of this document: Redevelopment Plan A. Analys i s 1. District Description 2. Planning Context 3. Existing Use and Land Use Controls 4. Transportation 5. Utilities B. Development Program 1. District Objectives 2. Proposed Land Use 3. Fiscal Tabulation of Properties 4. Fiscal Projections (project assessed value and property taxes) Tax Increment Financing Plan 1. Cost of Development Program 2. Bonded Indebtedness to be Incurred 3. Source of Revenue - Tax Increments 4. Reccnurended Duration of Tax Increment Financing Plan 5. Impact of Tax Increment Financing Plan on other Taxing Jurisdictions With this document complete, the City will be prepared to carry out the remainir~3 steps outlined in the project procedure. The establishment of a tax increment project is a ccmplex issue. At Tuesdays meeting, staff will be available to verbally review the project and to answer any questions that you might have. Additionally, the developer will be in attendance for further clarification if needed. $CHO;:LL & MADSON,~NC. MEMORANDUM TO: F ROM: DATE: SUBJECT: John Elam, City Manager Mark Koegler, Consulting City Planner May 4, 1983 Tax Increment Financing District The following is a brief summation of the procedures involved in the establishment of a tax increment financing district. This information is adequate as a general guide and should be reviewed by the city attorney. In this scenario, I have assumed that the HRA will administer the project rather than the City Council. Procedure City Council identifies area of downtown Mound in need of redevelopment. Comment - From a practical standpoint, this item has been addressed, however, the City Council may want to formalize this action. City Council designation of itself or HRA to administer the project. Comment - As stated above, I have assumed that the HRA will administer the project. Complete a preliminary feasibility study and determination by the HRA that the project is feasible. Comment - This item is essentially complete, however, it seems subject to change due to questionable cost estimates, changes in busi- nesses and district boundaries, etc. Prior to the HRA review and action on this item, the developer's feasibility study needs to be finalized. This will require the involvement of the developer, city engineer, city manager and planner. Prepare a redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan containing the following: A. Statement of objectives for the improvement project. Statement as to the development program for the project including the property within the project, if any, which the authority intends to acquire. List of development activities which the plan proposes to take place within the project, for which contracts have been entered into at the time of preparation of the plan. MEMORANDUM ~ TO: John Elam, City Manager Page Two May 4, 1983 10. Identification or description of the type of any other specific development reasonably expected to take place within the project and the date when the development is likely~to occur. E. Estimates of: 1. Cost of the project including administration expenses. 2. Amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred. Sources of revenue to finance or otherwise pay public costs. 4. Assessed value of taxable real property. 5. Estimated captured assessed value. 6. Duration of the tax increment financing district. Statement of the authority's estimate of the impact of tax increment financing on the assessed values of all taxing jurisdictions in which the tax increment financing district is located in whole or in part. Public hearing held by HRA to review the redevelopment plan and the feasibility study. Planning commission review and comment as to the projects conformance to the Mound Comprehensive Plan. HRA invitation to county board and school board to meet and present estimates of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district. City Council public hearing and adoption of resolution approving the redevelopment plan and tax increment financing plan and authorizing the HRA to administer the project. The City Council has 60 days from the transmittal date to take action on the plan. County Auditor establishes the original assessed value of the project, thus certifying the tax increment financing district. Submission of tax increment financing plan and a copy of the approving resolution passed by the City Council to the Minnesota State Planning Agency. MEMORANDUM TO: John Elam, City Manager Page Three May 4, 1983 If the City Council decides to administer the project, essentially the same procedure must be followed with the exception of item number five. If the HRA is not involved, one less public hearing will be necessary. Previous reports have discussed the merits of HRA versus City Council administration of a tax increment project in Mound. In the interest of brevity, Rob Chelseth's report (case 82-152) states the following: "City Council decides to either designate itself as the body to implement and administer the redevelopment project, or it may select the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to manage the process. There are some subtle advantages and disadvantages to each of these routes. First, under Section 273.75 Limitations, an HRA may use revenues to underwrite a broad range of site acquisition, improvement and preparation costs, as well as a broad range of administrative costs (financial planning, legal fees, etc.) as described under chapter 462.421 Subd. 13. A city council operates under chapter 472A, which states revenues can be used only to pay off capital costs and administrative expenses incurred in developing the district. This means the use of funds might be limited to the TIF district versus the entire downtown project. This point should be very carefully explored, as if one purpose of the TIF district is to potentially assist in work in the entire downtown project area, there may be advantages to using the HRA. A second area of concern is the City Council must finally approve the TIF plan if the HRA develops it." Prior to further progress on the Mound tax increment district, it is imperative that the boundaries and business involvement be finalized. In accordance with operating procedures thus~far, this will require Saul Smiley to finalize his plan for analysis and comment by you, myself and John Cameron. This analysis will include improvement costs, the qualification of the district under 273.71, Subd. 10, financial analysis and other pertinent factors. After reviewing the content of this memorandum, we should be able to sit down and establish an approximate schedule for the completion of the procedures. A. THo~As WURST, P. A, CURTIS A. PEARSON, P. A. ,JOSEPH F'o HAI'41LTON, ~ A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOD, P. A. JANES D. LAR$ON, P. A. JOHN J. [310WDEN LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IvlINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540=' June 2, 1983 TELEPHONE {6 I~') 338-4200 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Memorandum - Mechanics of Tax Increment Financing Dear Jon: You have recently sent me a memorandum from Mark Koegler to you concerning the establishment of a tax increment financing district in the City of Mound. I find it difficult to comment on all of Mr. Koegler's comments so I will try to lay out for you the mechanics as I see them. First of all, there has to be a determination as to whether the City is going to proceed under Chapter 462 or Chapter 472A. The statutes governing the use of tax increment financing in Minnesota have evolved over a long period of time and exist in several different special and general laws. As a result of this, the Legislature has adopted Minnesota Statutes Sections 273.71 - 273.78 which is referred to as the tax increment financing act and covers all tax increment financing regardless of what section of the law the municipality is proceeding under. If the City determines that this is a redevelopment project, it will proceed under Chapter 462, and this is basically an operation of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority with approvals by the City Council. If the City determines that it wishes to establish a municipal development district under Chapter 472A, it will then proceed without the HRA being involved. A redevelopment district means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project or portions of a project within which the authority (HRA) finds by resolution that one of the following conditions reasonably distributed throughout the district exists: (1) the land is predominantly occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements and more than 50% of the buildings, including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; or (2) the land is predominantly occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements, and 20% of the buildings are structurally substandand and an additional 30% of the buildings WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Page 2 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager June 2, 1983 are found to require substantial renovation or clearance in order to remove such existing conditions as inadequate street layout, incompatible uses or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well being of the community; or (3) the land is not predominantly occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements, but at least 80% of the total acreage of such land has a fair market value upon inclusion in the redevelopment district which, when added to the estimated cost of preparing the land for use, including utilities, if any, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of said preparation; or (4) the property consists of underutilized air rights existing over a public street, highway, or right-of-way. If the City determines to proceed under this section of the law, it has 25 years from the date of receipt by the HRA of the first tax increment to pay for said costs under the tax increment financing law. The City may determine to go under Chapter 472A and they will then have to develop an economic development district which means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any project or portions of a project not meeting the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment district, but which the HRA or City finds to be in the public interest because: (1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state, or (2) it will result in increased employment in the municipality, or (3) it will result in preservation or enhancement of the tax base of the municipality. If the City were to proceed under an economic development district, it would have 8 years from the date of receipt or 10 years from the approval of the tax increment financing plan, whichever is less, to pay for any bonds which were issued for an economic development district. WURST, PEARSON, HAmiLTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Page 3 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager June 2, 1983 It would appear that downtown Mound would probably qualify under either Chapter 462 or 472A. If the City proceeds under Chapter 462, the following documentation and steps are necessary to issue tax increment redevelopment bonds: (1) Organizational documents, HRA: (a) Resolution of City Council under Sec. 462.425, Subd. 1, showing need for HRA. (b) Copy of affidavit of publication of resolution establishing HRA, Sec. 462.425, Subd. 3. (c) Certificate of filing of resolution establishing HRA with State Housing Commission (State Planning Agency). (d) Certificate of Executive Secretary of HRA as to date of organization, names of present commissioners, officers, assets, debt, and copy of by-laws. (2) Proceedings re Tax Increment Financing Plan: (a) Resolution of HRA regarding Plan. (b) Written comments of planning agency. (c) Minutes of City Council showing receipt of HRA request and calling public hearing on Plan with letters to other taxing districts. (d) Affidavit of publication of notice of public hearing on Plan. (e) Minutes showing approval of Plan by City Council with findings required by Sec. 273.74. (f) Certified copy of letter transmitting Plan to State Planning Agency. (3) Minutes showing adoption by HRA of resolution requesting City to issue General Obligation Bonds and approving tax increment agreement. (4) Minutes showing adoption by City Council of resolution determining needs for financing, approving tax increment agreement, permitting issuance and sale of bonds. (5) Certification of filing of tax increment agreement with County Auditor. (6) Original or conformed copy of executed Tax Increment Agreement. (7) County Auditor's Certificate as to assessed valuation within Tax Increment Financing District. WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON &. UNDERWOOD Page 4 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager June 2, 1983 If the City were to proceed under ~hapter 472A, the following steps would be necessary to issue bonds for an economic development district: (1) Minutes of meeting showing resolution calling public hearing on establishment of Development District (Tax Increment Financing District). (Resolution must recite that previous consultation with planning agency has taken place and that county and school district governing bodies have been contacted.) (2) Affidavit of Publication of notice of public hearing on establishment of District. (No statutory requirements; at least ten days published notice suggested: may be done in conjunction with hearing on Tax Increment Financing Plan.) (3) Minutes showing resOlution designating district and nature of district chosen pursuant to 472A.02. (4) Minutes of meeting calling public hearing on Tax Increment Financing Plan and development program. (5) Affidavit of publication of notice of public hearing (not less than 10 nor more than 30 days prior to hearing). (6) Minutes of public hearing adopting Tax Increment Financing Plan and development program together with summary state- ment of plan and program. (7) Evidence of filing Plan with State Planning Agency. (8) Minutes showing designation of district administrator, if any and advisory board, if any. (9) Certified copies of agreements, if any, with county or school district as to sharing of captured assessed valuation. (10) County Auditor's certificate as to assessed value within development district at time of its designation. (11) Minutes showing adoption of resolution authorizing issuance and sale of tax increment bonds, designating projects to be financed, cost thereof and portion to be financed by captured assessed valuation. WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Page 5 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager June 2, 1983 I am aware that there is a desire to keep all of this simple. Tax increment financing is not simple, and choosing and selecting the method under which to proceed will be extremely, important. If the City decides to proceed under Chapter 462, there are the obvious advantages that your bonds, improvements, and tax increment financing plan can work over a longer period of time. The HRA would then be involved which would take much of the leg work and study time from the City Council and place it on the HRA and its staff. The Council should not be fearful that this would be out of their control since they basically still have to approve the redevelopment district and redevelopment plan as well as the tax increment financing plan. If the City chooses to go under Chapter 472A, the City Council will be more in control, but you still need to have the establishment of the tax increment district (economic development district) and a tax increment financing plan which will be necessary regardless of which law the City proceeds under. There is nothing to prevent the City staff from also being the staff for the HRA if you have people with sufficient time to serve in both capacities. This, of course, will depend upon the scope of the project and the amount of property to be acquired and what public improvements are to be made in the district. The Council should also be aware that under any plan where the City is going to be acquiring property, there may well be extensive condemnation which means appraisers, legal expenses, commissioners' expenses, and one of the most expensive of all, the payment of relocation benefits. Ail of this must be carried out with people trained and skilled in this type of work because the City is required to comply with the uniform relocation act and this is extremely technical and generates a large amount of paper work to assure that everyone's rights are adequately protected. I have worked with this on a number of other projects and find that a trained and skilled person is required to relieve the administration, the HRA, and/or the Council and other City staff members from expending tremendous amounts of time just to learn the basic fundamentals. Appraisals are necessary, as well as reappraisals, to assure that the appraisals are proper; relocation specialists must be called in; and the whole process is very complicated. WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Page 6 Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager June 2, 1983 to seriously reason that curred in the project. Jon, in conclusion, it is impossible to give you a simple, concise statement on tax increment financing because of the tremendous amount of variants which can apply. In some ways, I have covered much of the same ground as Mark Koegler, but I thought it simpler to do it in this manner than to try to continent or expand on his particular draft. This process will result in a substantial amount of work for the HRA, planning commission, City Council, staff, and consultants retained by the City to try to bring the project to fruition. Of course, the amount of land and/or buildings acquired, redevelopment contracts, and other things should be done only by people who have experience in the field so that the City will know that it is done properly and will not have difficulty in issuing its bonds and financing the costs, financin °ects and tax increment financin be anal~ ..you issue ation bonds, and if.the project is not a success, __~ taxpayers in the City Qf M~und will be require~ to contribute to the cost of the project as the City will have to ie_vy an ad valorem tax to make up any deficiencies in the moni~..s raised tax increments and which are not sufficient to meet or schedule of the project. Therefo~ ,n~ are quite sure that this is going to move rapidly, you may want consider a redevelopment district solely for the it gives you more time to pay off the public costs CAP:Ih Very truly yours, Curtis . earson, City Attorney i ... ONOUO CASE NO. 83-226 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota ! Planning Commission Agenda of May 23, 1~83: Board'of'Appeals Case No. 83-226 Location: 6087 Aspen Road Legal Desc.: Lot 18, Brookton Request~ 12 Foot Front Yard Variance. Zoning District: R-1 Applicant:' Gregory S. Pederson 6087 Aspen Road, Mound Phone: 472-8233 55364 The applicant is requesting' to add an attached 20 foot by 24 foot garage to his existing structure. The garage doors would face Aspen Road and be a one story addition to a split 'level home with an existing one stall tuckunder garage.. The addition would be 55 feets fromAspen Road and 18 to 35 feet from Clover Circle. The property d~ops at approximately a .15~ slope to Clover Circle, so there would be some fill required toward Clover CirCle to maintain the lot level for the garage addition. "The street width of Clover Circle is a 60 foot width, but the pavement would be approximately 33 feet from the garage addition at the closest point. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 23.408(5) "Lots which abut on more than. one street shall provide the required front yards along every street except.for lots of record which shall pro'vide' a side yard.setback abutting the street based on the lot width as follows: ''Lot'width 40-50 feet 51-80 feet 81 feet or more Minimum Side Yard Setback on corner lots 10 feet 20 feet 30 feet" Recommend: Due to the unusual shape of the .lot and the attached garage not being placed within 30 feet of the intersection including the dri.veway, I would ~ecommend approving the variance as requested. .. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Building Official Planninn Cnmnission '!inutes 4. Case No. 83-226 12 Foot Front Yard Variance - 6087 Aspen Road Lot )8, Brookton Gregory Pederson was out of town and had asked Chairman Weiland to present his application for him. Weiland presented letters from the neighbors stating they had no objection to the propo§ed garage site. The Building Offlcial reviewed the request. Byrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to accept the request. unanimously in favor. The vote. was Address of Property L~ga1'Des~riptipn.gf'Property: Addition Brookton ~iT~ OF hOUND ,TiON TO ?LANNINB & ZONING CO~MISSION se type the following lnforn~tJon) Date Filed 6087 A.$pen )Jot 18 Block' __ P1D No. Ownerls Name Addres~ Gre~or'y S.. Pederson 60f7 Aspen Roa~ ,Day Phone No. HouQd, Minq $5964 472~'82~'3 Applicant '(if other than owner): Day.Phone No. :Address Type. of Request: ( *If other, specify: (X~'.Vari'ance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit Zoning Interpretation r. Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. \ ) Amendment ~ %ign Permit )*Other :sent Zoning Distr. lct R-1 £x[sting Use(s) of Property Single'f~mily home ·" ~as an application ever been made for zoning, var{once, or conditional use permit or. other zoning procedure for this property? No If so,',Jist'date(s) of Ii'st date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution N6,(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In any 'required papers or plans to be subm[ttec{ herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the e~try in or upon the premises described in .this applica.tlon by any authorized official of the City .. of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such n~tlces as may be. required/~.y law. Plar~ning Commission Recommendation' Council Action: Date Re~oiution No. Reque. st for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2). CASE NO. 83-226 Case D. ~ocation of: Signs,'easeme~t~ underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .F. Any qddltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Re.quest for a Zonin~ Variance A. All.information below, a slte.plan,.as descr'ibed in Part Il, and general' application must be provided before a hearing.will be-s~heduled. B. Does..the present'use of. the property'conform to all use regulations, for the zone district in.~hich, it is.,located? Yes (X~ rio ( )' If !'no", specify each n~n-conforming use: Do-.the existing'structures Comply. with a11 area height and bulk.'regulations for the zOne district-in'which i't'ls.located~' Yes ~X).No'( ) . ...... If ]'no", specify ~ach non-conforming use: D.. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent.its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .~oo narrow (..) Topography ,( ) Soil ( ) Too. small :. .( ) Drainage- ( ) Sub-surface ( ) ~oo shal'low' ~X) Sh~pe~. ( ) Other: Specify: Was ~he hardship described abO~'created by the action of anyg~e.havl.ng property interests in the land afte~ ~he Zoning Ordinance w~s adopted? Yes ( ) No ~×) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship create~ by any"other man-made change, such as the reloca-' tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (XX) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a variance pecal, lar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (×~ No [ ) If no, how many other properties are slm]larly'affected? ..H, .What is the "mlnimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets~ if necessarY.) ~2' ~ecessaT¥ I. Wilt granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? Ho, ~O~: Because o~ the 60' ~qht o~ way ~he~ w±[[ be approx- imately ~3~ o£ prope=ty between the new garage the the exist±rig roa~ - Including 18' of owners property and 15' of city property. No, ti' ,. ~:'.' ~ · .'..';" .. :::" ., ,,,'.' ~ , · ..; : .; ~,,t. :.'" . . , ... ; .. ~':4' "' :., . .- ? ' . ¢i"'"""' "' ' s ~ '. I'.. : ... :'"..' · # Certificate of Survey: ' I hereby certify that this is a true &nd correct repres~ntation of a surv;y o£ the boundaries of Lot 18, Brookton, and of the location of all buildinEs, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachm--nts, if ~ny, from or on said l~nd. It .al~o sho~s the location of st~kes"a~ set for a proposed building. This ~urvey is mn~e only in cormection ui%h bui2ding permit; and it is understood ~nd agreed no mon~,~_nts hawe been placed for the purpose of establishin~ lot 1Lugs%hr bo.und.a~ cozl~er~. kbs. $. K'.!I'.y, Jr. //5'-£. No. 1342 Bruce R. Kelley Reg. No. 5713 ~ordon R. Coffin Reg. $¢al'e: 1" = 50' r~.~-_ ' Octob-.r 19, 1959 Long L~ke, ]~rm~eo~.a CASE NO. 83-226 6087 Aspen Road - R ,/ 'v' 37 42 RD ~. 39 PARK ,,' O =4 ~ ~o (3~ u¥" wo,9o / 'l i ~ 17 23. ~:' ,' Iq IO /30/ RESOLUTION NO. B3- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD 12 FOOT VARI-ANCE AS REQUESTEB FOR LOT' 18, BROOKTON (6087 Aspen Road) PID #14-117-24-31 0019 WHEREAS, the owner of property, Gregory S. Pederson, described as Lot 18, Brookton has applied'for a 12 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of an attached 20 ft. by 24 ft. garage within 18 feet of Clover Circle front yard setback with the doors to face the Aspen Road driveway entrance with a 50 ft. setback · from hi's other front yard setback,.and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a Principal structure to be setback 30 feet from the front property lines on corner lot'in the R-1 single family zoning.district, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance due to the unusual shape of thelot and that the garage addition will not be placed within 30 feet of the intersection including the driveway. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the front yard variance of 12 feet as requested for Lot 18, Brookton (6087 Aspen Road) CASE N0..83-2'27 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 23, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-227 Location: 5005 Avon Drive Legal Desc.: Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B Request: Side yard Variance of 3.9 and Applicant: Valerie Swens0n 2463 Bl~ck Lake Road Spring Park, MN. Phone: 471-9092 3.4 feet ~ existing structure an~ 25 feet± front yard variance for garage addition;lot width variance The applicant had applied ~or a variance March 28, 1983 and was denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on April 19, 1983 to remodel 5005 Avon Drive - Case No. 83-118. The applicant has reapplied for a variance to allow the existing non-conforming side yards of 6.6 feet and 2.3 feet for the home. To add an attached two-story garage 5 feet to 7 feet from the west property line and 6 feet to the east.prop- erty line; the north property line would be 5 feet to 21 feet to the front prop- erty line and 31.4 feet to 27 feet from the street curb line. The lake side 20 by 20 foot addition would be placed 6 feet and 13 feet from each side property line and the. existing porch would be removed. Pursuant to the R-1 Zoning District Section 23.604.2 single family homes are per- mitted. Section 23.604.5.a lot area of 10,000 square feet, lot width of 60 feet, and depth of 80 feet. Lot 2 has a width of approximately 31 feet at the 6ui]ding setback of 30 feet; lot'area is approximately 8,884.3± square feet, and lot depth average of 214 feet. Pursuant to Section 23.604.5(2) a front yard of 30 feet, side yards of 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record, and a lakeshore setback of 50 feet to Mean High WateE as per section 23.408(7). The present structure, has a front set- back of 39 feet to 20.2 feet to the closest front property line, the side yards of 2.1' to 2.3 feet and 6.6 to 9 feet, and a lakeshore setback 150 feet plus. The topography of this lot makes it difficult to place a garage attached or detached from the present structure. The narrowness of the lot at the street side also makes the garage placement difficult. Avon Drive paved street right-of-way curves away from the present structure. I have not seen plans for the remodeling; the applicant intends a second story over the garage. The lakeside addition requires no variance. Recommend: I believe that the pre~ent structure will be remodeling along with the proposed additions. The garage, I would presume, if setback 6 feet on the east, would require more yard excavation to place it. The front yard and sideyard setbacks could be granted as the narrowness of lot, topography, and the road rightrof-way surface curving away from the property poses undue hardship to the property owner. The unimproved Avon Drive cannot be vacated as two (2) neighbors use it for driveway access and the City has storm sewer drainage to the lake. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan B r~trand Building Official /3o.3 CASE NO, 83-227 5: May 23, 1983 Planning Commission Minutes Case No. 83-227 Side Yard Variances, Front Yard Variances and Lot Width Variance' Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills unit B - 5005 Avon Drive. Robert Swenson was present for Valerie Swenson. The applicant has reapplied for a variance to allow the existing non-conforming side yards of 6.6 feet and 2.3 feet for the home. To add an attached two. story garage 5 feet to 7 feet from the west property line and 6 feet to the east property line; the north property line would be 5 feet to 21 feet to the front property line and 31~4 feet to 27-feet from the street curb llne. The lake side 20 by 20 foot addi- tion would be placed 6 feet'and 13 feet from each side property line and the existing porch would be removed. Th~ neighbors, the McGraths, were p~esent, and stated that both of the neighbors were in favor of the remodeling as the present structure is an eyesore. Discussed vacating Avon Drive, but is is used as an access drive by neighbors and also for utilities. Also the condition of the existing structure was questioned. R'eese moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the variances conditioned that the structure be brought structurally and mechanically up to the Building Code. The vote was unanimously in favor. CITY OF MOUND Fee Paid ~?~-, o O '- Date Fi led ~'~".-/I -~' J APPL~CATi0N TO PLANNING & ZO~INB COMMISSION ~ (Please type the followlng inform~tlon) ~ ~L~eet Address of Property ' $O0$.^von Drive · Legal'Description of'Property: Lot 2 Block Addition Sh['rley.'Hi.'lls Unj't B PID No. 24-117-24 14 O041 Owner's Name Address Robert Mac[<," 5600. Tw['fi Lake'Ter.~ace~~ C~'¥.s~'al, MN, 55429 ' .Day Phone No. 533-7322.. 7, 8. .Applicant (if other than owner): Name Valer [~e S~enson Day .Phone No. 471-9092 -Address. 246~ Blac'k Type. of Request: ( X)' Vari'ance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland P~rmit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ] Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: esent Zoning Oistr.ict R-I .. Existing Use(s) of Property ~nt~l,~t~' Mas ~n apPllc~tion ever been made for zoning, var'iance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property1 Yes. if so, .list"date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the an.try in or upon the premises described in .this application by any authorized officia~ of the City of Mound for th~ purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintai.ning and removing such Planning Commission Recommendation: CoJncil Action: Date Regolution No. Da te.__Z~ CASE NO. 83-227 ) CASE NO. 83.-227 Planning CommisSion Minutes - March 28, 1983 Case No. 83-118 Variance Request for Addition to 500S Avon D~ive 'Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B tAppllcant Valerle Swens°n was present. The Building Inspector reviewed the request to add a 20 foot by 20 foot att,'. garage with liking area above to the nor(heast corner of the existing house ,..'. 20 foot by 20 foot addition to the lakeside part of the house. Lot is very nar, ..... · 33.feet at street front setback and then widens to 50 feet at lakeside. This is an older structure that has been added onto several times; present garage has 'drainage problem with the water coming into it when it rains.· I The Planning Commission discussed problems of nonconforming sideyard setbacks and what'could be done to house without increasing the nonconformancies. Ms. Swenson explained plan to add double garage, with 2 bedrooms above; difficult to get loan to rebuild when not living in home. Want to improve property jn order to sell it Mierzejewski moved and Vargo seconded a motion to deny request. The Chairman s~ated that with the proposed remodeling they ~re getting closer lot lines and increasing bulk making for mor~ nonconformancy. The Commission commended checking with an architect and encourage~ building a different type of structure; felt this is chance to get the best use of the property. Byrnes moved an~ Mier~ejewski seconded a motion to cant an opportunity to look at alternative plans. ~avgr .............. ..-. _.. -_.:..::,. .... ;... ...... -...u.. .... ~lann'ing Corr~is~jon Minutes.- April 11, 1983 -C~S~ No-~--83'118 .... V~i~-~'~-'for 5005 Avon Drive Applicant stated her father owns property and h~ doesn't ~ish to spend money on architect if request is go'ihg to be denied. The maker and seconder of'the motion withdrew their motion. .-. table in order to give ~prl. The vote was unan[mousl Valerie Swenson was presegt. The Bull~ing inspector explained that the applicant today asked to be on this a~enda ins'read of the April 25th agenda. They have a hand out of the revised slte plan. The propose~ garage is relocated another 2 feet from side property line. The C~alrman asked how far proposed garage had been brought back from the right-of-way, if at all?.-. ~ot back from the right-of-way. Chairman asked applicant if this was their proposal they wished considered.. Applicant agreed. Chairman asked if anyone wanted to act on this with the information available to us. Vargo moved to add to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Reese. All in favor. '-Vargo moved to deny the request. Motion was seconded by Reese. Varflo stated that his feeling is that it is'simply too much construction for lot size and sees':the problem of this property utilizing all of the neighbor's green.space. Doesn't feel this lot will accommodate in this manner this kind of construction. / The vo~e on the motion was unanimously in favor of the denial. Reese asked if there could be some problems with the building permit. The Building Inspector stated that the building would have to be brought into compliance. The owner'has not submitted drawlngs to indicate how much they intend to bring compliance with the Building Code. City Council Minutes of April 19, 1983 CASE'NO. 83-22~ CASE t/83-148 - VALERIE SWENSON - 5505 AVON DRIVE - LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT IIBII - PID #24-117-24'!4 0041 - MISCELLANEOUS VARIANCES. The City Manager explained that the applicant is proposing to add a 20 foot by 20 foot attached garage to the northeast corner of the existing house'and a 20 foot by 20 foot addition to the lakeside. This would require the following variances: side yard, front setback, lot width and lot size. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of the request because they did not feel that this lot could accom6~ate this kind of construction. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the application. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ts ~s I 81 CASE NO. J 83- 227 ~ Shore line according to record plot. //,,'i/ PARK '~-AVON; D T EMERALD LA ( 19G~. . A~eriol iPholo } CASE NO. 83-227 RESOLUTION TO'CONCUg ~ITH.TBE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE YARIOUS VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B (5005 Avon Drive) WHEREAS, the owner, Robert Mack, and the representative, Valerie Swenson, of the Rroperty described as Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B PID #24-117-24-14- 0041 has applied for building setback variances to allow the existing non-conforming side yards 6.6 ft. and 1.2 ft. and to add an attached two-story garage to be placed 5 ft. to 7 feet from the west property line, 6 feet to the east property line, and 5 ft. to 21 ft. from the 'north'property line; the lakeside 20 ft. by 20 ft. addition would be placed 6 feet and 13 feet from each side property line with the existing porch to be removed, and WHEREAS, the Cit~ COde requires a lot area of.lO,O00 sq. ft. and a lot width of 60 feet and the-existing lot is 8,884 sq. ft. + and the lot width is 33 ft. to 50 ft.,and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a side yard 10 feet and 6 feet for lots of record with a front yard setback of 30 feet , and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval of these variances due to the topography of property, narrowness of the lot, and relief to'the landowner which would impose undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land with the condition that the existing structure be brought up to current building code as to mechanical, plumbing, electrical and structural. NOW, THEREFDRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the various aforementioned variances upon the condition that the existing structure comply to current building code as to mechanical, plumbing, electrical and structural requirements as requested for Lot 2, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit B (5005 Avon Drive). /,s// CITY OF HOUND ~: ~-~o APPLICATION TO PiANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property Le. gal'Des~rlpti.on of' Property: Addition Shi'rley Hills Uni't F Owner's Name Joseph ~. NelSon Yea Faid .~o-. ~ 6 tot 3,~,5,6,36' & 24' of 2 and W.49' Block' .1 of 37 PID No. 13-1-17-24 43 0111 .484-8452 __.Day Phone No. Address Applicant (if other than owner): - Address '/'/'7~-~ , · . ' ; ~M|'nne~pol i ~ MN'. 5543? Type. of Request: (.)'.Vari'ance ( ) ConditiGnal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & ~evjew . ( ) Wetland ~ermit ( ) P.U.D. ' Day .Phone No. ( ) Amendment. (X] Sign Permit ( )*Other Existing Use(s) of Property ~es. taurant. '' .. ~as'an apP)ication ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? If so, .llst'date(s) of Ii'st date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In anytrequired papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the e~try'in or upon the premises described in .this applJca;ion by any authorized official of the City.. of Mound for th~ purpose of inspec~'ing, or of posting, malnta)nlng and removing .such no tlc~sas may be requlred~..~ l aw~/j ~-x) /~) ' Slgnatur~ of Applicant~.,lxc-~x~-~::~ ~ ~'_O_~ J-~/--j~K'~ Date 5-1~-83 Planning Commission Recommendation: To apprCve the'request, 6. Case. No. 83-228 Sign Permits for change to Hardee's - 5205 Shoreline Boulevard Lots 3, 4, 5, 6., 36 and Part of 2 and 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F Charles Peugh of $igncrafters was present. Mierzejewski moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the /equest. vote was unanimously in favor. It was explained that the franchise has been bought out by Hardees and they are changing the signs. Basically just want to take Burger Chef off and'put Hardees up - approximately the same sized signs as presently there. The ~ 5-23-83 CASE NO. 83-228 R. CASE NO. 83-228 CASE NO. 83-228 '"CASE NO. 83-228 CASE NO. 83-228 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION'TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 3,4,5,6,36 & 24 ft. of 2, & W. 49 ft. of 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F (5206 Shoreline Drive) WHEREAS, the sign contractor, Signcrafters, has applied for a sign variance to be granted for Lots 3,4,5,6, 36 & 24 ft. of 2, and W. 49 ft. of 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit F, PID #13-117-24 43 0111 to allow the sign erection of one Wall mounted 57.78 sq. ft (at roofs edge) signs and one double faced free standing 67 sq. ft. sign to replace the existing Burger Chef with Hardee's identification, and WHEREAS, the location of the requested signs will be place in the same location on the premises as the existing signs, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does .hereby concur with the Planning Cemmission recommendation and does approve the sign variance as requested for Lots 3,4,5,6, 36 & 24 ft. of 2, and W. 49 ft. of 37, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit 5 (5206 Shoreline Drive) CITY OF M00ND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-223 NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM SIZE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.412.2(1) OF THE CITY CODE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONDOMINIUM AND TWIN HOME BY CATALYST PROPERTIES, INC. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 21, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the application for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development Area and Variance from the minimum size provisions of Section 23.412.2(1) of the City Code for construction of a nine unit residential condominium and a two unit twin home at 5545 Three Points Boulevard by Catalyst Properties, Inc., the prop- erty described as: "Commencing at a point in south line of Lot 27 distance 150 feet west from southeast corner thereof than north parallel with said east line to southerly line of Town Road than westerly along said road line to-a point 275 feet west from said east line than south to an intersection with a line ' running east at right angle from a point in west line of Section 13 distance 995 feet south from northwest corner thereof than east 1OO feet than south 100 feet than west 1OO feet than south to a point in a line parallel with and 25 feet northerly from a line bearing south 88 degrees 39 minutes east from a point in West line of Section distance 22 7/10 feet north from the south line of Lot 27 hereinafter known as line A than south 88 degree 39 minutes east to westerly line of Channel than southerly along said Channel line to a point in said line A than south 88 degrees 39 minutes east to a point 376 2/10 feet measured along said L~ne A from west line of Section than south 53 degrees 46 minutes east to south line of Lot 27 than east to beginning, Lot 27 Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka", in the City of Mound. PID 13-117-24 22 0023. All persons appearing at .said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard. F'ranc-ene C. C1 City Clerk CASE NO. 83-223 C~T¥ OF HOOND Moun~ Mi'nnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 23' 1983 Board of Appeal's Case No. 83-223 Ldcation: East of Commerce Boulevard and South of Three Points Boulevard Legal Desc.: Part of Lot 27, Lafayette · Park, Lake Minnetonka Request: Variance of P.D.A. and Side Yard Setback Conditional Use Permi't Zoning District: B-2 General Business Applicant: Catalyst Properties, Inc. 11900 Wayzata Boulevard, suite 214 Minnetonka, MN. 55343 Phone: 544-9084 The attached information from the City Planner and the Minnesota Department of Health will allow a more comprehensive review of ion Nelson's Condominium request. The tabled action'from the April 25th meeting also required that the neighbors within 350 feet be notified of a Planning and Zoning hearing on this matter. A new site plan )s enclosed with a 9 Unit condomi'ni'um and a 2 unit caretaker's home, . Jan Bertrand Building. Official BOARD OF APPEALS - May 23, '1985-Plannilng-'C6~-iss-!°6 1. Case No. 83-223 Variance of P.D.A.,' Side Yard Setgack and Condltional Use Permit Propert~ on Three Points Boulevard approximately 300 feet east of Commerce Blvd. Part.of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka -'PID 13-117-2~ 22 0023 don R. Nelson of Catalyst Properties was present. Also'present wa~ Engineer Gary Tushle. Mr. Nelson reviewed the items that the Planning Commission had wanted dealt with from the April 25th meeting. They were: 1) Parking, 2) Density, 3) Access Road, 4) Neighbor Input, 5) Question on setbacks, 6) PDA vs. Conditional Use Permit and 7) What about trash? On # 1) Parking, Ordinance calls for 2½ spaces per unit; they now show 23 spaces for the 9 units and all parking is on their property. # 2) Density, they have ended up with 9 units vs. the 11 units shown on the first plan. # 3) Access Road into the property - they found no support for a road to come in off of County Road ))0. The second alternative was shifting the road closer to. the west line; they are also trying to preserve some trees. One problem is the road has to cross the City property (pump house site). # 4) The neighbors were notified and last Friday evening, they met with them in a group session; think session went reasonably well. # 5) This addressed by going to a non-uniform set- back; the east is increased from 20 to 30 feet and on the west property line, decreased from 20 to IO feet--provides enough room for the Fire Department to get around the building. # 6) In favor of rezoning to PDA and not operating with a conditional use permit. (Not~: # 6 is not correct procedure) # 7) The architect has designed an internal trash system'(chute); trash to be compacted and picked up inside building; no outside storage of trash. CASE.NO, 83-223 Planning Commission Minutes May 23, .1983 Mr. TushJe explained some of the things they've added into this plan. The south portion of plan now pretty much self-sufficient with amount of units, amount of parking spaces, paved areas and open spaces - this south portion can meet all of the ordinance. The new access road would be coming through the trees; they would be putting ix retaining walls to preserve the trees because they know their value. Have more parking than ordinance requires - 23 spaces; 13 spaces to be inside and the rest outside. Also they have provided a fire access to back of building with either grass blocks or paved and grass block combination. They have tried to separate visitor parking from the resident parking. The Chairman asked how close road would come to pump house. Tushie answered,"20 feet from pump house". This proximity to pump house was discussed. Biggest problem would be getting approval from the Minnesota Health Department. The Chairman expressed concern for the possibi.lity of contaminating the well; would not like to jeopardize the well so that it could no longer be used. Reese liked the road coming in from the west. City Manager suggested there might be some options, such as it could be bermed or possibly some land might be able to be pur- chased from the Gas Hut. Sylvia Ogren, owner of Lots 1 and 2 bordering this land on the east, stated she has been concerned about the density.and doesn't like privacy fences. She does like this plan better with the 'roadway on other side. Would like to see deciduous trees rather than evergreens as they are'too dense. The Staff recommendation of requiring approval of a landscape plan was discussed; also location of the parking spaces; drainage down to the lake and dockage as well as boat storage. Planner Koegler stated that. the applicants have been very willing to meet and the effort shows the result of the sessions. The Staff recommends the ~pproval of Conditional Use Permit for a P.D.A. - the site plan approval is contingent upon: l) Site plan review by the Health Department to clarify possibility of the access easement. ~2) Approval by the City Engineer of grading, drainage and utility plans. 3) Submission and approval of a landscaping plan and 4) Approvals of other agencies such as DNR, Watershed District and LMCD. Koegler stated the City will need to grant a minimum size variance from 2 acres to !.33 acres. He explalned that in drafting of the P.D.A., the plans become binding with approval of the development, r Discussed size of caretaker's units (433 square feet each or total of 866 square feet). Nelson stated the quality of architecture would be comparable to the 9 unit building. Reese moved ~nd Byrnes seconded a motion to move the Staff recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. The public hearing will be on the June 21st Council agenda. The City Manager asked the Planner to provide the steps required for the P.D.A. CASE NO, 83~223 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Pl~nntug ~ssion and St~ff, City of Mound Mark Koegler, Consulting Pl, nner May 17, 1983 Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development Area) and Site Plan Review AP1AICANT: Nr. Jon Nelson LOCATION: Frontage on Three Points Boulevard appro×in~tely 300 feet east of C/wmerce Boulevard REFERENCE: 1983.. For additional comments, see planning memorandum of April 20, PROPOSAL: Mr. Nelson has su_~mitted a revised proposal for the construction of a nine-unit condominium and the construction of a two-family residential structure. The use of the two-family structure r~r~ins unchanged; it will house resident caretakers. COMMENTS: Since the last meeting of 'the Planning Oa~-~ission, Mr. Nelson h~s met with the pl~_nning staff on several occassions to address the concerns that were raised. Specifically, the condcminium proposal h~_s been reduced frcm 11 to 9 units m~ndating a change in both the structure and the parking. A 30-foot structural setback is proposed al. ong the east side of the site which abuts the existing' single-f, mily residences. All parking has been provided within the applicants ownership. At the previous Planning Commission meeting, access was a major issue. The letter from the Health De~r~_ r_tment prohibits the sale of a portion of the pump house property but it did not address the possibility of an easement. The revised proposal shows an easement of undetermined width along the west side 6f the pump house parcel to provide access to Three Points Boulevard. The applicant would retain ownership of the strip of land lying due east of the pump house property. This new access arrangement relocates the driveway away frGn the existing residential property and lessens the impact of the proposal. Providing that a satisfactory easement agreement can be reached between the City s~t the applicant, the revised access seems to be the best available alternative. The applicant has indicated that subsequent discussions with the property owners to the west do not seem to indicate the liklihood of connecting the property to Ccmmerce Boulevard. Staff recommends that the City approve a Conditional Use Permit for the Minnetonka Condominiums Planned Development Area. Furthermore, site plan approval is recammended contingent upon: Site plan review by the Health Department to clarify the possibility of the access easement. 2. App;-oval by the City Engineer of grading, drainage, and utility plans. 3. Submission and approval of a landscaping plan. 4. ° Approvals, as required, by other agencies such as LMC~on dockage and other issues. minnesota department of health 717 s.e. delaware st. p.o. box 9441 minneapolis 55440 (612) 623-5000 May 3, 1983 CASE NO. 83-22~ Mr. John Elam City Manager 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr..Elam: Information obtained from your consulting engineer indicates that a proposal exists which would infringe upon the property surrounding municipal wells #4 and #7. The current Water Well Construction Code requires that a well constructed to produce water for a community water supply shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from a property line (7MCAR§1217). In other words the City must own all of the property for a fifty foot radius around each well. In addition, other require- ments stipulate additional minimum distances from sources of contamination, which are listed in the Code. This Dep~rtment would insist that the provisions of the Wate= Well Con-' struction Code be adhered to and no modification take place which would violate the Code. · If you have.any questions or comments, please contact me at 623-5361. Sincerely, · . gstro~ Public Health Engineer Environmental Field Services DBE:Igl cc: John Cameron, McCoombs-Knutson & Assoc. ce' -. ! CASE NO. 83-223 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS May 17, 1985 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 {612} 559-3700 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5541 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55564 Subject: PropoSed Minnetonka Condominiums Oon Nelson Property #6755 Dear Oan, As requested we have reviewed the revised utility and drainage plan, dated 5/17/85, for the above project and have the following comments and recommendations. 1. Grading: There'are no proposed finished grades shown on the plan submitted. Before final plat approval is given a complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan will need to be submitted and approved not only by the City's Engineer but also any other governing agency, such as, the Minnehaha Wa- tershed District. 2. Storm Sewer: Before final plans are completed %he depth of the exist- ing .12" storm sewer line should be verified. I do not believe the invert shown at the new manhole over this existing line is correct. It also appears this line may need to be extended. The two plans received are in conflict as to the final grading intended for the small bay which receives the discharge from the storm sewer..One shows it being filled, while the other plan shows a settling basin. The final storm sewer plans will need to clarify these problems. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain: We see no major problem with either utility. A gate valve will be requi'red at the connection of the 6" main .to the existing 8" at the pump house. This line will also need to be located within an easement. We assume the Fire Department would like to see at least one hydrant located somewhere close to the proposed building. 4. Streets: We feel this plan is much more acceptable as far as entrance onto Three Points Boulevard is .concerned, but there is still the conflict with the Health Department Regulations governing the municipal well site. printed on r~,cycled paper CASE NO. 83-223 3an Bertrand 17, 1985 e Two Final detailed construction plans will need to be submitted for approval prior to final council action. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me. Sincerely, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. Oohn Cameron printed on recycled paper ?~'£/ ~Jou .I~ON~ ~NINOZ Q-aSOdOl:ld · S':JIYr::)OSSY O4:L-.-.-.-.-.-.-.~G H3 S 31~1 .~lo~ouu!!Al' ~punolAl · ON ~SV3 ' Y! ~lld.J~NNllfi CASE NO. 83:~23 30MBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS I LAND SURVEYORS I P~NNERS April 211 1983 Reply To: 12800 Indu~trlal Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota B5441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Jun Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn 55364 Subject: Dear Don, Proposed Minnetonka Condominiums 3on Nelson Property #6755 As per your request we have reviewed the above proposed development. We have looked at it from an Engineering standpoint, rather than a planning or zoning review. Our two main concerns relate to the existing pump house and the upgrading of the existing access to Three Roints Boulevard. The Health Department regu- lations state that the City must either own or have control of the property within a 50 foot radius of any 'municipal well. From our conversation with the Health Department, they would not approve the selling for.or allowing the im- provement of.any of the existing City owned property. We interpret this to mean that they would not allow the proposed parking on the City property. We have also studied the problems that would be created by using the exist- in~ pump house driveway as the only access to and from the proposed 'development. We feel that the proposed access is too close to the adjacent- City street, tafayette Lane. The existing grade is also far steeper than would normally be permitted, especially on a north exposure. We would like to suggest investigating the possibility of obtaining access to Commerce Boulevard. This could be handled by the same easement containing the sanitary sewer and watermain although the street easement would have to be some what wider than the utility easement as shown. If you have any questions, we would be happy to discuss them with you at your convenience. Sincerely, McCDMBS-~UTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. ac:3 . CIIY Uk ~uuNu APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSlON (Please type the following inforn~tion) St(e. et Address of Property, ~-~C' I~'~'~- P~,~,~r tegal'Des~ripti.on of Property: tot Owner's Name ' ~0~ ~ Date Fi ledL Block No. /$//7 Oa&? Day Phone No. " Applicant '(if otheF than owner): Type-of Request:'~) Vari'ance ~ ) CondJ~J~..l Use Permit '( ) Zoning Interpretation & ~vJew ( ) W~tJa~d Permit' ( ) P.U.D.. *If other, specify: bC]Presenl~ Zoning Districl: ~-'~ EXisting Use(s) of Pro'perry, ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permi ( ) *Other Bas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property'/. /~[2 If so, .list 'date(s) of list date(s.) of.appIicatlon, action taken and provide Resolution NO.(S) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present reqaest. I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contai.ned in any required papers of plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ~ consent to the e~try in or upon the praises described in .this application by any authorized official of the City of ~ound for th~ purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and re~ving such notices as my be requlred~y law. Plannlng Co~ss~on Re~endat~ n: Date ( Codncil Action: Re~olution No. To':.'nship. ! 17, Rzng6 Z.4, ty~r~g. South o{ Iqighxvay and LYrE N~ up. fa[lc[ %o and Z5 feet ~orth 6{ ~e .South l~ne of s~d'Lot Z7, akcdrdin~ to the plat '~h~r¢~f on file' and of record ~n the off~ce of.the ~e~fster. of De%ds, ~ n and for hereby ~%ended.~0 transfer and.convey ~11 right, t~le'~nd ~nterest of the Grantor ~n and ~o the above described premifes, and di~t~ceS'~'~ed c.a[culmtcd from the ozigin~l ~nd trne South boundary line of Lo~ Z7,: · .~. ~% '. E~fCEPT ~ha~ ~ort~o~ ~ak~n by tl~e V~l[a~e of ~4ound foz pumphouse as follows: of'~e'North I05 feet of the South 530 feet of tha~ part'6f Lbt ZT, ~'~afay~[te Park La%e k4{nnetonka", described as.beginning at a po{~ ~vhich i~ 4bb feel Eas~ and on a lin~ erected pezpendi~ulzr ~o Me ~est lh~e of Set,on 13, Townshipll7, Range Z4, from a pohY~ on .staid West Hne 15Z5 feet South of %he ~or~h~vest corner of said Seclion 1~; thence %Vest ~l~ng'sai~ p~rpendiculmr 1Z5 feet; ~hence Nor~zpzz~llel to lhe %Vest [~ne of sa{el SectiOn 13 a ~stance of 650. Z4 fee~ to d~e Soufl~er~ line Of %Venonah Road; ~hence Ezs%erly ~long d~e Southerly i{ne of sa~d ~oad 1Z7.09 fee~ ~o an inlersecllon ~v~h a line dr~vn No~h and pmrallel to the %%Zest line of said Section 13 from the point of beginning; ~ence South ~Iong ~e l~st described p~rzl[6l lh~e 67Z. 45 feet %o the po~n~ of beginning. .. and'. S~b-E'C'T to the following easement: ~mse~ent in f~vor~of ~he Village of ~ound for access, drainmge, storm sdxver and ut;hty.purposes 6vet the Ezst Zh.feet ly~ngNo~h of~e Sou~h 430 feet, and ~e Eas~ [0 feet l~ing Sou%her!y 6f ~he North line'of ~e Sou%h'430'feet and l)~ng Northerly of Northerly shore-line'.of the Channel of the following described, tract of land: That part of Lot Z7, "Lafayet%e. ~ark L~ke described as beginning a~ a poin% ~h~ch ~s 400 fee~ East and on ~ line ~rected perpendicular of the %Vest line of Section ~3, To~vnship 117, Range 24, from a point, dh safdWest line 15Z5-fe~t so,th of the Northwest corner of said Section 13; thence-%Vest along said perpendicular lfne la5 feeti ~ence North parallel to the West line of said Section 13 a distance of 650. Z4 feet to the .Southerly kine of ~'enonah Road; thence Easterly along the Southerly llne Qf said Road 1Z7.09 feet to an inter'- section ~ th a line draxvn North and parallel to the %Vest line gf said Section 1~ fron~ the po~t of bcginning; thence South along the las{ described parallgl line 67~.45 feet to the point ofbeginnlng, creaf~d in Final Certificate Document No. %gt77o~ .. PARCEL 4 · The East 125 fee~ Hf that part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying West of a line drawn parallel to and ~00 feet East of the West line of Section 13, Township ll7, Range 2A, lying South of Highway and lying I:orth of a line drawn parallel to and Z55 feet North of the South line of --~-- *- ~- -~+ ~r ~n f~le and of record in the Location of: S~gns, easements, underground utilities, etc. indicate North compass direction; ' Any additional information as may reasonabl~ be required by the City Staff and ~pplicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. · III Request for a Conditional Use A. All information.requested below, a site plan as described in Part II,'and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'. of the construction must be prqvided b~fore a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for'which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use .(Speci'fy): : I '2. urrent Zonin nd ignation in the future Land Use Pla~for Hound .D. Development Schedule: 1. A'development schedule shall 'be att'ached to thi's .application .providing reasonab)e guarantees for l~he cOmpletion of th.e'proposed development... '2. Estimate of cost of. th; prOject: $ ' Density {for' resider~tial developments only'): 1. Number of struct es: , .. '.. 2. Dwelling Units Per StKuctu~e.l~li/~s ~O~A~o~ 3. Lot area per dJelling unit: ~g'/&,'~o~rCITf--- ~-~$ ~'[~,rLCl~a~)--'- IV. Effects of the Proposed Use A.. List impacts the proposed use will'have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mit. igate or ~limlnate the impacts; }33c Request Zoni..g Variance Procedure(2). Case D. Location of: Signs, ~aseme6t~, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .F. Any additional inforn~tlon as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. " Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance 'A. All.information below, a site.plan,.as descr'ibed in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be s6heduled. B. Does.the present'use of. the property'conform to all use regulations, for the zone district in which i.t is'.located? Yes ( } rio (V~' if ?no", specify each n~n-conformlng use: Do '.the exl'~ting.st.ruct.ures comply, with all 'area~helght~and bulk..regulations for the zone district' in'which i't'ls.located?' If !'no", specify ~ach non-conforming use: · Which unique phy~cal characteristics of the subject propert~ prevent.its reasonable'use .for any of the uses .permitted in that zoning district? (~ ..To° 'narrow ( .. ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ':. ( ') Drainage. '. ( ) Sub-surface { ) Too shal'low (. } ShQpe.. { } Other: Specify: C .' Eo Was ~he hardship described abjv~'created by' the action of ~nyone ha¥l.ng property interests in the land afte~ the Zoning Ordinance wgs adopted? Yes ( ) No ( ~ if yes', explain: '- Was the hardship create~,by any'o~er man-made char, ge~ such as the reloca- tion of a roadl Yes (~(,) No (~) If yes, explain. · 'e / I~ ' ~ ..... - - , . ' d U Are the condlt,ons of hardshmp for'which~ygu, reque~/t a ~r)ance ~'~r . only to the property describe~ in this petit~onl Yes .(~) If no, how many other properties are similarly'affected?/ ' ' · H..What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable~ use of your land? (Sp. ecify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written expl.anation. Attach ~dditional .. sheets, if necessary.}' I.. Wili. granting of the variance be materially ~trin~ntnl to'property in ~h¢ sn~ zone, or to th~ ~n~orc~m~nt of th~s ardinnnc~ MEMORANDUM SCHOI~LL ~,. IV~AIDSON. ~NC. CASE NO. $3-~ TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound FROM: Mark Koegler, Consulting Planner DATE: April 20, 1983 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review APPLICANT:' Mr. Jon Nelson LOCATION: Frontage on Three Points BoUlevard approximately 300 feet east of Commerce Boulevard. PROPOSAL: Mr. Nels°n is proposing the construction of an eleven unit condominium structure and the construction of a two-family residential structure on 1.33 acres of land. The two-family. structure is proposed as a possible caretakers quarters and/or possibly an income property for residents of the condominium. The plan features a pedestrian pathway system connecting the 'principal structure with a multi-level wood deck and ten proposed b~at slips ('five docks) on Lake Minnetonka. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The configuration of. the subject property can only be described as "unusual". At the present time, the property is actually two distinct parcels which would be combined under this proposal. The front of the property which abuts Three Points Boulevard consists of a 15,000 square foot area which is connected to the rear portion by a 25 x 100~foot piece o~ land. This land borders a pumphouse owned by the City of Mound. The City has an easement over the eastern side of the property for access to the pumphouse. The developer proposes to expand this paved access as the entrance, to the site.~ The.property is somewhat wooded and rolling. Oaks are the predominate tree species with some elm, linden and maple. The northeast corner of the site which contains the existing 11 foot wide bituminous access to the pumphouse has a 14 percent slope which is fairly steep, particularly considering its northern orientation. The rear portion of the site drops 'to. the south toward Lake Minnetonka at a slope of approximately 13 percent. The area surrounding the City pumphouse is the highest elevation of the property. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES: These issues are being addressed by the City Engineer under separate cover. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Mound Comprehensive Plan's Proposed Zoning Concept map depicts the property as R-l, single-family residential (°see enclosure). /332.' ~EMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, City,of Mound sage Two , CASE N0.'83-I23 ' April 20, 19 83 coMMENT: The Minnetonka Condominiums proposal contains a number of issues and'variables. For ease of discussion, the following issues have been identified. Land Use - Before proceeding with further review of the project, the City must determine if a residential condominium use accompanied by a two-family ~esidence is appropriate on ~he site. The plan itself appears to be sound and well conceived and in all likelihood, would have good market acceptance. A caretaker residing on the site would be an amenity to such a project since it provides greater security. A higher density residential use serves as a good buffer between the single-family residences to the east and the possible future commercial development'to the west. Distinction should be made, however, .between a higher density, attached residential use on the site and the specific'. proposa~ at hand. While planning staff sees some merit to condominiums or townhouses on the site, we have concerns with-the type and.size of the structure proposed. Specifically, Staff ~eels that'the proposed structure may be both too intensive and massive for the property. Thirteen units on the parcel Works out to a gross density of 9.8 units per acre. Due to the configuration of the site, this use may be overly intensive. This conclusion is supported by. the fact that the developer is proposing to use a portion of the City pumphouse pzoperty to conveniently accommodate parking, for the condominiums· Additionally, staff has concerns with the massive nature of 'the building, particularly since the adjacent single- family residential properties to the east are located 10 to 20 feet from the property line. The parking lot immediately northwest of the condominium building again indicates the crowded nature of the site. The parking lot is a zero lot line situation since it abuts B-2 zoned property and the garage stall on the extreme southwest end contains minimal backup-turnaroun~ area. 'Staff 'questions whether a vehicle could reasonably negotiate a turnaround and exit movement should a car be parked in the apron area of the stall located next to the end one. Zoning - The B-2 zoning permits the construction of the condominium structure but does not permit a second detached structure, which in this case is a two-family residence. In order to accommodate both uses, two scenarios are possible. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound Page Three CASE NO. 83-~3 April 20, 1983 The front portion of the site' could be rezoned to R-3, two- .family residential. As a separate parcel, the two-family structure would be an appropriate use. This action would, however, bring up questions of spot zoning and may require a number of variances. The cleanest way to avoid the problems associated with two zoning categories is to grant a variance to the minimum size provisions of the Planning Development Area (PDA) . ordinance. Section 23.412.2(1) .states that a PDA requires tWo acres. The subject proposa% contains 1.33 acres. A variance to this provision would permit the type 'of construc- tion proposed and would simplify processing. Additionally, the PDA would provide the City with added control through the development contract. Access - Due to the configuration of the property, options for the provision of access to the condominiums are extremely limited. Essentially, only two Options exist. The City of Mound could accept the access as proposed which conflicts with Lafayette Lane at the northeast corner of the site. It may be possible to relocate this access to the west side Of the front property, however, g~ades are still a problem and major t~ee removal would be required'· The second option is to examine access to the entire area. This would require the developer to meet with the landowners to the west to determine if an access off of Commerce Boulevard could' serve all partie~. The City could assist in the facilitation of such a meeting. Pumphouse Property - The site plan and grading and utility plan show conflicting information regarding the pumphouse property. The site plan indicates that the developer is requesting tO purchase 2,552 square feet from the City to .provide parking. The grading and utility plan shows the existing property boundaries intact and implies that an easement agreement will be requested. Regardless of'which option is being proposed, there may be · problems with the Health Department permitting the City to relinquish control or use of any portion of the existing site. The City Engineer's report contains more information on this matter. RECOMMENDATIONS: As mentioned, at this stage of the review process, the City should focus on the major issues: land use, zoning, access and the pumphouse property. /33?' .MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, City of Mound e Pour CASE NO. 83-~23 April 20, 1983 The planning staff recommends denial of the Minnetonka Condominiums proposal in its present form. We emphasize that we feel that the use is appropriate but in a scaled down version with less structural massing and in all likelihood, less units· The developer is encouraged to revise his plans accordingly and should further consider: A request for a vkriance to the PDA ordinance waiving the minimum size requirement and the issuance of a conditional use permi~ for the project as a PDA. The project should be accommodated totally within 'the developer's Ownership and should not infringe on City-owned land. The developer s~ould meet with property owners to. the west along with representatives of the City to der'ermine if 'joint access is feasible. /333' APPLICATION FOR STREET VACATION CITY OF MOUND · F~- ,_/_~ 6.00- LEG.AL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: PLAT Residents and owners of property abutting the street tO be vacated: Recommended by Utilities: NSP w/-, Minnegasco /-, Continental Tel. Recommended by ~ity: Public Works / ; Fire Chief /; Engineer CASE NO, 83-224 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of May 23, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-224 Location: Between 4908 and 4916 Edgewater Drive Legal Desc.: Fire Lane Request: Street Vacation of Fire Access Zoning District: R-2 Applicant: Douglas L..Moodie 4916 Edgewater Drive and Michael C. Beatty 4908 Edgewater Drive Phone: 472-7554/472-5931 I have received a response back from the checked off listed Utilities and ments. Their comments were all favorable for the requested vacation of the acc,. The City Engineer.and myself feel that the City should set a policy re~ardin~ fire lane access vacations. It is my impression from the City Attorney's comments, that the City can not charge for the land as it was acquired from the plat. The City, by vacation, would make the adjacent land more valuable and thereby receive some additional tax monies From the vacation. It appears that the City has no need for this access and vacation is recommended. There is no Commons. property adjacent to. the parcels in the Skarp and -Lindquist's Ravenswood addition, howeve~ the'DOck .l:nsPector recommends we do not vacate any public ac'cess to the la~e~'such as' thi's, Jan Bertrand Building Official EdgewaterCaSe No. 83-224 Drive. Street Vacation of Fire Access Lane located between 4908 and 4916 Douglas Moodie and Michael Beatty were present. The Building Official explained that notices have been sent to the utilities and City Departments and all could see no objection to the vacation except the Dock Inspector commented he thought public access to the lake should not be vacated. Discussed the topography and width of the fire access lane. The City Manager feelL that land should be vacated and gotten back on the tax rolls, lso there is a puL,~: access at Arbor Lane. · a Jensen moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend approval of vacating of the fire access lane as requested. Byrnes and Weiland voted against: all others voted'in favor. Motion carried. Byrnes thinks people on Edgewater should have an acces~ to lake; Weiland stated applicants should be able to use and improve the"access, but not be given it--he also feels neiQhbors shoul~ have use of the access to get down to the lake. '\ 0 · ! CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota CASE NO. B3-225 NOTICE OF HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING OVER MAXIMUM SIZE PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23.407(3) OF THE CITY CODE FOR C0NSTRUCTIONOF A'936 SQUARE FOOT PRIVATE GARAGE FOR STORAGE AT 5056 SULGROVE ROAD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, June 21, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on.the application for a Conditional Use permit for an accessory building over maximum size per provisions of Section 23.407(3) of the City Code for construction of a 936 square foot private §ara~e for storage of personal vehicles at 5056 Sulgrove Road, the property described as: "Lots 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 and the south 55 feet of Lot 6, Block 28, Whipple, in the City'of Mound". PID 25-117-24 12 0184/0185/0190/0191 & 0198. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an oppor- tunity to be heard~ Francene C. Clark, City Clerk MAY IO 1983 F~ ~AY !'6 I~, /CATION TO ~ ZOfl),G CO~lssl0~ owing inform:lea) ~UND] Applicant '(if other than owner): 83-225 Fee j~ald T..~,~).+ $65.00 PID No. · [ ~/~'~ .. .... .Day Phone 4'7 Day .Phone No. -Address · Type. of Request: ( ) Wetland Permit *if other, specify: Vari'ance (X) .Conditibnal Use ?ermit Zoning interpretation r. l~eview' ( ) P.U.D. ) Amendment '] Sign Permit )*Other e Existing Use(s) of Property_. ~m,~)~?.:p' ~f.~,~.. m . ''' ~as an application ever been made for zoning~ var{once, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this ~roperty? d/J JO If so, .list 'date(s) of li'st date(s) of.application, act~o~ taken an provide Resolution N~.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! certify that all'of the above statements and the statements.contalne~ in any'requireg papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the en. try In or upon the premises described in .this applicaAlon by any authorized officia~ of the City of Mound for the' purpose of inT~F:t'ing, or of posting, maintaining and removing such S,gnature of Applicant Pladning Commission Recommeddat~on= Council Action: Date Re~olutlon No. Procedure for Conditional Use Permit D. Location of: Signs,-easements, unde~ground'u~:ilities, etc. E. Case Indicate North compass direction. .. Any additional inforCation as may reasonably be required by the. City Staff and applicable SeCtions of the Zoning Ordinance, . I!1 Reques: for a Conditional Use A. All information.requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion'. of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for'which a. Conditional Use Permit is requested:. e Current Zoning. and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to thi's .applicatlon.provlding reasonable guarantees ~or ~he compl~ion of the proposed development.. 2. Estimate of cost of. the project: $ ~/~, ~: 'i)..'~'O~.sity (for resider~tial developmel~ts only): ' Efficie~ ~. ' . 1 Bedroom 2 g~room ~ ~ Bedroom ..~ lotal lot ~rea: '~ IV. Effects of the Proposed Use List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in- cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,. and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. Request foi' Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case # 83-225 D, Location of: Signs, easements~ underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North co'mpass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and a~plicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan,.as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does.the present'use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in'which 'it is located? Yes If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use: Do'.the existing structures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations for the zone district'in'which i't Is.located?' Yes (~)...No ' ( ) .. If !'no", specify each non-conforming use: D.. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject propert~ pPevent.its reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district? (. ) ..Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small .- ( ) Drainage.· ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (.) Shape . ( ) Other: Specify: Was ~he hardship described abo~e'created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~)~ If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of'a road? Yes ( ) No (~-.~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~--.,No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? H..What is the "minimum" modification (variance). from the ~rea-bulk regulations ~P~' 'that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) d , lo Will grantl~rig of~.t.~e var,ance b~m~e~a~ly detrimental to'property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of th'is ordinance? /JO Case No.. 83-225 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda' of May 23, 1983: Board of. Appeals' Applicant: Case No. 83-225 Paul A. Henry Location: 5056 Sulgrove Road 5056 Sulgrove Road Legal Desc.: Lots 7, 8, 13, 14 & 15 and Phone: 471-8435 Part of 6, Block 28, Whipple~ Request: Garage size of 96 square feet and Conditional Use Zoninq: R-2- The applicant' is requesting to construct a 936 square foot detached accessory building on his property with the required 4 foot setbacks to side and rear property lines. He will.also'maintain, the required 933.$ minimum flood plain slab elevation; He has filed to combine the parcels described on his a'pplica~ tlon. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance 23.407(3) "in Residential Districts, no accessory building Shat1' exceed 10 percent of the lot area, and in no case ex- ceed 840 square feet of floor area except by conditional use permit". Due to the fact that a variance applies to the 'prOperty (land) and that a Con- ditional Use Permit is granted to the owner and requires a public hearing, .I would recommend granting a variance rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit. The 96 square feet over the maximum size accessory building variance could be granted requiring the bul]ding.could only be used for storage of vehicles and personal belongings. A home occupation can not be conducted .from an accessory building as per Sectlon 23.302(54). The land area is 20,600 square feet for the parcel..One Otber item of concern could be that the Zoning Ordinance does not limit the number of accessory buildings which may be built on one (1) parcel. The applicant could build one or more buildings of 840 square feet. Another con- cern could Be, tf~ conditional use were granted, the new owner and appllcant ~ou.ld be l~mIted to the R-2 Zoning District permitted use~Conditional Use, and adcessory uses for the building. The abutttng neighbors have been notified. Planning Com~isslon MinUtes ............... ' ............. May 23, 1983 - Page 3 ' ' e Case No. 83-225 Garage Size Variance of 96 Square Feet and Conditional Use Lots 7, 8, 1'3, 14, 15 and Part of 6, Block 28, Whipple - 5056 Sulgrove Road Paul Henry was present. The Building Official explained that Mr. Henry is applying for a conditional use permit to build an oversized (936 square feet) garage on a floatlng slab 6n a sand base; the garage will have 9.6 foot.walls and an 8 foot door for his vans and truck (storage of personal vehicles). Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the use contingent on getting a permit from the Watershed District if needed. The vote was unani- mously in favor. The public hearing on this wiil be on the June 21st Council agenda. q ~7 Certificate of 'Survey for Paul A. Henry of Lots ? and~ 8, Block 28, Whipple Hennepin County, Minnesota Case No. 83-225' I \. ° .\ ! · I hereby certify thzt this' is a true and corrc'ct representa~ion of a · ~arvey of the bounder!es of Lots ? and 8, Block ~8, Whipple, and the location of al~ existing butldinEs, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show other improvements or encroac~zments. GORDON R. COFFIN CO.; INC. Scale: 1" - 30' Date : 4-~.1-83 o ': Iron marker um : Spot e~evation : Mound City sewer ~)ordon R. Cof£in Reg. ~o. Mark $. Gronbcr§ ReE. No.12755 Land Surveyor and Planner Long Lake, Mir~sota /$% 'ON 3SV3 o QNI'IO~ -I0 I SQNI/~ ,,ti: (30~e~ If p~Opex~y i~ in join~ o~uo~sJaip, bo%h hu~t~d and ~ifo ~h~uld oign) INTEROFFICE MEMO City ~nager; Jon Elam Police Chief; Bruce-Wold JEGT: Ordinance Ammendment DATE June Section 46 - Regulation of Traffic, Vehicles, Bicycles And Parking Section 46.29 subsection 58 should be ammended to include a no parking anytime zone on the north side of Sinclair Rd. from WeStedge Blvd..east to the end of the pavement. Residents,on Sinclair Rd. complain about ingress and egress from their driveways because of parked cars. The problem exists because transient fishermen use the street,as a parking area to access Halstead Bay and the Priest Bay Channel for shore fishing. The, city erected a no parking sign~ on the north side of Sinclair Rd. but neglected to pass an enabling ordinance. I assume because the sign is there that the City Council intended to act on complaints from the homeowners at an earlier time. I would recommend the installation of a second "No Parking Anytime" sign at the east end of the paved area of Sinclair Rd. to clearly designate the entire length of the pavement as a no parking ~area. ORDINANCER NO. 449 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 46.29, (b) SUBSECTION 58 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING u. - "NO PARKING~ANYTIME'' ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SINCLAIR ROAD FROM WESTEDGE BLVD. EAST TO THE END OF THE PAVEMENT The City of Mound does ordain: SECTION 46.29, (b), SUBSECTION 58 is amended to add u.: Sinclair Road from Westedge Blvd. east to the end .of the pavement. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in the Officiai Newspaper /$3'O INTEROFFICE MEMO City ~nager; Jon Elam FROM: Police Chief; Bruce Wold SUBJECT: Ordinance Ammendment DATE June 3, Chapter 39 - Licensing And Regulation Of Dogs Section 39.90 subsections (d) and (e) contradict each other. Subsection (d) speaks to a recurring imooundment of a dog within "the last two years". Subsections (e) speaks to recurring impoundment of a dog "within a year". I would urge that subsection (d) be changed to read: An impound fee of $20.00 if the dog is currently licensed and if it is the first time the dog has been impounded within a year. This will remove the contradiction and make the penalties to repeat offenders less severe. ORDINANCE NO. 450 AND ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 39.90, SUBSECTION (d) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO REDEMPTION OF ANIMALS The City of Mound does ordain: Section 39.90, Subsection (d) is amended to read as follows: (d) An impounding fee of $20.00 if the dog is currently licensed and if it is the first time the dog has been impounded within a year. The impounding fee shall be $45.00 if the dog is not currently licensed. Attest: Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in the Official Newspaper ~To(' .Jon Elam, City Manager From Jan Bertrand, Building Official Date 5-23-83 Re: Subdivision Request - Extension of Res. 82-156 Ms. Yantes is requesting that the City Council consider an'extension of the subject resolution on the subdivision of Lots 16 & 17, Skarp and Lindquists Ravenswood. I recommend that the extension as requested be granted. Could the Council act on this at their next meeting, June 7th~ JB/ms CITY of MOUND · T~41 .M.\T~V(X)I) I~().\1) MOUND. MINNI-~S()~E.\ 35~'3C)4 612/472-1155 May 17, 1983 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector Planning Department City of Mound Administrative Offices 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Bertrand: On June 8, 1982, I received preliminary approval for subdivison of my property located at 4936 Edgewater Drive, Mound, MN (Lot 16 & 17 Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenwood). Because of financial situation at that time I was unable to move ahead with complet- ing the stipulations outlined in Resolution # ~_~2° /~ by the City of Mound. At this point, I would like to request an extention of the pre- liminary approval, so that I may proceed with completion of the Resolution stipulations. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Becky Ya~es ~ :ITY OF 1982 ?J - APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND LAND FEE $ _?_s~ o ~ PARCEL 316o Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: × 7 ZONING Applicant's interest in the property:~ This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To approve the subdivision with the stipulation that house be brought to compliance with the ordinance, the shed be removed and meet the other recommendations of the Building Official, DATE May 24, 1982 COUNCIL ACTION Concur with the Planning Commission to appro~TE June 8, the Preliminary Lot/Split with the 7 Stipulations Resolution No. 82-156 1982 APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENT OF_TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. A list of residents and owners of property within , feet must be attached. 174' June 8, 1982 Councilmember Ulrick moved the following resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 82-156 RES0L~TION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY LOT- SPLIT WITH THE 7 STIPULATIONS - CASE #82-114 WHEREAS, a subdivision (lot-split) request has been submitted by Rebecca Yantes on property.describe~ as Lots 16 & 17, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood, and WHEREAS,. the request'was submitted in the manner required for subdividing land under the Mound Ordinance Code and under Chapter. 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had there- under, and WHEREAS, .said proposed subdiv.islon (lot-split) is in all respects consistent '~'.'~,with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of' the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Mound, Chapter 22, and WHEREAS the Planning Commission has approved the preliminary lot-split 'with the stipulation that the house be brought to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23 of the City Code; the shed be removed and meet the other recommendations of the Building Official, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: A. Preliminary Lot-Split Approval Request #82-114, is approved upon compliance with the following requirements: The house be brought to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 23 of the City Code, as far as side yard requirements are concerned. 2. Locating utilities servicing the existing structure and topography of the site placed on the survey. All water and sewer'unit charges are paid, and street assessment unit charges, if applicable. e Removal of the existing shed building and basement entrance fPom the site including the 6" encroachment of the house on Parcel "B". 5. Provide off-street parking for Parcel "B". 6. All persons with financial interest in the property submit approval of the lot-spilt request. That failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat of the lot-spilt per Section 22.13 within one'year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void,~unless an extension of time is applied for and approved. A moti6nfor.the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember Charon and'upon vote being taken thereon;.the followlng voted in favor thereof: Charon, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick'and Lindlan; the following.. voted against ,the same: none; whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his signature attested by the City Clerk. Mayor Attest: City Clerk /35 7 GERALD T. COYNE 300 BRUNSWICK AVE. S. GOLDEN VALLEY, MINN. PARCEL "A": PARCEL "B": LOT SURVEYS COMPANY LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 · 73rd Avenue North 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55.128 ~urur~ur~ ([I~rIifkuI~ l' '- ,. -. ...... :i' " l-S- Frome_ q RAYMOND A. PRASCH 69171DAHO AVE. N. BROOKLYN PARK, MINN. INVOICE NO. 10599 F. B. NO. 21b-2q SCALE V' 20 ' O- DENOTES {RON ] ,: :'T , 1. :. ich Note: Shed building ~o be removed, not located. J 2 The 4es~ ~O.uO Peet of I.o: i7, Skar;, ~'~d bJndquis~'s Rav~swood as me~ured a~ riKht anc~les to ti,e We~ lithe tLeruof. All of Lot lb ~d that part of Lot 17 l>'in,; ~ast of the West 40.00 feet as measured at right an41~s to t2e '&e~t ~ine thereof, Skarp and Liudquist's Rav~swood. We hereby certify thai this is a slue and correct repeesentatio¢~ of a survey of lhe boundaries of the above descnbed land and Ihe location of all build, Su~veyedOyusshi~ l~tl~dayof I,,~) 19 ~;J ,/ / /, < .... r/ ,/ / Silk,ed ' ..t"/j/zz 4'/- / /' ,'2. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY CASE NO. 83-114 NOTICE OF LETTING 1983 WATER SYSTf~4 IMPROVf24ENTS MOUND, MI NNES09~% Sealed bids will be received in triplicate, at the office of the City Manager, City of Mound, Minnesota until 10:00 o'clock a.m. on the 7th day of June, 1983, for furnishing all labor, materials, tools, and equipment required to construct a booster pump station, 250,000 gallon standpipe, and water main extensions, all as outlined and in strict accordance with the plans and specifications as prepared by E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc., Hydrologists Engineers, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391. Plans and Specifications are on file with the City Manager, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, and E. A. Hickok and Associates, Inc. Ail proposals shall be made on forms to be supplied by the Engineer like those attached to, and made a part of, the Contract Documents and shall be addressed to: Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 a~ e~orsed: Bid for: 1983 Water System Improvements Copies of the plans and specifications my be obtained from the Engineer on deposit of the sum of $50.00 Dollars. Each proposal shall be accompanied by a certified check, bid bor~ or cash deposit made payable to the City of Mound, Minnesota, in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the maximum bid, as a guarantee that the Bidder will' enter into the proposed contract within the time specified. The successful bidder shall furnish a performance bond within ten (10) days after award of the contract in the full amount of the contract. The performance bond shall be executed by a company duly authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota. The bidder shall furnish a statement satisfactory to the Owner and Engineer ~that he is a qualified bidder, that he maintains a permanent place of business that he has had experience in constructing and performing the work as outlined in this Specification. The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all bids, waive minor irregularities if it appears to said Owner that such irregularities and errors were made through inadvertence. No bidder may withdraw his bid for at least thirty (30) days after scheduled closing time for the receipt of the bids. Published by authority of the City of Mound, Minnesota. ~Publish in The Laker 5-9-83 City of Mound, Minnesota By Jon Elam (City Manager) Eugene A. Hickok and Assoc~a',es. inc. June 7, 1983 545 Indian Mound Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612) 473-4224 Mr. Jon Elam City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: 1983 Water .Syste~ Improvements Dear Jon: We have reviewed the bids received today relative to the above referenced project and find all the bids in order. A copy of the "Bid Tabulation" is attached herewith. Having found the bids in order, we are herewith reccmmending that the City accept the following bids: Bid A: Booster Pump Station A & K Construction Co. - $89,990.00 Bid B: Standpipe Webco Tank, Inc. - $117,228.00 Bid C: Wate~main F. F. Jedlicki, Inc. - $132,570.00 Upon acceptance by the City of Mound and authorization to proceed, we will prepare the necessary contract documents so that work can proceed as quickly as pos sib le. If you have any questions and/or comments please feel free to contact me at your convenience · Sincerely, ICK~ES George w. ~oyer, Vice President bt Enclosure 1983 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MOUND June 7, 1983 Boos ter Pump Standpipe Watezmain 10% Completion Name of Bidder Bid A Bid B Bid C Bid Bond Date Webco Tank, Inc. .~ .$_apulpa, OK $117,228 X 20-26 weeks Prairie Tank & Const'. ~, deduct $3,500 for Plainfi. eld, IL 119,850 -- cone roof X. 140 days Waldor Pump & Equip. Minneapolis, MN a & K Construction Stillwater, MN $89,990 X 120 da~s Chicago Bridge & Iron ;;'. paint in Chicago, IL 121,700 X . 18 wks s~rin~ Hydrostorage, Inc. ~ Des Moines, IA ' 134,300 X 365 days Universal Tank & Iron Indi.anapolis, IN 128,600 X 360 da~s Gopher Electric Contr. .Minnea~oli s, ...MN .... Water Products Co. Eden Prairie, MN Gridor Construction lOl,6OO x ov. 1, 1983 W' Jed. licki, Inc. E~n Prairie, MN.. 132~570 X No date listed Van Bergen & Markson Minneapolis, MN Brown-Minneapoli s Tank St. Paul, MN 124,940 X June 1, 1984 American Cast Iron Pipe Savage, MN Jay Bros. St. Paul, MN Consol. Piumb. & Heat. "' Burnsville, MN (Econ) 97,790 X Se~t. 1,.1983 Mike Paul Electric St. Paul, MN Cal dwel 1 Tanks Loui svil le KY Arnold Assoc · Minneapolis, MN Burschvil le Cons t. Loretto, MN 176,47.1..t25 X Oct. 30..., 1983 0 & P Contracting Osseo, MN Twin City Electric Blocmington, MN W. W. Goetsch Assoc. olis,MN D~ies ~ ~Tquip. .Minneapolis., MN _, PROJECT: 67')6 MOUND. MN -- 2ND ADDITION TO FIRE FIRE STATION ENGINEER :- HcCOHBS-KNUTSDN ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL LABOR, MAT, ETC. LS 1.0 ^' T ....... ~nMe LS 1.0 ALT -~ O,.E,,~4n nnn~s LS 1.0 25000.00 25,000.00 iO000. O0 lO, O00. O0 7000.00 7,000.00 STATION PAGE FALLS ~ NYHUS~OEN HORCON CONSTRUCTION UNIT - TOTAI~ ...... UNIT TOTAL 29857.00 29,857.00 29880.00 29,880.00 1B~33.00 18,833,00 14750.00-- 14,750.00 73.33.00 7,333.00 6340.00 6,340.00 TOTAL HOUND FIRE STATION 42,000. O0 55,4P3. O0 50,970. O0 PROJECT'- 6746 MOUND. MN -- 2ND ADDITION MOUND FIRE STATION TO F IRE STATION PAGE P ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ITEM ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL A B $ ENTERPRISE UN I l TO TAL LABOR, HAT, ETC. LS 1.0 25000.00 ALT 1 TOILET ROOMS ..... LS ........ 1.0- lO000. O0 ALT E OUERHEAD DOORS LS 1.0 7000.00 25,000.00 38932.00 38,932.00 - 10,000.00 18974.00- 18,974.00- ...... 7,000.00 6984.00 6,984.00 TOTAL HOUND FIRE STATION 4P, 000. O0 64,890. O0 INVITATION TO BID Mound Fire Station Addition City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., City Engineers 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55441 Sealed bids are invited by the City of Mound, Minnesota for Additions to the Mound Fire Station building located at 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Bids are invited for one (1) contract including all general, mechanical, and electrical work. Proposals will be received until 10:00 a.m., Monday June 6, 1983 at the Mound City Offices, located at 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, and there- after opened and puOlicly read. Bids received after that time will not be considered. Bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting Tuesday, Oune 7, 1983. 8ids shall be submitted on the Proposal Form provided with the Contract Documents. All proposals must be on a lump sum basis. Contract Docg~nents may be examined at the office of the City Engineer, McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota, or at the Mound City Hall during normal business hours. Bonifide bidders may obtain Contract Documents at the office of the City Engineer upon deposit of Twenty-Five Dol- lars ($25.00) for each set, and in conformance with the Instructions to Bidders. Deposit is refundable on return of the Documents within 15 days after the bid date. Bids shall be accompanied by bid security meeting the requirements of the City of Mound in the amount of 10% of the total bid. Successful bidders will be required to furnish approved performance and payment bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the contract. No bidder may withdraw his .bid for at least sixty (60) days after the scheduled time for the receipt of bids, except as noted in the Instructions to Bidders. Each bidder will be required to comply with all fair labor and equal oppor- tunity employment practices. Each contractor will be required to hold all re- quired contractor or trade licenses, to obtain all required State or City permits, and to conform to all applicable State Building Code requirements. Tme City of Mound reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, and to waive any informalities or irregularities therein. BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Francine Clark City Clerk Publish in the Laker May 24 & May 3], 1983 Publish in The Construction Bulletin Advertisement for Bids -Mound, Minnesota 1983 Street Repair Project File ~6796 Sealed proposals will be received, publicly opened, and read aloud at 10:30 a.m., Monday, 3une 6, 1983 at the City Hall, Mound, Minnesota for street repair. Work consists of approximately 465 tons of bituminous mixture, 1580 1.f. bituminous curb, 182 1.f. concrete curb and gutter, and 1000 s.f. concrete sidewalk and aprons. The proposals will be considered by the City Council at their meeting on 3une 7, 1983. All proposals shall be addressed to: Mr. 3on Elam City Manager City of'Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 and shall be securely sealed and shall be endorsed on the outside with the statement "PROPOSAL'FOR STREET REPAIR RROOECT" and shall be on the Proposal form bound into the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans, specifications, and other proposed contract documents are on file with the City Clerk and at the office of McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55441. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the office of the Engineer at the above address upon deposit of $20.00. the full amount of the deposit for one set will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner, upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Each bidder shall file with his bid an acceptable certified check or bidder's bond in an amount of not less than ten percent (lO~) of the total amount of his bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The City of Mound reserves the right to reject any and all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Robert Polston, Mayor ATTEST: Fran Clark, City Clerk _ Date: May 17, 1983 Publish i~ The Laker May 24 & May 31, 1983 Publish in The Construction Bulletin CITY OF MOUND 1983 Street Repai~ Project Engineer's Estimate Buffalo Bituminous Bid Section I $ 5,419.00 $ 4,505.00 Sectzon 2 5,370.00 5,440.00 Section 3 9,480.00 3,160.00 Section 4 1,360.00 1,450.00 Section 5 2,780.00 2,796.00 Section 6 ~+~,OSl.OO o~-- 2,847.50 Section 7 Section 8 3,840.00 5,350.00 Section 9 4,500.00 5~430.00 Totals .............. $41,480.00 $35,395.50 PROJECT: S796 MOUND. HN -- 1983 STREET REPA I R PROJECT SECTION 1 BIT OUERLAY CEXETERY ROAD ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-F, NUTSON ZTEN ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT- OUANTITY ..-- UNIT--- TOTAL-.-- BIT PATCH HN DOT E331 TN BIT TAC~ COAT tiN E357 GA .... i-i/E' BIT IdEAR E341 TN BUFFALO BITUHINOUS -UNIT ....... TOTAL 10.0 O. O0 O. O0 ~.0 ....... 0.00 0.00 140.0 0.00 0.00 PAGE 1 OHANN CONSTRUCTION UNIT ...... TOTAL 50.00 500.00 60.00 600.00 1.00--- 85.00 .... 1.75 ...... 148.75 E8.00 3,9E0.00 ET.00 3,780.00 TOTAL SECTZON I BIT OVERLAY CEHETERY ROAD 0.00 4,505.00 4,E~8.75 PROJECT: 6796 MOUND. HN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION I BIT OVERLAY CEHETERY ROAD PAGE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-ENUTSON ...... ITEH . UNIT QUANTITY ENG. ESTIHATE LUND ASPHALT ~ HLELLER & SONS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL _ UNIT __ TOTAL BIT PATCH HN DOT E331 TN 10.0 0.00 BIT TACK COAT HN E357 GA . ~Ei.0 0.00 i-i/E' BIT kEAR E341 TN 140.0 0.00 0.00 75.00 750.00 45.00 450.00 .... 0.00 .... E. O0 170.00 1.35 .114.75 0.00 30.00 4,EO0.O0 31.00 4,340.00 TOTAL SECTION 1 BIT OVERLAY CEHETERY ROAD 0.00 5,1PO. O0 4,904.75 PROJECT-" 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 1 BIT OVERLAY CEHETERY ROAD PAGE 3 ENGINEER: HcCOHB$-"K~UTSON ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC ITF.~ .... UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL HIDWEST PAY & RECYL UNIT TOTAL BIT PATCH HN DOT E331 TN 10.0 BIT TACK COAT HN E357 .. CA ....... 85.0 1-1/E' BIT MEAR ~341 TN 140.0 0.00 0.00 80.00 BO0. O0 85.00 850.00 0.00 ...... 0.00 .... .1.00- 85.00 5.00 _ 4~5.00 0.00 0.00 E4.00 3,360.00 37.00 5,180.00 O. O0 4, ~45. O0 6,455. O0 TOTAL SECTION I BIT OVERLAY CEMETERY ROAD PRO.TECT: 6796 IIOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET SECTION E BIT REPLACE RIDGEilOOD ROAD ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-I~UTSON ...... ITEl -- UNIT REPAIR P RO.TEC T PACE I ENG. ESTIHATE BUFFALO BITUHINOUS OHANN CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY UNIT ....... TOTAL ..... UNIT ___TOTAL ....... UNIT TOTAL PREPARE SUBGRADE L$ 4~.BIT BASE L'33_! .......... TN -- BIT TACK COAT E357 GA E' BIT HEAR E341 TN 1.0 0.00 0.00 1000.00 1,000.00 1300.00 1,300.00 L/LO .... 0.00 .... 0.00 ES. OO - 8,875.00 ES. SO ...... 2,932.50 2S.0 0.00 0.00 1.00 2S.00 1.75 43.75 55.0 0.00 0.00 88.00 1,540.00 ET.SO 0.00 5,440.00 5,788.75 TOTAL SECTION 2 BIT REPLACE RIDGEltOOD ROAD PRO.TECT: 6796 IIOUND. lin -- 1983 STREET REPAIR SECTION 2 BIT REPLACE RIDGEIIOOD ROAD PRO .TE C T PAGE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-~IUTSON ENG. ESTIHATE LUND ASPHALT MH HUELLER & SONS ........ ITEH UNIT QUANTITY UNIT . TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT .... TOTAL PREPARE SU~RADE LS 1.0 0.00 0.00 2100.00 2,100.00 1000.00 1,000.00 4" BIT BASE 83,'31 TN 1.1S.0 0.00 .- - 0.00 --- 30.00 3,450.00 -- 30.00 -- 3,450.00 BIT TACK COAT 2:3S7 GA 25.0 0.00 0.00 2.00 SO. O0 1.SS 33.75 2' BIT EAR 8341 TN 55.0 0.00 0.00 30.00 1,650.00 31.00 1,705.00 TOTAL SECTION E BIT REPLACE RIDGEblOOD ROAD 0.00 7,e50.00 6,188.75 PRO.TECT: 6796 IIOUND. MN -- 19821 STREET REPAIR PRO.TECT SECTION 2 BIT REPLACE RIDGEIdOOD ROAD PAGE 3 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ........ ITEH- UNIT QUANTITY ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC NIDk~ST PAV & RECYL UNIT .... TOTAL UNIT ....... TOTAL .... UNIT --TOTAL PREPARE SU~RADE 4' BIT BASE 8331 .... BIT TACK COAT 8357 8' BIT HEAR 8341 LS 1.0 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 1900.00 1,900.00 -TN ....... IL.~---. 0.00 ....... 0.00 ..... 84.00 .... 2,760.00 .... 38.00 _ 3,680.00 GA ES.O 0.00 0.00 1.00 25.00 10.00 250.00 TN 55.0 0.00 0.00 26.00 1,430.00 55.00 3,~S.00 TOTAL SECTION 2 BIT REPLACE RIDGEilOOD ROAD 0.00 4,71R.00 8,8S5.00 PROSECT= 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEMENT PACE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON .... ITEll ........... UNIT. QUANTITY 1 REHOVE&REPLAC BROKE CURB LF 1,580.0 TOTAL SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEHENT ENC. ESTIHATE BLFFALO BITUHINOUS OHANN CONSTRUCTION UNIT TOTAL ..... UNIT ..... TOTAL ..... UNIT ...... TOTAL 0.00 0.00 E.O0 3,160.00 6.00 9,480.00 0.00 3,160.00 9,480.00 PROJECT: 6796 MOUNO· MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEHENT ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ...... ........... ITEH ........ UNIT J. REHOVE&REPLAC BROKE CURB LF ENG. ESTIHATE QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL 1,580.0 0.00 0.00 UNIT PAGE LUND ASPHALT k~ HUELLER & SONS - TOTAL .... UNIT -- TOTAL 7.00 11,060.00 6.00 9,480.00 TOTAL SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEHENT 0.00 11,060.00 9,480.00 PROJECT: 6796 MOUND· MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEMENT ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-gNUTSON PAGE 3 ENG. ESTIHATE - - - ITEH .... UNIT QUANTITY UNIT -.. TOTAL I REHOVE&REPLAC BROKE CURB LF 1,580.0 TOTAL SECTION 3 BIT CURB REPLACEHENT O. O0 O. O0 AERO ASPHALT INC HIDMEST PAV & RECYL UNIT TOTAL - - UNIT .... TOTAL 10.00 15,800.00 3.50 S,S30.00 0.00 /5,800.00 5,530. O0 PROJECT: 6T96 MOUND. MN -- 198~: STREET REPR I R PRO JEC T SECTION 4 GA~NETEIALL COURT BROOt~TON PARK iNCINEER: NcCOHB$-d~NUTSON PAGE 1 ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT-. GUANTITY ......UNIT --TOTAL ---- 1 GRADE & PREPARE SUBGRADE L$ 1.0 0.00 0.00 2 E" BIT lEAR E341 ........ TN 30.0 .... 0.00 ........ 0.00- - TOTAL SECTION 4 BASI~ETBALL COURT BROOKTON PARK ........... B~FALO BIT~INOU$ UNIT-- ...... OHANN CONSTRUCTION UNIT ....... TOTAL ~50.00 ~S0.00 300.00 40.00 ---1,~00.00- -- 35.00-- 300.00 1,0S0.00 1,450.00 1,350.00 PROJECT: 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 4 BAS~Ell)ALL COURT BROOXTON PARK PAGE ENGINEER: NcCOHBS-KNUTSON .............................................. ENG. ESTIMATE --. Il[fi ...... UNIT QUANTITY UNIT - TOTAl. - LUND ASPHALT MN MLELLER eL SONS UNIT TOTAL ...... UNIT ..... TOTAL GRADE eL PREPARE SLI~RADE LS 1.0 2' BIT lEAR 2341 .... TN ...... 30.0 0.00 0.00 1500.00 - 0.00 .-- 0.00 30.00 1,500.00 · 500.00 500.00 900.00 35.00-- 1,050.00 TOTAL SECTION 4 BAS~ETIi~LL COURT BROOKTON PARK ...... 0.00 ___ E,400. O0 ......... 1,qqO.O0 PROJECT= 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET SECTION 4 I~SKETBALL COURT BROOKTON PARK REPAIR PROJECT ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-I~NUT~ON PAGE 3 .......... Il[H ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC UNIT QUANTITY UNIT~ ...... TOTAL .... LBIT ...... TOTAL ...... HIDIEST PAU'& RECYL UNIT ..... TOTAL GRADE & PREPARE SUBGRADE LS 1.0 0.00 0.00 2" BIT lEAR. P..34.t. TN ...... 30.0 200.00 200.00 800.00 800.00 40.00---- L,EOO. OL__EE.O0----L, 860. O0 TOTAL SECTT/:JN 4 BASI<ETBALL COURT BRDOKTON PAI~ 0.00 1,400.00 2,6G0.00 PROJECT: 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REP~ IR PROJECT ~CTION 5 CONC C&C REPLACEHENT ENCINEER: HcCOHBS-~NUTSON_ _ L~IT_ ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT ..... TOTAL PAGE REHOVEEREPLAC CONC C&G LF J...~..O 0,00 REHOVE&REPLAC DRIVE Al>RD SF ........ 74.0 ....... O. O0.- BIT PATCH 2341 TN 1~.0 0.00 BUFFALO BITUHINOUS UNIT .... TOTAL .... OHANN CONSTRUCTION UNIT ...... ___TOTAL 0.00 12.00 1,8E4.00 13.00 1,976.00 O.O0 .... -3.00 .....~PP.O0- 3.50 .... ~59.00 0.00 50.00 7~0.00 7~.00 1,125.00 TOTAL SECTION 5 CONC C&C REPLACEHENT 0.00 E,7%.00 3,360.00 PROJECT= 6796 HOUND, MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION S CONC C&G REPLACEHENT PACE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-I~NUTS2N ...... ITEH ....... UNIT QUANTITY ENG. ESTIHATE LUND ASPHALT WH HLELLER & SONS UNIT TOTAL UNIT _ TOTAL UNIT __ TOTAL REHOVE&REPLAC CONC C8~ LF J..~..O 0.00 0.00 10.00 1,.~?.0.00 12.00 1,8E4.00 REHOVE&REPLAC DRIVE APRD S~ .... 74.0. 0.00 ..... 0.00 .. 4.00 ~ ~96.00 3.00 ....... EEE.O0 BIT PATCH E341 TN 1~.0 0.00 0.00 75.00 1,125.00 45.00 675.00 TOTAL SECTION 5 CONC C&G REPLACEHENT 0.00 E,941.00 E,TEI. 00 PROJECT-- 6796 HOUND. HN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 5 CONC C&G REPLACEHENT PAGE 3 ENGTJ~R: HcCOHBS-I~NUTSON ....... _ ITEH ....... UNIT Q~TI~ ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC HIDWEST PAV & RECYL UNIT ...... TOTAL UNIT ....... TOTAL _ UNIT TOTAL REHOVE&REPLAC CONC C&G LF 1..~..0 0.00 REHOVES,REPLAC DRIVE ~RO ~r ....... 74.0 .... 0.00 BIT PATCH E341 TN 18.0 0.00 0.00 12.00 1,824.00 14.00 E,128.00 O. O0 ........ 4. O0 ........ EgG. O0 ...... 4.00_ .....EgG. O0 0.00 80.00 1,EO0. O0 80.00 1,EO0. O0 TOTAL SECTION S CONC C8~ REPLACEHENT 0.00 3,3E0.00 3, f~4 · O0 PROJECT: 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 6 CSAHCONC SIDEMI & APRONS ENGINEER: HcCDHBS-KNUTSON ENG. ESTIMATE ITEN LqIT OUANTITY --UNZT TOTAL-- BUFFALO BITUHINOUS OHANN CONSTRUCTION UN~T- TOTAL .... UNIT .... TOTAL 6' CONC SIDEWALK SF 990.0 0.00 CONC CS~G D41~ L~ ..... 4~.0 ...... 0.00 ADJUST GATE VALUE EA 1. O 0.00 ADSUST CURB STOP EA 1,0 0.00 0.00 E.E5 E,EE7.50 3.00 E,970.00 0.00 ........ 10.00 ....... 480.00 ..... /3.00 ........546.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 '/S. O0 7S.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 SO. O0 SO. O0 TOTAL SECTION 6 CSAH iq CONC SIDEWI~ & APRONS 0.00 E,847.50 3,641.00 PRDSECT: 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 6 C~AH iq CONC SIOEId~ & APRONS PAGE P ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-F, NUT~ON ENG. ESTIHATE LUND ASPHALT WH HUELLER & SONS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL 6" CONC SIDEWALK SF 990.0 0.00 CONC C~G 0412 ........ LF .... 42.0 - 0.00 ADJUST GATE VALVE ER 1.0 0.00 AOSUST CURB STOP EA 1.0 0.00 0.00 3.00 2,970.00 E.50 2,475.00 0.00 .6.00 252.00 12.00 504.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 200.00 200.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 TOTAL SECTION 6 CSAH iq CONC SIDE~ & APRONS 0.00 3,488.00 3,879.00 PROJECT= 6796 MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 6 CSAH iq CONC SIDEM( & APRONS PAGE 3 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-I(NUTSON ITE# ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC NIOk~ST PAV & RECYL UNIT QUANTITY .... UNIT - - . TOTAL .... UNIT --- TOTAL-- UNIT -- TOTAl. 6" CONC SIDEWALK CONC C~G D412 ADJUST GATE VALUE ADJUST CURB STOP SF 990.0 0.00 0.00 3.00 8,970.00 8.30 8,877.00 LF- ....... 48.0 ..... 0.00 ......... 0.00 ......10.00- ....... 480.00. 10.00 ........ 4E0.00 EA 1.0 0.00 0.00 iqO. O0 150.00 100.00 100.00 EA 1.0 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 TOTAL SECTION 6 CSAH iq CONC SIDEM~ & APRONS 0.00 3,G40.00 2,897.00 PROSECT: 6T96 HOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET REPA I R PRO 3'E C T SECTION 7 HALS'ED AVENUE PACE I ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON ENC. ESTIHATE BUFFALO BITUNINOUS OHANN CONSTRUCTION .......... ITEN ............. UNIT QUANTITY ..... UNIT ....... TOTN.. .... UNIT ....... TOTAL ......... UNIT--- TOTAl. COHHON EXCAVATION CY 50.0 0.00 3-l/E" BIT BASE E331 ..... TN ....... 70.0 ..... 0.00 BIT TACK COAT 8357 l-l/E" BIT WEAR 8341 ADSUST HANHOLE ADJUST CATE VALVE CLEAN & RESHAPE N DITCH RESTORATION 0.00 10.00 500.00 10.00 500.00 0.00 ..... ES. O0 .... 1,750.00 ...... E5.50 1,785.00 GA 17.0 0.00 0.00 1.00 17.00 1.75 E9.75 TN 30.0 0.00 0,00 . 30.00 900.00 E7,00 810.00 EA ....... E.O 0.00 0.00 EO0. O0 400.00 .... 150.00- 300.00 EA 1.0 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 75.00 75.00 LF 1.0 0.00 0.00 150.00 150.00 400.00 400.00 LS i.0-- 0.00 0.00---500.00 ........ 500.00--- 300.00 ---300.00- .... TOTAL SECTION 7 HALSTED AVENUE 0.00 ............ 4,317.00 .............. 4,199.75 PROJ'ECT= 6796 HOUND. HN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 7 HALS'ED A~NUE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON PACE ENG. ESTIMATE LUND ASPHALT ..... ITEH UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL MH HLELLER & SONS UN I T TOTAL COMNON EXCAVATION CY 50.0 O. O0 3-1/8' BIT BASE 8331 TN 70.0 - 0.00 .... BIT TACK COAT E357 CA 17.0 O. O0 O. O0 1-1/E' BIT WEAR E341 TN 30.0 0.00 0.00 ADSUST HANHOLE ........ EA ....... E.O ..... 0.00 ....... O.00- ADSUST CATE VALVE EA 1.0 O. O0 O. O0 CLEAN & RESHAPE N OITCH LF 1.0 0.00 0.00 RESTORATION t..,~--------&.O .... 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 500.00 S. O0 250.00 0.00 - 40.00 E,800.O0 .... 30.00 ..... E,IO0. O0 E.O0 34.00 1.35 EE.gS 40.00 1,200.00 31.00 930.00 150.00 .... 300.00..- EO0. O0 ........ 400.00 1ES. O0 1E5.00 200.00 EO0. O0 500.00 SO0. O0 300.00 300.00 300.00--- .... 300.00.--500.00.__S00.00 .... TOTAL SECTIOlt2HALSTED AVENUE 0.00 S,?S9.00 ......... 4,70E.95 PROSECT: 6796 HOUND. HN -- 1983 STR£ET REPAIR PRO~ECT SECTION ? HALSTED AUENUE PACE ENGINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON - ZTEH- ............ UNIT QUANTITY ENC. ESTTHATE AERO ASPHALT INC HZDMEST PAU & RECYL UNTT .. TOTAL · UNIT TOTAL- UNTT TOTAL COHHON EXCAVATION CY 50.0 3-1/E" BIT EI~SE E331 TN- 70.0 BIT TACK COAT E:3~7 GA 17.0 1-1/E' BIT lIE:AR E341 TN 30.0 AD,TUST HANHOLE .... EA _E.O AD,TUST CATE VALVE EA 1.0 CLEAN & RESHAPE N DITCH LF 1.0 RE.qTORATION ......... LS ........ 1.0 ..... 0.00 0.00 5.00 ESO.O0 18.00 900.00 0.00- ...... 0.00 E6.00- - 1,8E0,00 --- 55.00 .... 3,850.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 17.00 10.00 170.00 0.00 0.00 ES.00 840.00 60.00 1,800.00 0.00 _. 0.00 . 150.00 __.300.00 __ 150.00 ..300.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 185.00 185.00 0.00 0.00 500.00 SO0. O0 800.00 800.00 0,00 ....... 0.00_ 500.00 ...... 500.00 1900.00 .... 1,900.00 _ TOTAL SECTION. 7 HALSTED AUENLE 0.00 ............... 4,327.00 ........... 9,845.00 PROJECT: 6796 ,'MOUND. MN -- 1983 STREET SECTION 8 WOODCP£ST OF MOUND 3RD ADDN ER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ITEM UNIT . QUANTITY POUR CONC TROUGH MH EA- S.O P£MOVEEEEPLAC CONC TRDUG EA 1.0 HYDRANT EXTENSIONS EA 3.0 REBUILD TOP POR CATCHBAS LS 1.0 REMOVE&REPLAC CONC C&G LF 75.0 CUT & PATCH EXIST BIT SF S00.0 FINISH GRAD BEHIND CUE8 LS 1.0 TOTAL SECTION 8 WOODCREST OF MOUND 3RD ADDN REF'A I R ENG. ESTIMATE UNIT- IOTAL PRO JEC T PAGE 1 BUFFALO BITUHINOUS OMANN CONSTRUCTION L~II TOTAL -UNIT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 300.00 1,SO0.O0 0.00 0.00 500.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 850.00 850.00 0.00 0.00 80.00 1,SO0. O0 0.00 0.00 1.SO 750.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 175.00 875.00 385.00 32_S.00 175.00 585.00 75.00 75.00 13.00 97S.00 1.70 850.00 400.00 400.00 0.00 5,350.00 4,085.00 PROJECT: 6796 HOUND, HN -- ~L983 STREET SECTION 8 WOODCREST OF MOUND 3RD ADDN GINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ITEM UNIT QUANTITY POUR CONC TROUGH MH EA S.O REMOVE&P£PLAC CONC TROUG EA i.O HYDRANT EXTENSIONS EA 3.0 REBUILD TOP POR CATCHBAS LS 1.0 REMOVE&REPLAC CONC C&G LF 75.0 CUT & PATCH EXIST 8IT SF S00.0 FINISH GRAD BEHIND CUE8 LS 1.0 REPAIR PROJECT ENG. ESTIMATE UNIT TOTAL LUND ASPHALT UNIT TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1SO. O0 750.00 0.00 0.00 485.00 485.00 0.00 0.00 3G0.00 1,080.00 0.00 0.00 1SO. O0 1SO. O0 0.00 0.00 10.00 750.00 0.00 0.00 1.SO 750.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 300.00 PAGE 8 WM MUELLER & SONS UNIT TOTAL 780.00 3,900.00 900.00 900.00 575.00 1,785.00 SO0.O0 SO0.O0 18.00 900.00 0.75 375.00 175.00 175.00 TOTAL SECTION 8 WOODCREST OF MOUND 3RD ADDN 0.00 4,805. O0 8,475.00 PRE) JECT: ~796 HOUND. lin -- 1983 STREET REPAIR SECTION 8 ~00DCREST OF MOUND 3RD ADDN OENG INEER: P RO.,TEC T PAGE 3 McCOHB$-KNUTSON ITEil ENG. ESTIHATE AERO ASPHALT INC MIDWEST PAU & RECYL UNIT- QUANTITY UNIT -. TOTAL .... UNIT ..... TOTAL .... UNIT .... TOTAL POUR CONC TROUCH HH EA S.O 0.00 0.00 800.00 4,000.00 800.00 4,000.00 REHOUE&REPLAC CONC TROLIC EA ..... 1.0 _ 0.00 _ - . 0.00 _ 1000.00 .. 1,000.00 1000.00 1,000.00 HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ER 3.0 0.00 0.00 700.00 2,100.00 6S0.00 1,9=30.00 REBUILD TOP POR CATCHBAS LS 1.0 0.00 0.00 600.00 600.00 650.00 650.00 CUT & PATCH EXIST BIT ~ 500.0 0.00 0.00 2.00 1,000.00 E.50 1,E50.00 FINISH GRAD BEHIND CURB LS 1.0 0.00 0.00 2'/5.00 2'/5.00 950.00 950.00 TOTAL SECTION 8 WOODCREST OF HOUND 3RD ADDN 0.00 9,200.00 10,92S.00 PROJECT: G796 ~IOUND. i~N -- 1983 STREET REPA ! R PRO J'E C T SECTION 9 CEO PARKING LOT OENG INEER'. HcCOHBS-KNUTSON PAGE 1 ENG. ESTIHATE UNIT GUANTITY .... UNIT ..... ~TOTAI., ~ BUFFALO BITUHINOUS UNZT- TOTAL__ OHANN CONSTRUCTION UNIL .... TOTAL CUT & PATCH WITH 4-1/2' TN 80.0 0.00 BIT TACK COAT 29S7 ..... G~---30.O ...... 0.00 1-1y~' PATCH&OVERLAY TN 50.0 0.00 0.00 50.00 4,000.00 SO.O0 4,000.00 0.00~--W..00 --30.00 1.75-- 52.50 0.00 ~9.00 1,400.00 ~7.50 1,375.00 TOTAL SECTION 9 CEO PARKING LOT 0.00 5,430.00 5,4E7.50 TOTAL ............................ 835,295.50 .... $41,800.75 PROJECT= 6796 HOUND. MN -- 1983 SECTION 9 CEO PARKZNC LOT ENGINEER: ~cCOHB$-KNUT~ON* STREET REPAIR PROJECT PAGE - ITEH ENG. ESTIHATE LUND ASPHALT ~ HLELLER & SONS UNIT QUANTITY UNIT _ TOTAL - - UNIT ...... TOTAL ...... UNIT .......... TOTAL CUT & PATCH WITH 4-1/E' TN 80.0 BIT TACK COAT 2357 ..... GA ...... 30.0 I-lYE' PATCH&OUERLAY TN 50.0 0.00 0,00 50.00 4,000.00 3~.00 E,800.00 0.00 ...... 0.00 . ~.00 .... 60.00 -_ 1.3~ ....... 40.50 0.00 0.00 50.00 E,SO0. O0 35.00 1,750.00 TOTAL SECTION 9 CEO PARKING LOT 0.00 6,560.00 4,590.50 TOTAL · $48,7i7.00 . . . ]L45_~891._9_S PROJECT: (~796 HOUND. HN -- 1983 STREET REPAIR PROJECT SECTION 9 CEO PARKING LOT PAGE 3 ENCINEER: Hc~-IGIUTSON ....... ............ ITEl1 ......... UNIT QUANTITY. ENG. ESTIHATE UN IT TOTAL AERO ASPHALT INC HIDMEST PAV & RECYL UNIT -- TOTAL .... UNIT___ TOTAL CUT & PATCH WITH 4-1/2" TN BO.O BIT TACK C~T 2357 ......... GA 30.0 1-1/~' PATCHEOUERLAY TN SO.O 0.00 0.00 SO.O0 4,000.00 85.00 6,800.00 0.00 ........ 0.00 -- 1.00 ....... 30.00 10.00 ..... 300.00 0.00 0.00 60.00 3,000.00 55.00 E,750.00 TOTAL SECTION 9 CEO PARKING LOT 0.00 7,030.00 9,850.00 TOTAL .................................. ~3~677.00 . . . ,_,~60.,.~1.00 QUOTATION From 200 West 88th Etreet - Minueapolis, MN 55420 (612) 851-0399 To City of ~ound 5341 ~aywood Road ~ound, Ninnesota 55364 We are pleased to quote as. follows. Your inquiry Inquiry No. Date 6/6/83 Terms t~T. 3© cl~r~ __ Prices quoted are F.O.B. d estina-tion Delivery will advise Quantity . Description Price Amount Job: Skyroof & Roof Renovation ~ound City Hall - Nound, Ninnesota BASE BID: WESBY Thermalite Glazing System Thermally Broken - Black Anodized *'1 Triple Glazed: CLEAR 3/16" tempered//3/16" tlempered// ~" saf~ Complete installation & structural framing Roofing: LOW ROOF - flat 3½" poly. + EPD~ HIGH ROOF - Tie-In of skylight fl only **2 ALTERNATE #1: ALTERNATE #2: ALTERNATE #3: *'1 specified DARK BRONZE **2 Roofing contractor will not guarani tie-in of EPDM into urethane insula the high roof. both low & high ty laminat, of skyl'ight ~shing $34,476. O0 ADD ADD ADD $1,050.00 4,922.00 6,792.00 ~e the Lion on We would therefore cecommend roofs be repZaced. CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 June 6, 1983 TO: FROM: RE: CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER SKYLIGHT AND ROOF RENOVATION This afternoon we opened the bid for the repair of the skylight system and roof in City Hall. I was disappointed that there was only one bid, especially since a number of people had been out to look at the roof, etc. For reasons none of us know, only one bid was submitted from the W.J. White Co. It appears in order and since it takes 8 weeks to receive the skylight glass, any further delay would put us into late August or September. Thus I recommend the acceptance of the W. J. White Co. bid of $34,476.00, plus alternate number 3 ~ $6,792.00. Together they add up to $41,268.OO. We have budgeted $20,000 from Federal Revenue Sharing and would take the remaining from the Building Fund. JE:fc NOTICE OF " .- ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID~' '. SKYROOF AND ROOF RENOVATION MOUND, MINNESOTA BIDS CLOSE:' 2:00 p.m,, June.6, 1983 BIDS RECEIVED AT: City Hall, MOUND, MINNESOTA SKYROOF AND ROOF RENOVATION DOCUMENTS DATED: MAY 18, 19~3 WILLIAMSIO'BRIEN ASSOCIJ~TES, INC- a 45 SOUTH NINTH STREET .MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 Sealed .lump .sum bids wll! :be rede. ived on. be..hal.f of the City. of Mound, at the city Hall until the time and .date. bids. close, specl.fied above; Bldl received after this Jlme will not be '~ccepted nor opened. Immediately after closing time, bids will be opened publicly and mad aloud. - · . The p. rojeC..t-i',onslsts' of th~ replacement ~f. a .sk~/llght system and TOOting renovatl~n. One-lump sum.: will. be ,recelv. ed' for' ali 'work ' require~ by Contract Dgc. uments. No Bidder.may.with.draw his bid until thirty (30) days after the date pf opening bld.$.., Bidding requirementS.,.bld and contract forms, .. drawings and specifications, may .be examined'at: Office of the .Architect listed ,,be. va Office of the Building Inspector, city' Ha~'i: Mound, Minnesota · The Bu!lders 'Exchange of .Mlnnespolls,~' Mlnndsota ':.~ The Builders Exchange ~f St; 'Paul, Mlnno~ta.~. F. W. Dodge Cq. rporallon Plan Room, Minneapolis, MIn. nesota -' O~e complete set. of the documentl' fo~ th'Is work may be obtained .from the office of: Williams I O'Brlen. A~. fates, Inc... A bid .security. In the amou. nt qr. five percent (5%) of .t~e maximum amount of the Bid, shall be s .ubm. ltted with. each b.ld. t~ each. form a~.d s. ubJect. to the conditions stated I~ the Instructions to Bidders. ° The owner r .eserves th~. right to'reject ~'~y. and ~-~.all b. ids~.acc~, p! any bid It seems to b~. in Its best ' Interest~..~o waive any Informalities In bids submitted and waive minor discrepancies bidding procedures. . (Published In The Laker May 31, 1983.) CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 17, 1982 To: City b~nnager; Jon Elam From: Police Chief; Bruce Wold Jon, attached to this memo is a letter I received from the Minnesota Board Of Peace Officer Standards And Training. The letter answers some of the questions frequently asked about the reimbursement of training funds by the State Of Minnesota. I have underlined a section of the letter that calls for a council resolution to designate a signor for the application forms. I would recommend that the council act on this prior to the reciept of the application forms so we can expidite the reciept of the training funds. I would also recommend that, the training officer, Sgt. William Hudson be designated as the signor by the council. The following resolution would apply: Whereas the City Council of the City OfMound deams continuing education and training of the police officers an important function, Whereas the Hinnesota Board Of Peace Officers Standards And Training requires continuing education and training for each licensed police officer employed by the City Of Mound, Whereas the City Of b~und wishes reimbursement for budgetary monies expended to train police officers, Whereas the Minnesota Board Of Peace Officers Standards And Training has funds available for disbursement to the City Of Mound after July 1, 1983, Whereas the Hinnesota Board Of Peace Officers Standards And Training requires that a second officer be designated by council resolution to be a signor on the application for reimbursement of funds, Therefore be it resolved that the City Council designates Training Officer, Sgto William Hudson as the designated signor of the application for reimbursement. MINNESOTA BOARD OF PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING 333 SIBLEY STREET (SUITE 495) ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 QUESTIONS/ANSWERS and INSTRUCTIONS RE: TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT MONEY On January 1, 1982, the State of Minnesota began collecting money from a ten percent surcharge on all moving traffic offenses. From this penalty assessment money, the POST Board has been appropriated $900,000 to be used as a reimbursement to local units of government to offset the cost of providing continuing education to peace officers and constables. This notification will address some of the frequently asked questions about reimbursement and serves as an instruction sheet regarding making application for the funds. 1. Q. When will POST distribute the official application forms? A. By law, the POST Board may not distribute the application forms until July 1, 1983. 2. Q. Who.is required to siqn the application forms on behalf of ~-the local units of government?_ A. Two people: (1) the chief law enforcement officer of the agency; and (2) an officer Ic~ther than c_hi~f~law enforce- ~en'~ officer) designated by resolution of -'t'F~e governing body.... NOTE: To expedite matters so we can get the money back to you as soon as possible after July 1, please ask your governing body (council, commissioners, etc.) to designate a signatory now'. 3. Q. When will the money be sent to us? Ao The POST Board is required to give applicants 45 days to return the application forms. However, as soon as all applications are received at POST, they will be processed and the money sent out. Please send your application to us in a timely fashion so we don't have to wait the entire 45 days from July 1. -OVER- e Ge Q., What must a law enforcement agency do to qualify for reimbursement? Ae To qualify for reimbursement, an agency head must affirm on an official POST Board application that during fiscal year 1983 (July 1, 1982 - June 30, 1983): (1) the department made 16 hours of POST-approved continuing education available to each peace officer or constable for whom reimbursement is requested. (2) the department has ~mployed each of the above represented officers for at least eight months of the fiscal year. (3) the department promises .to maintain all documents supporting the affirmation. Q. May more than one agency receive reimbursement for the same peace officer or constable? No. If a licensee is employed by more than one agency, the Executive Director will determine which agency will receive the reimbursement monies. Q. Will part-time peace officers or reserve peace officers qualify for reimbursement funds? A. No. Only licensed peace officers and constables are required to acquire continuing education credits. 7. Q. Who actually gets the money? Ae The local units of government will receive the check and it is to be used exclusively for reimbursement of the cost of in-service training. If you have any further questions about reimbursement, please contact the Board's Continuing Education Unit at (612) 297-2356. 5/15/83 May 31, 1983 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER For the first time, after working most of last week, the various pieces of a Comprehensive Economic Program for the City seems to be within reach. Attached you will find two new program efforts that will serve to compliment our existing' efforts in the areas of storefront design assistance grants and interest reduction assistance for storefront rehabilitation. The two new proposed efforts include a basic Fix-Up and Paint-Up Program and a more significant 2% Revolving Loan Fund. In summary, we now may be able to offer four separate programs by July 15~ 1983. They are: Grant Funds 1. Fix-Up, Paint-Up for projects up to $2,000. $ ~,200. 2. Design Grants for Storefront Rehabilitation 12,000 3. Interest Write-Downs for Loans up to $20,000. 30,000 4. City of Mound Commercial 2% Revolving Loan Fund (for projects up to $50,000) 'IO0,OOO TOTAL $ 148,200 You can see that the City has made or is making some major contributions to assist the existing commercial business revitalize themselves as well as recruit new commercial business to the City. I do believe we wi'll have one of the most complete efforts at commercial renewal in the region. In this I have not included the $20,000 funded for 1983-84 from CDBG Funds to cover administrative costs or projects like tax increment financing or the $25,000 we can use to develop out new business recruitment efforts for the re-use of the Tonka Plant or finally the $20,000 grant we have earmarked by the State to further assist our efforts. I want you to be able to say when someone says things are sure dead in Mound that it's not because the City isn't trying to do everything it can to turn downtown around. When you add in the proposals, no matter how nebulous, of Town Square and Lost Lake I think somehow we will come out with some pretty exciting achievements to show for our efforts. At least I hope so! /$z. ? Page 2 May 31, 1983 City Council Which leads me into my next focus, and that is developing an Economic Development Commission, similar to the Park and Planning Commissions, that could coordinate and oversee program efforts in. the area of economic development. Responsibilities of the Commission could be to oversee the policy development and implementation in the areas of: 1. Downtown Revitalization Programs (see above and attached packages) 2. Tax Increment Financing Plans & Proposals 3. Downtown Development 4. Business Promotion of the City of Mound 5. Recommendations to the City Planning Commission on matters relating to zoning and economic development planning. 6. Minnesota Star Cities Program 7. Industrial Revenue Bond Proposal Review 8. Development of City Economic Development Plan and oversee its implementation. I would propose a membership of nine members, similar to the Planning Commission with terms initially all for two years. Make-up could include: 1 - Council Representative 1 - Chamber of Commerce/Retail Merchants Representative 5 - At Large Members 2 - Ex-Officio Members (City Manager & Mayor) 9 Total Members In summary, I feel this strategy, if it is effective, could be an effective hedge against the loss of Tonka and could help give the local business community a real shot in the arm. I can't believe that the public response to these efforts won't be very, very popular. JE:fc PROJECT PROPOSAL FORM 1983 JOBS BILL ADDITIONAL' APPROPRIATION URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM THIS SECTION WILL BE COMPLETED BY HENNEPIN COUNTY ER Status: / status Environmental Review Specialist Project Number: / number "Financi'~'l Manager Project Eligibility: / citation PA representative date date date Please.complete £he form as carefully as possible and use additional sheets as you wish for clarification and expansion. A~ GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Community: 2. Project Name: 3. Contact Person: City of Mound Small Business Revolvinq Loan Proqram ion Elam, City Manaqer PROJECT DATA 1. Lo~ation: Census Tract/s City Wide X Street Address (Attach mapj if applicable) Description Describe the project and all necessary component activities~ Be as detailed as possible. See detailed atteched proposal & proposed guide )~nes. Will these funds complete funding/imp~'ementation of a p.reviously funded activity: ~yes x no. If yes, please indicate. CDBG Year ~unded Project Number Identify the local objective that the project is intended to meet and explain how the project will make substantial imprQvements. - Financing of Private Business for Economic Development, -. Provide productive employmentropportunities. - Eliminating existing blighted situations. Compliment other approved CDBG p~ogram strategic in EconOmic Development - Design grants - Fix-up, Paint - up - Interest assistance grants State the accomplishments the project is meant to achieve in a quantifiable manner. (For example: twenty jobs will be created through the rehabilita'tion of a factory to permit XYZ Company to increase production.) The c6mmittment of from five to seven new commerical loans between July 1, 1983 & December 31, 1984 Leverages $t00,OOO of CDBG funds into $400.,000 of Private investment. Ration of 4:1 Creation of at least ten new permanent jobs with goal of twenty new jobs by June 31, 1985.(after full implementation) Implementation Schedule~ (This must be carefully determined for the proposed project. Jobs Bill timelines and processes call for the completion of programmed actigities by 7/1/85~). a. Specify projected starting date. August l, 1983 b~ Specify projected completion date. June' 31, 1985 c. Intermediate milestones. A. December 31, 1983 - Two loans - Four jobs B. June 30, 1984 - Two Loans - Three jobs C. December 31, 1984 - ~wo Loans - Three jobs C. June 31, 1985 - One loan - Three jobs Fundability This pro~ect will: (check one and provide requested information) Principally benefit low and moderate income persons State any special considerations you have given to benefit low -and moderate-income persons~ the number of persons directly benefitingj and how they will benefit. Prevention or elimination of slums and blight Describe the blight and indicate'whether the municipal government- has officially designated the area as blighted or when it plans to do so. The City of Mound dsl.~nated the Central Business District as an offlcia) area requiring revitalization and Business Loan Assistance. CDBG funds beginning in 1981 and continuing in 1982-83-84 have or will be earmarked to further our goa] of bring in'new capital investment into the CBD. With the loss of jobs at Tonka .the need for this infusion is critical. Meet a Particular Urgent Need Describe the nature of the need a~d the time at which it originated. Explain how the proposed activity will support the Urban Hennepin County Statement of Objectives for the Jobs Bill appropriation; particularly as related to the Jobs Bill objectives to provide productive employment for jobless Americans; hasten or initiate federally funded projects and construc- tion; and provide humanitarian assistance to the indigent. - Create a revolving loan fund meaning the funds can be used over & over for Business and Job Development. - The positions created will be productive private sector positions. - None of the work will take place unless Federal CDBG funds are used thru furthering the objective of hastening local - Provide a continuation of the Public/Private sector cooperation. Budget Using the (ollowing budget lines~ please list the amount budgeted for each component 6f the project. a~ Acquisition of Real Property b~ Senior Centers c. Parks and PlaygFounds Development dj Street Improvements/Sidewalks e. Water and Sewer. f~ Clearance Activities g. Relocation Assistance h. Removal of Architectural Barriers i. Rehabilitation of Private Property j. Rehabilitation of Public Residential' Structures 'k. Administration (project costs only) 1. Public Service m. Other - please explain a~ $ b~ $ c. $ dj $ e. $ f' $ g. $ h.$ i. $ 100,000 j.$ k.$ 1.$ m. $ TOTAL BUDGET $ lO0,O00 The cost of administering a funded project is to be shown in the project budget on line "k". UHC 5-9-83 CITY OF MOUND SMALL BUSINESS REVOLVING LOAN PROGRAM DRAFT MAY 1983 BACKGROUND In the Spring of 1981, the Mound City Council appointed a Downtown Advisory Committee to begin the process of studying the revitalization of the downtown commercial areas of the City... Initially this started with a study of shopping habits and an inventory, of the existing commercial services. The second step included a detailed design guide for Downtown. The City Council adopted this plan in early 1982, although final funding and implementation has yet to be decided. ~4/~ ) An additional focus that came from the~-l~ was the need to develope some creative financing to encourage existing businesses to begin the process of rei'hvesting in their commercial proEerties.j 'Using Housing and Community Development Funds (HUD) two separate ~~'~ , ere initlated. The first was a Design Grant Program, whose purpose was to take the Downtown Design Study to.its next step and apply it to specific buildings. By using a 50% Grant up to a' maximum of $750.00~ the Committee felt that people would work with professional designers, where they otherwise might not, thuS'giving Mound.a more.professional and coordinated appearance. The second program was an~lnterest Assistance Program for the store front rehabilitation efforts. This focuses on reducing the interest rate cha'rged by lo~al banks from the going rates (14 - 16%) to a more manageable level of 8 - 9%. As of May 1, 1983, these twO efforts have achieved some success. Four businesses have participated in the Design Grant Program and two have received Store Front Rehabilitation Grants. Public costs for these efforts have amounted to approximately $13,O00 and private investment has exceeded $180,O00, a leverage ratio of better than 15:1. Although these efforts are up and operating, gaps still remain in.the effort of the City to develop a comprehensive plan of capital flnanc cas. To further add to the available resources the following small business loan program is proposed. CONCEPT As a second phase of.our Downtown Commercial Rehabilitation efforts, we now are proposing to establish a revolving loan fund from which high risk, front-end financing and technical assistance could be available. The goal of the program would be the improvement of the commercial areas of Mound, improved job opportunities for city residents and leverage of private.investment that otherwise would not occur. This will address the lack of small, lower~i~terest, longer term loans available to the small business owner (particularly the tenant business or Contract for Deed purchaser) for real estate improvements and~fixed equipment. Reductions in the availability of public funds for these purposes (SBA, etc.) are likely to widen the gaps in the future. Extension of the public/private partnership created in the City in early 1982 in its downtown interest reduction program, will'offer the opportunity, to continue and improve the capability to meet such needs. This new concept suggests a partnership be established by the City of~ Mound to fund a $200,000 Small Loan Program to assist downtwon~business so the~ can improve their markets and service and retain or.expand job opportunities. The Program as proposed will provide $100,000 from City CDBG Funds and i~ $100,000 from area banks. The City's fund will be the source of longer term loans of up to $25,000 fo~.a minimum of 15 years at 2% interest. This will be matched by equal loan amounts from area banks at going interest rates to provide a total loan up to $50,000 at a melded interest rate of about 8 - 9%, currently. This pilot program is projected to operate for'a two year'period, at which time it will be evaluated. The Program objectives will include the following: 1. Be limited to or give high priority to .the provision of loans and technical assistance to. small business for real estate purposes: 2. Be responsive to identified small business needs. 3. Be targeted to the central business district as determined by the Downtown Advisory Committee. 4. Service existing small retail, service or commercial businesses, or start up businesses that would use undeveloped land and vacant or underutilitzed buildings and retain or create new job opportunities. 5. Be coordinated with existing and proposed small business assistance programs available. '6. Serve as a catalyst to leverage additional public and private resources and actions. 7. Be operated on a revolving fund concept. 8. Be established on a two.year pilot program basis. These objectives will address a number of gaps in service to the smaller retailer and services business. These include: - Current financial assistance tends to favor the larger business with a good'track record and the new business that have high potential for growth and .job creation. - Shortage of revenue bond financing which 'is too costly for the small business that. requires under $50,000. - Contract for Deed and tenant businesses are often unable to finance i improvements. - A small flexible longer and lower cost loan is needed to compliment the present City Commercial Storefront Rehabilitation Loan Program. - The smaller retailer does not have time to devote to planning physical improvements for his. place of business...or joint efforts with others. - Technical assistance in management and marketing is often needed but operator is not aware of the need, the resources available or the potential benefits. Eligible improvements may include, facade or other exterior improvements including parking, interior improvemtns and fixed equipment and production equipment that results in new business or new jobs. Administration of the Program will be conducted by the City of Mound under the guidance of policies set by the Downtown Advisory Committee and the City Council. The City of Mound will be responsible for: - Identying the area to be served. - Improvements to be funded. - City requirement or ordinances requiring compliance. - Determining individual applications eligibility based on above factor' The City of Mound will be responsible for information and advice as to: - Any special desgin criteria established by the Downtown Advisory Committee. - Proposed public improvemtns to be made by the City(street paving, parking, lighting, street furniture, etc.) - Distribution of Program information to area businesses. - Referral of applicants to local banks. - Participation Agreements with local banks. Local Banks will be responsible for: - Receipt and processing of applications. - Provision of matching loan funds at least equial to funds to be provided from the City's Revolving Loan fund. - Determining applicants credit risk and required collateral. - Determining loan amortization period. - Approval or disapproval of loan, subject to City Certification as to Program eligibility. - Collection of lien waivers, and other documents deemed necessary :for loan disbursements. - Distribution of loan funds subject to final approval of the City of Mound. - Distribution of principal and interest payments to the City of Mound Small Business Revolving Loan Fund. On default, the claims of the City of Mound are subordinate to the bank's. ADMINISTRATION FEES A processing fe~ of $250.00 will be charged each~:~=~wl loan appli'cant. This fee will cover the time of City Employees in reviewing and determi~ing the eligibility of the application to be in conformance with Program and City rules,and regulations. /$7j' GOALS The committment of from. five to ~even new commercial loans between July 1, 1983 to December 31, 1984. Leverage the $1OO,OOO initial loan fund into $400,000 of private investment. A ratio of at least 4:1. The creation of at least ten new permanent jobs with goals of twenty new jobs by December 31, 1985. PROGRAM EVALUATION 'Evaluation wi'll be made in terms of original Program Goals outlined earlier in the proposal. These will include: - The'improvement in appearnce, structural ~ondition and operational efficiency of commercial buildings in the City. - Improvement of business market'and service to the Community. - Retention and creation of jobs. - Leveraging action program in dollars of additional improvements and impact on adjoining commercial or residential areas. - Effectiveness of Revolving Fund to fund as a vehicle to provide continuing support to small business. /3 o ' APPENDIX CITY OF HOUND REVOLVING LOAN FUND GUIDELINES II. PURPOSE OF FUND To .extend the capability to provide financial and technical assistance to community retail, service and commercial businesses through.jOint private section/public action. To establish a City low interest, longer term loan program to provide: - capability and incentive for owners and tenants to upgrade the appearance, structural condition and operating efficiency of their place of business. - improYement of their market and service of their business to the community. - retention and expansion of job opportunities. PARTICIPATION AND FINANCING The City of Mound Small Business Revolving Loan Fund is established and will operate as a public/private sector'partnership. The fund will provide $200,000 Community Small Business Loan Funds avail- able to City businesses over a one and one half year period. The fund will provide one-half of each small business loan up to a maximum of $25,000 at an interest rate of 2%. Matching funds of at least $100,000 will be provided at current interest rates by local banks. Administration will be shared by the City and participating local banks. - The City has established these guidelines and will monitor operations of the Program. - The City of Mound is the general administrator of the Program. - Local banks will execute participation agreements with the City to carry out their participation in accord with these guidelines. Iii. LOAN TERMS AND CONDITIONS NSBRLF/BANK-Particlpation The City of Mound and a.participating bank will share in a loan on a matching basis. For example, the City Loan Fund and a bank will each provide $25,000 for a $50,000 loan. Maximum Loan The City Loan Fund will participate in a loan up to a maximum of $25,000. A bank may increase its .portion over $25,000. Interest Rates City Loan Funds are amde at a'fixed rate of 2~. The funds loaned from the City Loan Fund are subordinant' to funds provided by the bank. The effective annual rate to the borrower will be approximately one- half the customary rates offered for direct loans from private financial. institutions. An example is shown below: cITy.LOAN FUND EXAMPLE City Loan Fund Loan Bank Loan Total Cos.t: $25,000 at 2% $25,000 at 14~ $50,000 at 8~ 5 years = $1,O13.82/month 10 years = $606.64/month 15 years = $477.83/month Term The term of the loan shall be a minimum of 15 years, maximum'of 20 years. The bank shall make the determination for an appropriate term relating to the applicant's ability to pay. IV. Collateral Requi/ed ' The bank shall have the sole responsibility of determining the appllcantSs credit risk: The bank shall have senior lien on.any collateral required. The City'Loan Fund shall have identical collateral but subordinated to the bank. The bank shall file for the City Loan Fund any liens required on collateral. Loan Disbursements Payments to consultants and/or.contractors shall be made by the bank, but not before, written approval from the City is provided. Loan disbursements will be limited to three (3) in total; two partial payments plus one final payment (minimum oF 10~ of total loan) when all work is completed and inspected. Lien Waivers The bank will.collect lien waivers and/or other.documentation as deemed necessary'by the bank. 'ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Areas All loan~ will be within the Central Business District boundaries or other development areas as established by the City. (See Attachment 1.) Applicants An applicant's place of business must be located in one of the areas defined above. The applicant may be: individual owners, partnerships, corporations, tenant operators or Contract for Deed purchasers~ An applicant must have the ability to repay the loan and be an acceptable credit risk as determined by a bank. -,o- /3 3 An appl.icant's property must be a conforming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance.. Upon, compietion of improvemen'ts, the applicant's property must comply with all applicable code, permit and license requirements and must have a current certificate of occupancy~ _improvements 1. Exterior Improvement Loan Under this type of loan an applicant may improve.the exterior appearance of'the building and p.roperty and.will not be required to'do'any interior improvements if the'applicant provides a valid Certificate of Occupancy· Where design standards have beenestabllshed for.the area in which the loan .is to'be made, revlew and approval of the business or community organization responsible will be obtained by the City of MoUnd. The following are eligible expenditures: ~- All work'on .the. front.and sides of business buildings facing public streets. - Cleaning, painting and staining of exterior surfaces.. -. Masonry' repairs. - Repairing or replacing of cornices, entrances, doors, win~ow~, decorative details and awnings. - Sign removal, repairing or replacement; - Architectural design services ~or plans and specifications. - .Parking lots, including lighting, surfacing and landscaping. - Building identification; - Othe~ items that are viewed necessary to compliment exterior. Building permits. Energy Audits. Roofing. E~ergy conservation. Handicap access. 2. Exter~or-interlor Improvement Loan. ' I Upon upgrading the.exterior appearance and the correction of all health and safety code deficiencies (as recorded by City inspection) an app!.|cant.ma¥ include other'fixed interior improvements among ~is work. In addition to the eligible expenditures listed previously under the exterior.improvement.loan, the following additional.exp~ndlture$ are . Almost all fixed improvements including the repair and/or decoration of walls, ceilings', floors-, lighting, windows, doors, entrances, e'l-ectr|cal, plumbing, mechanical, alt conditioning, architectural cha'nge,:'energ¥ 'improvements, etc. - P~ofess|ona! fees in conjuncti, on with the comp]etion"of a project may be paid for reasonable engineeri, ng, architectural and other related service fees necessary-to plan, e~timate costs, etc. 3. Production Equipment Loan if the applicant has-a valid Certificate of Occupancy, loan funds may bt borrowed for the purchase of proSuctlon equipment.. The purchase of. equipment should contribute to. new job opportunities or business investment" Replacement of equipment will not be considered a~. eligible purchase unless the applicant can demonstrate |ncreas~d job opportunities resulting from.the purchase of .the equipment. Ineligible Costs The following costs are ineligible: - Refinancing of existing debts. - Non-fixed improvements. - Working capital. - Inventory. - Sweat ~quit¥ (Payment for the app)icant's own labor and performance for construction or improyements. _l~rovemehts ~omplet6d Prior to Loan Closin~ Such improvements are not eligible unless the applicant's structure requires i,m!n,~diate attention (hazardous code deficiencies, etc.), and the following steps are taken: - Applicant must fill out a loan application with the bank. - App!icant must submit a written request to the bank describing the need. - Appli'cant must receive written permission from both the. City and the hank. - Work.is performed under provisions of the Federal Davis-Bacon Act. - If the above conditions have been met, the applicant may proceed using his'own fuhds or interim financing from a bank. However, this. is done at the applicant's and/or.bank's own risk until the total scope of work has been approved by the City and the loan has been clo~ed. CONTRACTING AND CONSTRUCTION All applicants shall provi'de the bank and the City with information on Form 1 "Loan Application" detailing applicant's interest regarding rehabilitation building, giving permission for code inspection and any other requested supplements necessary to achieve the approval of the project.. A document (Scope of Work) must be submi'tted to the City and the d'etailing the work to be performed, estimated cost, specifically detailing how the code work (when interior work is part of the proposal) is to be satisfied and any other documentation necessary to achieve City approval of the project. The Scope of Work will be reviewed by the City, for inclusion of the Davis-Bacon.requirements Prior to the owner taking bids on the work. It is required that the owner obtain two written bids for the work. Contractors and all sub-contractors must comply.with all regulations of the Davis-Bacon Act. A 10% retainage will be held in escrow unt~l the -13- replacement page contractor demonstrates compliance with the Davis-Bacon requirements. The quality and progress of the work is to be monitored throughout the term of.the.c~ntract by.the loan recipient, general contractor and the City. Payment requests'.(erther partial or final) cannot be made tm the" contractor until' a written.request for payment is made and th~ loan recipient and th~ .City have accepted the eligible improvements in writing. If the contractor requests periodic draws on completed work, the draws shall be limited in amounts equal to the value of ma~erials furnished and/or se.rvices performed at..the time of request. Number. of payments will b~ limited-to three (3) including final p'ayment. All payments are subject to a' final 10~ holdback. The holdb~ck may be used to correct unsatisfactory work, or, to.defray costs to obtain a replacement contractor and/or to.complete ~he p. roject. All.work is to be covered by the normal required'permits-and approvals ~f affected agencies. ' All work must be inspected by the City Inspector to insure conformance · with code and must be'verified for proper completion by City staff td insure.c~mpliance wi'th Specl. fication~ prior to final.payment. The final inspection cannot be scheduled'until all permits taken out have been signed of~ by flel'd inspectors. All elJgibJle'improvement work performed pursuant to approved City Loan Fund loan must provid~ a 12-month warranty from the date of accepted ~ completion by the loan recipient and.the City. This warranty must cover the quality of materials used and wprkmanshi'p in performing, the work. This warranty is the responsibility of the recipient. -14- replacement page FORM'I "LOAN APPLICATION FORM" PERSONAL INFORMATION App.licant's Name. Home Address Nam&..of'Bb~iness Home Phone Business ~ddres6 Type of Business.(describe) Business Phone Number'of Years Operating at P. resent Business Address Yea rs ii. PROPERTY INFORMATION Owner of Property .(name).. Phone (Address) Does th6 Business Occupy the.Total Building? ( ) YES ( ) NO If you Answered No to the Above, What Percentage Does it O~cupy and Wl~at Occupies th~ Balan6e of Space? ~ III. REHABILITATION PROPOSED OVER AND ABOVE ALL CODE WORK Briefly describe the following work prop°sed. Exterior Interior Production Equipment Site Residential (Including No. of Units) IV. ADD ITI01~AL COMMENTS ON IMPROVEMENTS -15- Ve VI. BUILDING INSPE~TI6N (If Applicable) Building/business owner grants permission for the City InsPector Signature of Owner REMARKS: Type of Loan (Circle #) (1) EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENT (2) '(3) (4) Date EXTERIOR - INTERIOR IMPROVEMENT EXTERIOR - INTERI.OR, COMMERCIAL .,.RESIDENTIAL IMPROVEMENT EXTERIOR - INTERIOR - PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT. Use reverse side for additional information. BANK INFORMAT ION Name Loan Officer Applicant's Signature - Date RETURN TO: CITY OF MOUND c/o CITY MANAGER 5341MAYWOO0 ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536.4 -16- FORM 2 "PROGRAMGUIDELIN~S SIGN-OFF" I, the.undersigned, have r'ead and understood the documents da~es, 19 ..... , entitled "City of Mound Revolving Loan Fund Guidelines!', and accept the terms and cohditions therein. I further understand that~ any inspection made by the City of Mound. under this program is for purposes of determining the 'applicant's eligibility under this progra.m and it is not intended to represent or warrant the condition of the premises. I further understand that making application in no way insures approval of my loan or guarantees'funding. i understand that "approval" means specific, written approval from both the City and my bank. I understand any work performed'prior to specific written approval from both the -bank. and the City will be considered.inel|gible unless otherwise waived in writing by the City.and the bank according to the ~uidelines; Payments on the entire City Small. Business Revolving Loan Fund portion start 30 days from issuance of. City check to Bank. Signature Date Date FORM 3'"CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION" Amount of Participation In Indebtedness of , Debtor (Name of Debtor) (herein called "Bank") hereby (Name of Issuing Bank) certifies that the City of Mound (herein called "Participants") has a partici- pation through said participants City'Small Business Revolving Loan Fund from the date hereof in the amount of Dollars.in an indebtedness of bearing interest at the rate.df' Dollars percent per annum, owning to Bank by Debtor above.named, evidenced by Note, dated dUe (starting) and-al.] mortgage or other security therefore and all guaranty or other instrumentS, if any, given in connection' therewith. For..participating in. thiS indebtedness for'the amount'above stated, the Bank shal] pay interest to. Participants' (City of Mound) at'the rate of two percent (2~) per annum. The granting of this participation'shall not limit or affect the Bank's descretion in exercising or refraining from exercising,.without notice tO Parti- cipants, any and all rights afforded to .Bank by any promissory note evidencing the indebtedness or any security instruments and other documents relating thereto or which Bank may have as a matter of law. Bank may, at its sole discretion, with- out notice of responsibility to Participant, exercise or refrain from exercising any such right, give or withhold consents or approvals, or take or omit to take any ac. tion pursuant to said documents. with or without reductions in the loan. It may permit substitutions of security In doing any or all othe foregoln~ Bank will exercise the same cgre that it exercises in the making and handling of loans for its own account'but, it has not further liability or responsibility. .. Prior to an. event of defablt and after an event of default has been cured by ·Debtor, interest payments received by the Bank shall be paid to Partici- pant::City Lo~n Fund as set forth above and principal·payments received by the Bank will be distributed between the Bank and the City Loan Fund.pro rata· Following an event of default by Debtor, all net amounts received by the Bank in' payment either of principal-or interest on said indebtedness or any~part thereof, and all amounts received from or on account or said security or guaranty or other agreements or by right of offset or counter-claim'after deducting all expenses and costs incurred in connection with s'uch collection, including reasonable attorney's fees, will bedistributed first .to the Bank and then to the City of Mound Small. Business Revolving 'Loan Fund. Bank reserves th~ right, how- ~ver at its election to apply, in full or partial payment of this or any'qther participation, any monies received by which it might otherwise, be allocated to the payment of its own portionof the indebtedness. In doing any o~.a.ll of the foregOing, the Bank.'will exercise the same care that it exercised in the making and handling of loans, for its own account, but it has no further liability Or responsibility. In the absence of fraud·or other wrongful act'.on the part'of Bank or its officers, employees or other agents', Bank shall.~ not be liable for the genuineness, validity, sufficiency, or enforceability of any instrument evidencing the indebtedness or the security therefore. _By Issuing Bank An Authorized Official RESOLUTION NO. 83- WHEREAS, the City of Mound has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County establishing participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, Urban Hennepin County is entitled to receive $1,051,000 from the 1983 Jobs Bill Additional Community Development Block Grant Appropriation; and WHEREAS, the City has'developed a proposal for the use of 1983 Jobs Bill funds; and WHEREAS, the proposal for use of 1983 Jobs Bill funds has been developed consistent with the 1983 Jobs Bill Statement of Objectives and the Housing Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound authorizes submittal of a request for funding for the following project: "Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund" to the Urban Hennepin County Ad Hoc Citizen Advisory Committee for consideration for inclusion in their funding recommendations to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 June ] , TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE; MICROCOMPUTER Since we discussed this subject five weeks ago, we have continued our discussions with Jim Krautkremer and Logis. The results of these discussions didn't bring a greatly different recommendation than was originally given, but I think it is better thought out and we can perhaps explain it clearer. So here goes. As you all know, the City is a partner in a twenty-six city computer service bureau called Logis. Mound was one of the original, members and uses their services in three basic areas: 1. Utility Records & Billing (water & sewer) 2. City Payroll, PERA & Social Security 3. Accounts Payable and Financial Reporting The existing system seems to work well especially in light of the 1983 cost of $20,000. This is less than one employee if you add in 1983 fringe benefit costs of 32% on top of base salary. Thus the cost effectiveness of the existing Logis system versus any other readily available system is outstanding. All the computer records and information for the 26 cities are kept on a large main-frame computer, a Hewlett-Packard 3000. Thus the first question when analyzing the City's needs is to look at what needs to be done by computer that could be and isn't, and how can we further increase the already good efficiency level that Mound has in terms of cost/benefits. The areas not used, but needed seem to be: 1. Development of a special assessments/property data system 2. A financial analysis system, i.e. electronic spread sheet (Supercalc) 3. Word Processing for correspondence, City Council Minutes, Resolutions, Zoning, Building Permits, etc. These three systems have a great deal of potential and by systematic and relatively careful application will result in some real production increases, i.e.: 1. At this time all property data records are kept in files and require a manual review to check zoning, lot size, building data, special assessments, property values, taxes, owner's name and address and any special historical features, i.e. variances granted, etc. Page 2 City council Microcomputers June l, 1983~ The result is that in the course of a given day Fran, Dee, Sharon, Lois, Marge, Jan and myself look up from 50-75 properties to answer an incredible range of inquiries from real estate agents, interested owners, neighbors, City Staff and other government agencies. Although we charge for this investigation. ($10.00), it usually takes alot of time because you can never quickly give someone the information, which you could if you had it on a computer screen in front of you. I would estimate that not only will this help us identify errors more quickly (by ha~ingall the property information on one screen, at one time), but also will enable us to answer most of the basic questions within 60 seconds. Thus our efforts at productivity and service will increase. An additional point to using the Logis program on property and special assessments is that it has been in use in a number of cities for five years, thus we are tying into a proven program that works. Our ability to do any type of financial analysis is slow at best and open to error. Examples where the electronic spread sheet will be used include: A. Preparation and analysis of the annual City Budget. B. All water and sewer rate studies (remember we have 3400 separate accounts). C. Labor negotiations, where different wage and fringe benefit costs can be analyzed quickly and accurately. D. Long-range financial planning, i.e. evaluating City investment plans and options, street maintenance and repair, etc. As you can see these are pretty basic items which at this point are either done manually or not done at all. Word Processing~ ~ Fran is so bogged down at this point at being the City Manager's Secretary, City Clerk, Director of Elections, ahd Tax Forfeit Land that she has .repeatedly mentioned.the need to hire at least a half-time position (cost - at least $10,000 per year). Marge is equally bogged down just with Planning, Park and Building Permit affairs. She is always staying well after work to keep up and even then materials are often delayed or even left out. To organize much of both of their jobs, a word processor will help substantially cut down on the rote nature of them. Between the two, I would expect that they will use the word processor at least 20 hours per week (an equivalent of a half-time position). I hope this background explanation is adequate to understand the initial areas we would like to start into with an expanded microcomputer system. Page 3 City Counci] Microcomputers dune 1, 1983 First, I think, unless we want to start up a completely new computer/data processing system, (heaven forbid), we need a microcomputer system than Can both operate by itself and be linked to Logis. The next question is, who can do that? Only two microcomputers, out of the hundreds on the market, can do this at this time. For reasons no one can explain, the various microcomputer companies have not designed their units to be compatible with the HP main-frame equipment. IBM yes, HP no. That leaves us with an HP-125 or a Direct 1025. Both of these units are widely used, so they are not inferior products. It is just that they run between $500-$1000 more than some microcomputers that could basically do the job. The Direct 1025 microcomputer costs $3,358.00, and the reason they say is because they' have had to do alot of specialized programming to get it to tie into the HP equipment (screen type format). The HP. unit costs about $4,190.00, so you can see that Direct could carve out quite a notch for themselves by being the only company outsi'de of HP that can link into HP equipment. In 1983 Direct has sold 15 microcomputers to Logis cities alone. The Direct can serve, when linked to Logis, as a terminial'(when not being used as a separate microcomputer/word processor). Thus data can be i'nter- changed and used between ourselves and Logis. The Direct Software includes the Supercalc (electronic spread sheet) package and the word processing package (Wordstar). Although this isn't going to be as complete as a fully dedicated word processor, the cost of $3,358.00 vs. $11,000.00, at this point, is surely attractive and a cost effective place to start. The organization plan for the new equipment would be as follows: 1. Lois would get the existing terminal for use in Water & Sewer billing and recall of information for citizen inquiries (about 30 per day). 2. Dee would get a new terminal that she would use for property data and special assessments. 3. The new microcomputer would be set up in a central location so that both the word processing and financial analysis could be used by Fran, Gayle, Judy, Marge and Sharon. As we see how this basic system operates, we can add additional terminals at Fran's deck and Sharon's. But for now that is in the future. We have researched only two basic programs that we would immedi'atel¥ begin using (Wordstar and Supercalc), but many others are available and the Direct machine is .CPU based, meaning we can buy other programs specifically just for Mound. Page 4 City council Microcomputers June l, 1983' When Sharon tells me that is a low-key approach, I have got to believe it, since she is a pretty low-risk decision maker. Clearly, Mound would be getting a microcomputer sooner or later and with the 15% discount probably sooner is better and cheaper. I hop~this anaylsis is complete and objective and that you agree with me that we should probably now move ahead. Jim Krautkremer also agrees that this proposal is the best for Mound at this point. JE:fc COST BREAKDOWN MICROCOMPUTER Direct 1025 Console & Dual Disk Direct 825 Terminal Software Packages Keyboa rd Drive $3,358.00 1,607.00 45O.OO I ! $5,415.OO Multiplexer $4,400.00 Xerox High Quality Printer $2,395.0O MEMBER National Water Well Association Minnesota Water Well Association Stevens WELL DRILLING CO., Inc. May 24, 1983 PHONES Office 479-2591 Maple Plain 479-2250 Deleno 972-3430 Buffalo 682-2851 City of Mound Mound, MN Re: Well Pump No. 3 Gentlemen, We propose the following: Replace packing box bushing and gasket. Clean and paint base Replace - 14 - 8" x 10' T & C column pipe 1 - 8" x 5' T & C column pipe 1 - 8" x 5' TBE column pipe 1 - 8" x 10' tailpipe Clean bearing retainers. Change 15 rubber lineshaft bearings. Clean and straighten shafting. Metalize headsbsft. Replace bronze and rubber bowl bearings. Assemble, clean and paint bowl assembly. Install pump in well and place in operation. Total Price .... $7,150.00 The motor repairs are not yet determined but the billing price would be cost plus 20%. Thank you for this opportunity. Tom Stevens TS:gg WATER WELLS DEEP WELL TURBINE & SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS EMERGENCY WELL & PUMP SERVICE TEST DRILLING FOUNDATION CAISSON DRILLING WATER WORKS EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE,SOTA ,~T. PAUL, MINNESOTA 854-5333 854-5334 May 25, 1983 City.of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attn: Mr. Greg Skinner Re: Repairs to your deep well turbine pump #3 Gentlemen: In accordance with your telephone request, we are pleased to confirm our verbal quotation. Our proposal consists of the following parts, shop labor, manpower and equipment to reinstall the unit. Bid items include: 1 - Packing box bushing Gaskets Clean and paint base 14 - 8" x 10' column, T&C 1 - 8" x 5' column, T&C 1 - 8" x 5'. column, TBE 15 - Line shaft bearings Clean retainers ~Clean and straighten shafts Metalize head shaft Bowl bearings Assemble, clean and paint bolts Install pump Your net cost of the above listed work and parts $7,765.00. COMPLETE MACHINE SHOP FACILITIES PARTS AND SERVICE. FOR YOUR PUMPING EQUIPMENT City of Mound May 25, 1983 Page 2 As we discussed, the above includes picking pump up at Stevens Well Company, however, does not include any motor repair or related work to the motor repair. We trust the foregoing is the information required, however, should there be any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Mc C~T H Y. WE~ COMP AN Y HB:pb DATE: INDIVIDUAL: TYPE OF LICENSE: PURPOSE: June 9, 1983 Diane J? Froslan Transient Merchant's License For sale of children's clothing at the Mound Legion Hall Authorized by: ~man Licensing Department Police Department Approval: Bruce Wold Chief of Police cc: City Manager McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE[RS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 3une 2, 1983 City of Hound 5341Haywood Road Hound, HN 55364 Subject: City of HounO Hound Bay Park Improvements File #6564 Gentlemen: Enclosed is Perkins Landscape's Payment Request No. 4 for work completed through Hay 31, 1983 on the subject project. The amount of this payment re- quest is $5,338.80. We have reviewed this request and find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OC:sj Enclosure CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 04 ~S64 .~ CITY OF MOUND MOUND BAY F'ARK IMPROVEMENTS PAGE O1 ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-$~NUTSON CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE 18800 IND PK. BLVD 5S31 EDEN PRAIR PLYMOUTH, MN S5441 MINNETONKA, 5~43 DATE: 05/31/83 -- CONIP~ClOR PAY ESTIMATE ~UMMARY -- THIS PERIOD TO DATE WORK COMPLEIED MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVMENTS 5,B87,00 30,GSO.G8 MATERIALS ON SITE MOUND 8AY PARK I~PROVMENTS -367.81 0.00 ADJUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 5% PREVIOUS, 5,619.78 30,658.68 CURRENT 880.98 1,~.~ TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR W~RK COMPLETED TO DATE LESS P~EViOUS PAYMENTS 5,338.79 E9,180.04 -0. O0 83,781.84 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 5,~8.80 5,338.80 -- SUNMARY OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS ESTIMATE NO. DATE AMOUNT TOTAL 1 11/30/88 11,101.41 11,101.41 8 01/10/~ 10,958.43 88,059.84 3 08/08/83 1,781.40 83,781.84 ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-~UTSON PERKINS LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 04 CITY OF MOUND MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVMENTS PAGE O2 ENGINEER: MCCOMSS-KNUi~N CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE 18800' IND PK. BLVD 5531 EDEN PRAIR RD PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 MINNETONKA, 5S343 DATE: 05/31/83 -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR WORK COMPLETED TD DATE -- ITEM ITEH CONTRACT UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1 TOT LOT ~ 1.0 EA 7,B8S.00 0.1 8 GRADING 1.0 EA 1,985.00 0.~ 3 BEACH SAND 1,058.0 TON 6.70 0.0 4 TOPSOIL 880.0 C.Y 5.10 0.0 5 PERENNIAL BORDER 1.0 EA 1,875.00 0.0 G SEEDING 0.0 ACR 0.00 0.0 7 WATER FOUNTAIN 1.0 EA 1,~c'0.00 - 0.0 8 AUTUMN PURPLE ASH 80.0 EA 12.3.00 0.0 9 PAPER BIgCIl (3 CLUSTER) 3.0 EA 180.00 3.0 10 PAPER BIRCH 8.0 EA 98.00 8.0 11 SILVER MAPLE 1G.O EA 90.00 0.0 18 NIOBE WEEPING WILLOW 4.0 EA 138.00 0.0 13 ROYALTY CRAB 10.0 EA 121.00 I0.0 14 SERVICEP_,ERRY 9.0 EA 140.00 0.0 ~ PAGODA DOGWOOD 6.0 EA 130.00 6.0 16 DWARF AMUR MAPLE 31.0 EA 81.00 31.0 17 DWARF EUONYMUS 83.0 EA 81.00 81.0 18 CULTURED SOD 9,000.0 SY 0.95 0.0 .... THIS PERIOD ...... AMOUNT 798.50 968.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .-:60. O0 784, O0 0.00 0.00 1,810. O0 0.00 7BO. O0 651. O0 441.00 O. O0 ...... TO DATE (tUANTITY 1.0 1.0 1,058.4 736.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 P0.0 3.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 10.0 9.0 6.0 31.0 81.0 0.0 AMOUNT 7,985. O0 1, 9P5. O0 7, OSI. OB 3,753.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,460. O0 360. O0 784. O0 1,440.00 558.00 1,810.00 1,860, O0 780. O0 651. ' 441. b,, 0.00 TOTAL MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVMENTS 5,987.00 30,6.58.68 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 04 GE~G4 CITY OF MOU~D MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS. ] ~" MOUND BAY PARK IMF'ROVHENTS PAGE 03 :NEEE: MccOMBs-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE 18800 IND PR. BLVD 5S31 EDEN PRAIR RD PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 MINNETONKA, 5c-~43 DATE: 0S/31./83 -- PAYHENT SUMMARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEH ITEM CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE '. UNITS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE EA TOTAL ITEM VALUE 367.21- INVOICE PRICE 3,678.18 'TO DATE UNITS ON SITE 0.0 TOTAL ITEM VALUE 0.00 TOTAL HOUND BAY PARK IMPRDVHENTS -36 ?. 81 0.00 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHAT£ NO. 04 · ~ CITY OF MOUND MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS MOUND BAY PARK IMPRDVMENTS : PAGE O4 ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-f(NUT~N CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE 12800 IND PI<. BLVD 5531 EDEN PRAIR RD PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 MINNETONKA, 55343 DATE :' 05/31/~ -- SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 01 05/31/83 4,753.4 0 ITEM ITEM ' .PREVIOUS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 3 BEACH SAND 1,350.00 TON 6.70 6 SEEDING . 8.00 ACR BO0. O0 iB CULIURED BOO' 0.00 SY -' 0.00 CHANGED AMOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE-' DEDUCTED 1,058.00 TON 6.70 -1,B86.60 0,00 ACR 0.00 -1,BO0. O0 B,000.00 SY 0.95 PREVIOUS CONTRACI PRICE 37,648.00 + CHANGE 4,753.40 : REVISED CONTEACI' AMOUNT AMOUNT ADDED 8,550.00 48,401.40 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 37,648.00 + CHANGE 4,753.40 : REVISED CONIRACT AMOUNT 48,401.40 BILLS ..... JUNE 7, 1983 Budget Plumbing Robert Byrnes Boy Scouts of Amer Fran Clark Con~issioner of Revenue Dick & Joe's Auto Body Director of Property Taxa Dept of Property Tax Jon Elam Doug Fetter Griggs, Cooper Georgia Tech Johnson Bros. Liquor League of MN Cities Motor Vehicle Mfg Assn MN Park Supervis. Assn Mound Postmaster Old.Peoria Ed Phillips Nan Pollach Real One Acquisition State Treasurer State Bank of Mound Howard Simar Robin Schiel Roger Stark Michael Vargo Tom Watson Werner Weisser Xerox Air Comm Earl F Andersen Abdo, Abdo & Eick Acro Minnesota Badger Meter Ben Franklin Bertelson Bros. Holly Bostrom BUrlington Northern Butchs Bar Supply Business Furniture Bowman Distribution Capitol Electronics Coca Cola Bottling Gary Cayo City Club Distrib Chemlawn Dependable Services Day Distrib East Side Beverage Jon Elam Schoell & Madson R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc 10.00 17.08. 1,100.O0 4OO.OO 5,039.84 391.11 28,787.37 113.oo 4oo.oo 32.50 4,606.8o 225.00 . 5,877.37 17o.00 10.00 21.0o 102.0o 930.80 2,826.27 65.oo 853.41 9.50 5,ooo.oo 4oo.oo 32.50 3o.00 6o.oo 105.00 12.00 967.08 96.00 143.26 4,700.00 321.33 2,713.38 90.20 14.95 344.76 533.33 208.90 349.56 178.39 36.00 286.30 19.79 3,943.79 1,498.00 33.00 4,263.77 4,773.23 30.50 56o.00 23,382.00 Westonka Sports Center 159. Westonka Comminity Service 9,068.58 Flexible Pipe Tool 24.31 Farmers Steel Co. 96.39 Gold Medal Beverage 168.00 Henn Co. Treas 1,596.00 Hecksel Machine Shop 15.80 Shirley Hawks 2.90 Wm Hudson 15.00 Robert Johnson 30.80 Internal Revenue 54.00 Kromer Co. 7.30 Kool Kube Ice 354.30 Herman Kraft 23.81 Litfin Trucking 225.00 Lowel 1 ' s 103.57 Long Lake Ford Tractor 41.97 Sharon Legg 35.91 City of Minnetrista 276.00 Mound Medical Clinic 26.00 Mound Super Valu 43.44 Munitech, Inc. 27.60 Midwest Paint Mfg 1,990.11 Mack Trucks, Inc. 1,695.90 City of Mound 27.40 Metro Fone 23.60 Maple Plain Diesel 23.20 N.S.P. 5,233.76 New England Camp Supply 595.90 A.J. Ogle 1,566.O5 pepsi Cola/7 Up 255.00 Pogreba Distrib 4,307.75 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00 Precision Striping 1,486.OO Perkins Landscape 5,338.80 Brad Roy 12.50 Regal Window Clean 10.75 Real One Acquisition 675.00 Suburban Community Services 831.75 SOS Printing 68.30 Sterling Elec Co. 134.29 Mike Sullivan Painting 5,487.48 Standard Spring 168.45 Twin City Home Juice 97.62 Thrifty Snyder Drug 39.56 Thurk Bros. Chev 25.90 Tri State Drilling 513.98 Thorpe Distrib 5,032.90 Toll Co. 2.03 V & R Heating 189.37 Waconia Ridgeview 6.88 Westonka Sanitation 165.00 Bruce Wold 67.75 TOTAL BILLS 155,610.58 I .o? mpulse ConCepts, inc. May 25, 1983 Mr. Jon Elam Mound City Offices 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jon: On behalf of all the residents living on Avocet Lane and Bluebird, a huge "thanks" to your office, the Park Board Commission, City Councils and the men who put the steps in at the end of our lanes. We're all quite proud of our commons area and do our best to keep it nice (mowing, raking, trash hauling, etc.). The steps are solidly constructed, aesthetic in appearance, and we consider them to be the "final touch" to our area. Once again, Jon, appreciated ! thanks to all. The steps are certainly Sincerely, Geo'ff ~chael GM/lmb 7711 Country Club Drive · Minneapolis, MN 55427 · Phone 612-545-5060 INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H. Cochren, Pres. · Albert L, Lehmen · John E. Thomas · Barbara R. Gudmundson · Michael B. Cerroll TO: DATE: SUBJECT: LAKE MINNETONKA MEMORANDUM All Municipalities and Goverrf~ental Agencies within Minnehaha Creek Watershed District May 18, 1983 Laws of Minnesota for 1982, Chapter 509 WATERSHED BOUNDARY / OTA RIVER Recently enacted legislation mandates planning of surface water management on a watershed basis throughout the seven, county metropolitan area. The Laws of Minnesota, Chapter 509 require existing "Watershed Management Organ~-ations" to prepare a watershed management plan by Dec~uber 31, 1985. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers has taken steps to initiate the process necessary to amend its plan into conformance with the 1982 laws. A work schedule for the calendar year 1983 has been adopted by the District. The .objectives for 1983 are:. Establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee to assist and advise the District during preparation of its watershed management plan. Collect all existing data pertinent to the task of reviewing policies and objectives for surface water management in the District. C. Review/amendment of the District's jurisdictional boundary. The Board of Managers believes the implications of the mandated planning requirements greatly affect all municipalities within the Minnehaha Cre~ Watershed District,- For this reason, i interactive cc~munication between the District and local communities is critically important at the outset of the planning process to assure a practical and workable final product. The Board of Managers requests that a representative and an alternate representative be designated by each municipality within the District to serve on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to advise and assist the Board. Committee members will be asked to assist District staff in the collection of existing information on land use, zoning, drainage, water systems, sewers, population distribution, codes and ordinances, planned capital improvements and funding, local policies and local criteria. In addition, the TAC will review and cc~nment on any proposed rule and management policy amendments and will advise the District concerning development of any model ordinances. It is anticipated that the committee will meet on at least three (3) occasions during the r~nainder of 1983. The Board of Managers anticipates a cooperative effort to achieve this plannirg task for the mutual benefit of all concerned. It is requested that the name, address and working telephone number of each individual assigned to serve on the advisory c~nmittee be forwarded to Michael Panzer, District Engineer, E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391, telephone number 473-4224, prior to June 20, 1983. You are invited to contact any of the Managers or District staff to discuss this matter in more detail or to answer any questions you may have. Sincerely, David H. Cod%ran, President Minnehaha Creek Watershed District bt INNEHAHA WATERSHED CREEK DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 BOARD OF ~NAGERS: David H. Cochran, Pres. * Albert L. Lehman * James $. Russell , John E. Thomas · Barbara Oudmundaon LAKE MINNETONK~ WATERSHED BOUNDARY / ,OTA R~vER MEETING NOTICE A special meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be held on Thursday, June 9, 1983, 7:30 p.m., at the Wayzata City Hall, for the purpose of having a work session to continue the process of water management planning mandated by Chapter 509. 0138o MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT April 21, 1983 The regular meeting of April 21, 1983, of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was called to order by Chairman Cochran at 7:30 p.m. at the Wayzata City Hall, Wayzata. Managers Present: Cochran, Lehman, Thomas, Carroll and Andre Also present were board advisors Panzer, Reep and Peterson. Oath of Office/Camille D. Andre Chairman Cochran noted that Camille D. Andre of the City of Minnetonka had been appointed to the Board of Managers by the Board of Commissioners of Hennepin County and was present. Chairman Cochran called on the attorney to administer the oath of office to Mr. Andre as required by law. The attorney administered the oath of office which was executed by Mr. Andre, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. The Board welcomed Mr. Andre to the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Approval of Minutes The minutes of the special meeting of March 10, 1983, were reviewed. It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the minutes be approved as published. Upon vote the motion carried. The managers reviewed the minutes of the regular meeting of March 17, 1983. The managers discussed a clarification of the language regarding the draft permit fee schedule and determined that to clarify their intent, a comma should be added after the word "costs" in the fifth line of page 6 with the addition of the word "costs" after the word "which" in the same line. It was then moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, that the minutes be approved as corrected. Upon vote the motion carried. Approval of Permit Application The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated April 14, 1983, indicating that the following application complied with all applicable standards of the District and recommending approval on the terms and conditions as set forth in that memorandum: April 21, 1983 Page 2 John Wagman - 124 lineal feet of rip-rap shoreline erosion protection, Lost Lake Channel, Lake Minnetonka, Mound. 83ml.2'- It was moved by Lehman, seconded by Thomas, that the application be approved subject to all. of terms and conditions recommended by the engineer. Upon vote the motion carried. Tablinq of Permit Applications The memorandum from the engineer dated April 14, 1983, also indicated that the following applications should be tabled without discussion.until such time as all required exhibits have been received: Robert Schmitt - dredging for navigational access, Excelsior Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Excelsior. 83-08 David J. Logelin - dredging, steel sheet pile retaining wall, Harrison Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Mound. 83-09 It was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, ~hat ~he foregoing applications be tabled pending receipt of required exhibits. Irwin Mandel Development Corp. - grading and drainage plan for a high density residential apartment building, County Rd. 19 and Glen Rd., Shorewood. 83-11 Appearing on behalf of the applicant were Mark Gronberg and Bill Lines. Also appearing as interested parties were Robert Gagne and James Borchart. The District's engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for the construction of a 15 unit apartment building on a 2.8 acre site near the intersection of County Rd. 19 and Glen Rd. in the City of Shorewood. There is approximately two acres on the site that are below the known high water level. Property upstream presently drains into this area through a 12 inch PVC culvert under'County Rd. 19. The applicant is proposing to place some fill in the lower area, but will provide compensatory excavation as part of the project. The applicant proposes to collect runoff in a detention facility and discharge through a surface skimming device to the existing low area. It was noted that historically this had been a problem area. As a result, the county installed the PVC pipe in 1980. Two additional developments are proposed for this general area and the City of Shorewood would like to see one storm drainage facility to handle all of the development but believes that a storm sewer would be too costly. Manager Thomas expressed his concern about the effect of the other development on the area. The engineer April 21, 1983 Page 3 noted that this development will have no effect on the rate, volume, or quality of the runoff to Lake Minnetonka and that the project, as proposed, me, ets~all of the District's requirements. Mr. Borchart indicated that .he was a neighboring property owner and expressed his opinion that if the applicant is allowed to fill, then his entire property will flood. He stated that nothing could be allowed to stop the present flow of water. The managers felt that the City of Shorewood should be informed of the engineer's recommendation for approval and that he had determined that there would be no effect on the rate, volume, or quality of water. The managers discussed further what the City's intention was for managing stormwater in the entire area. The applicants noted that it was more expensive for them to install the holding pond than to pay its portion of a storm sewer. They in fact would prefer a storm sewer. Manager Cochran noted that it would be better for water quality to keep the marsh in its existing state rather than to excavate. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas, that the application be deferred until the staff could bring back to the managers a report as to the City's intentions for managing stormwater in this area. The managers expressed their desire to have this report at the next meeting, if possible. Upon vote the motion carried, with Manager Carroll abstaining. Thomas DiRocco Development ~ grading and drainage plan for the "Harborage," a nine town home, planned unit development, Smithtown Bay, Lake Minnetonka, Victoria. 83-13 Appearing on behalf of the applicant were Linda Fisher and Gerald Sunde. Also appearing was Pierce Thompson, an interested citizen. The District's engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for a nine unit town home development on approximately 3.4 acres. This site has approximately 680 lineal feet of shoreline along Smithtown Bay and the Lake Virginia Channel. The site presently has 1.11 acre feet of flood storage capacity. The applicant proposed to dike off a low area to slow the rate of stormwater runoff. Runoff would then be discharged through a skimming mechanism and ultimately to Lake Minnetonka. The applicant proposes to fill a portion of the flood storage area for development but will undertake compensatory excavation so that upon completion of site grading, 1.11 acre feet of flood storage capacity will be available. The present peak discharge rate of 19.4 cfs will be reduced to 12.6 cfs as a result of the project. In addition, the stormwater management facility will provide water quality treatment for off-site areas not now treated. Concept approval from the City had been given. Manager Thomas inquired about the soils on the site. Ms. Fisher responded that a soils engineer had reviewed the site and April 21, 1983 Page 4 determined.that it was buildable with some special foundation requirements but.no pilings. Manager Thomas expressed his concern that the propo~d development will exacerbate existing problems. He noted that the'District's own reports have found that the water quality of Smithtown Bay and Lake Virginia is poor. He was concerned about any additional oil, grease, or salt adding to the existing water quality problems. He also noted that he understood that another major development next door would be undertaken if this project was approved. The cumulative effect of both projects would have a negative impact on the lake. He expressed concern over the impact on the lake of additional fertilizer from the area. Ms. Fisher responded that there were adjacent areas which presently had no treatment which would now be serviced by the proposed project. ~In addition, the applicant is preserving the shoreline with a conservation easement and is using state-of-the-art techniques for water quality. She noted that the project was consistent with the District's regulations and that any future development could be required to also comply with those regulations. Manager Thomas noted that the applicant had done an excellent job to meet water quality problems, but expressed his opinion that in a fragile area, any addition would be a step in the wrong direction. Mr. Thompson stated his concern was about the increased density, especially with another development on the adjacent piece of property. Manager Cochran responded that the Watershed District only addresses density with respect to changes in runoff rate and water quality. Ms. Fisher noted that if the three acres were developed into three single family lots, the impact would be pretty much the same as the proposed development. Manager Cochran inquired about provision for protectiOn of erosion along the Lake Virginia Channel. He suggested sodding since something natural was preferable to assure no additional erosion. Ms. Fisher responded that the applicant will be keeping that area natural and will be executing a conservation easement. There will be no paths along the shoreline. Manager Thomas stated that he had asked Carver County for its projections for the area and that those projections showed no plans for development other than single family homes. Manager Cochran stated that this was an issue not within the District's jurisdiction. Manager Thomas indicated that it could be a problem because the sewers would have been developed for low density. Ms. Fisher responded that she had received correspondence from the Metropolitan Council stating that the sewer capacity was adequate and that the development was consistent with local development plans. Manager Thomas stated that the soil survey for the area showed the entire site as marsh. Ms. Fisher responded that the site April 21, 1983 Page 5 did not consist of wetlands regulated by the DNR and no DNR permit was required. There are some low areas, but the soil conditions can be managed.<,";- The District's engineer stated that the development will increase nutrients but will also increase assimilation capacity and detention time in the lowland area. -He stated that there would be a structure to skim floatables that is designed with a very low likelihood of the pipe becoming plugged. If the structure clogs, there is emergency overflow over the property to the channel. The pond will be planted with some type of vegetation and there will be less siltation than now because of the sedimentation basin. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Carroll, that the staff prepare a resolution to deny the permit with appropriate findings. Upon questioning from the managers, Mr. Panzer stated that he knew of no technical grounds on which to base the denial. Ms. Peterson stated that it was her understanding that the project met all of the District's rules and that there was no legal basis for denial. Manager Carroll inquired about the matter of nutrients, with Mr. Panzer responding that he was satisfied with their management since off-site drainage would now also be handled. Manager Andre stated that he felt the need for more input from the City about development of the area in total. The question was called, and upon vote the motion failed with one in favor, three opposed, and Manager Andre abstaining. It was then moved by Lehman, seconded by Andre, to approve the permit as presented. Manager Carroll asked if there was any benefit in waiting to discuss this further with the City. Manager Thomas stated that it was his belief that the managers needed to look at the total development. Manager Lehman stated that this was really a land use issue and that if the property was developed as' single family, there would be the same impact without the District ever reviewing it and the detention facility would not be constructed. Manager Andre stated his belief that he would like further information about what the City was planning for stormwater management in this area. The question was called, and upon vote the motion failed with one in favor and four opposed. It was then moved by Carroll, seconded by Thomas, that the application be tabled pending further discussion with the City regarding stormwater management in the area. Upon vote the motion carried. The managers clarified that they were seeking input from the City only on stormwater issues and not on the question of land use. APril 21, 1983 Page 6 High Water Levels - Edina AppeakCng before the managers were numerous citizens expressing their concern about the high creek levels in the City of Edina. This matter had been placed on the agenda at the request of Mrs. Margaret Francis and Mrs. Elizabeth Anfinson. The correspondents had requested the District to review further its management policy regarding the Headwaters'Control Structure. Mr. Panzer reviewed the nature of the problem indicating that upstream from Highway 100 on the north side of the creek there were a number of homes having problems, some or all of which were in the floodplain. He noted that there have been particularly high water levels on Lake Minnetonka since the last part of March and especially since the beginning of April. This was due to high precipitation after completion of drawing down the lake level at the beginning of the 1982 winter. The lake level in November was 928.6 but had increased to 929.2 at the beginning of January. A second reason for the high lake level was the early snow melt at a time when the District was unable to lower the lake level because of the ice problems downstream. A third reason was the higher than normal precipitation in March and April. He noted that the present level of the lake was 930.11 and that the lake had peaked at 930.13, coming down slightly in the last few days. Mr. Panzer stated that significant discharge from the lake was not possible until mid-March due to channel ice constrictions at which time the discharge was increased from 50 cfs to 100 cfs. On April 1 the discharge was increased to 200 cfs which is the historical maximum channel capacity. He stated that he had advised the managers and the cities prior to adjusting the discharge and had also contacted the DNR. Nothing greater than 200 cfs had been gauged. Mr. Panzer stated that with the old control structure, the flow rate would have exceeded 300 cfs. Therefore, the.present control was restrictive, and the downstream water levels were lower than they would have been with the old structure. He indicated that he received many complaints from lake and creek property owners which had focused on the operation of the control structure. He stated his opinion that this was not the cause of the problem. Discharges from the lake in years prior to 1979 frequently exceeded the present discharge. With the old control structure, discharge would have occurred throughout last winter, thus aggravating channel ice conditions in the spring. Mr. Panzer stated that conditions .on the creek could have been substantially worse this year had the new control not been operational. He stated his belief that flooding on the creek and lake had been reduced to the maximum practical extent. He stated he had been in touch with the cities and was aware of no structural flooding. There are two areas where building flooding is a concern: The area involving the Francis and Anfinson April 21, 1983 Page 7 property and the area at Flagg Avenue and Decatur Lane in St. Louis Park. The city staffs have been asked to monitor the flooding situation dailY~and report to the District staff. Mr. Panzer stated that the discharge rate must continue at the present rate just to match the inflow into the lake. If the discharge rate was lower, the lake level would continue to rise and the discharge over the top of the control structure would then increase beyond the present rate. Regarding the Francis property, he noted that the house had been built in 1947 or 1948 and that the City of Edina did not adopt a floodplain ordinace until 1973. The house is located within the floodplain. He stated that the damage referenced in Mrs. Francis' letter was not the result-of the District's operation of the control structure, and high water would have occurred this year even if the previous structure was in place. Manager Cochran inquired as to whether the Mill Pond Dam downstream from their properties was causing water to back-up onto those properties. It was also questioned whether the Cascade, an old well structure, could be a partial cause. It was also questioned whether the Highway 100 bridge could be restrictive of flow. Mr. Panzer stated that Mrs. Francis' letter had requested the managers to construct a berm in order to flood-proof her property. He noted that the City ordinances would require the berm to be one foot above flood elevation so that the berm would have to be four or five feet high. This would require a means to drain the area behind the berm into the creek, such as a lift station. Dr. Gary Francis, 4609 Cascade Lane, addressed the managers and expressed his concern about the flooding of their property. He requested that the District consider a compromise of more dredging on the creek and the installation of a berm. He stated that their basement is currently being flooded and that the water is coming through the cracks in the floor rather than flowing over the ground. Mrs. Elizabeth Anfinson also addressed the managers and stated that water had been on her property since April 2, 1983. It is ruining her lawn and she is worried about the eventual impact on the house foundation. She noted that when the Highway 100 bridge was installed, this created quite a bit of water backing up to her property. She also stated that the creek had not been dredged for quite some time and that the Cascade is causing some obstruction to the creek. She expressed her belief that dredging should be done. Mr. Panzer stated that according to available data, dredging would have a miniscule impact on water levels of the creek. He stated that the best information they had on the creek profile was the FIA flood study done in 1979 and that this data could be inaccurate in isolated areas. Based on some of the April 21, 1983 Page 8 comments from the audience as to the nature of the flooding and flow, Mr. Panzer stated that he questioned the accuracy of the ereekbed pr.q£i~l~ in the vicinity o£ Highway 100. Members o£ the audience suggested a solution through a combination of addressing three items: (1) the Cascade; (2) additional dredging; and (3) the bridge obstruction. Mr..Panzer stated that it would be necessary to take field measurements in order to determine exactly where headloss is occurring in the area. Manager Lehman stated that the engineer should get the bridge plans and the as-built drawings of the bridge. One member of the audience noted that the Highway Department had dumped quite a bit of material into the creek when rebuilding the bridge. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Lehman, that the engineer be directed to contact the Minnesota Department of Transportation to obtain the bridge plans and as-built drawings, to contact the cities for additional information, and to make field measurements of the creek in an effort to determine what is causing the problem and potential solutions. Manager Carroll asked about District participation in financing any solutions. Manager Cochran responded that it has been the District's position that for actual construction in the floodplain, the ciEy and the propert~ owner would be responsible. If there are physical flow obstructions under the District's jurisdiction, then the District should take action. Manager Carroll expressed his opinion that the District should spend some time and effort to find out what the problem is and that the District would be willing to finance some alternatives but not all those being considered. One member of the audience indicated that she had been in contact with a hydrologist who had suggested that the District should look at the Management Policy of the Headwaters Control Structure. Manager Carroll requested that the individual have the hydrologist place that in writing and direct it to the District for its review. Following extended discussion, the question was called, and upon~vote the motion carried. Creek Flows - Minnetonka Jim Zilverberg, 14852 Timberhill, Minnetonka, also addressed the board of managers stating his opinion that the District should retain more water in the wetlands immediately downstream from the control structure and before 1-494. He felt this would be important for wildlife and fire protection. Additionally, the more water that could be held in that area, the longer it could be released to provide creek flow throughout the summer. Manager Cochran stated that the managers agreed in concept with Mr. Zilverberg and were attempting to address this issue. I t17 April 21, 1983 Page 9 Design Management Construction Co., Inc. - grading and drainage for 816 Wayzata Associates Office Building, Wayzata Boulevard at Broadway, W~yzata. 83-10 The District's engineer reviewed this application for approval of a grading and drainage plan for redevelopment of an existing commercial/residential site along Wayzata Boulevard in the City of Wayzata. The existing site has a peak 100 year discharge of 3.4 cfs for stormwater runoff. The applicant proposes to provide ponding on the building rooftop with two six-inch roof drains to connect to the existing storm sewer along Wayzata Boulevard. The proposal will reduce the peak discharge to 2.6 cfs. A sand and rock infiltration bed will be provided to collect and hold s~ormwater runoff from the parking area at the building entrance for a one-year storm event. For the below grade parking levels, interior drains will discharge directly to the sanitary sewer system. Following discussion, it was moved by Thomas, seconded by Carroll, that the application be approved subject to the engineer's recommendations. Upon vote the motion carried. Treasurer's Report Manager Carroll distributed the monthly Treasurer's report, a copy of which is attached and made a part of these minutes. Following discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas, that the report be accepted and the bills noted therein be paid. Upon vote the motion carried. Water Maintenance and Repair Fund The managers reviewed a memorandum from the engineer dated March 24, 1983, which summarized potential projects, including estimated costs, to be funded by the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund. Each project was reviewed in turn. Regarding tree removal, the managers directed the staff to have trees removed if they are canoeing hazards and if complaints are received. No prior approval from the managers would be needed. The engineer reported that they would be attempting to utilize the services of the Tree Trust for these services. This organization would provide workers at no cost to the District and is funded through federal subsidies. After discussion, it was moved by Andre, seconded by Thomas, that the following projects be approved for funding from the Water Maintenance and Repair Fund: April 21, 1983 Page 10 Project Culvert Repair "on Ingerson Road - City of Independence Total Project Costs $6,200 District Allocation 50%-$3,100 Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements at West 44th Street Edina (CP-7) $3,50O 100%-$3,500 Minnehaha Creek Dredging, Excelsior Boulevard to Meadowbrook Lake Modification and Repair of Creekside Improvements $20,450 $16,000 100%-$20,450 100%-$16,000 Upon vote the motion carried. Painter Creek Improvement Project The engineer indicated that the final report on the project would be finalized the first week in May for review at the District's May meeting. At that time, the managers would be requested to schedule a hearing to review the report. Carver County Solid Waste Landfill Sitinq In response to a prior request, the engineer distributed a memorandum to the board of managers summarizing information on the solid waste landfill siting project underway in Carver County. The memorandum was for information only, and no action was required by the managers. The managers placed the report on file. Draft Permit Fee Schedule Ms. Peterson reported that she and Mr. Panzer had made revisions to the fee schedule in accordance with the managers' direction at the last meeting. However, the staff was at that time recommending that further work on the item be deferred until an overall review of the rules was undertaken. Some of the changes to the fee schedule would not be consistent with the remainder of the Distrist's existing rules and certain requirements in the other rules will need amendment to be consistent. The managers accepted this recommendation, noting that a general rev,ision to the rules April 21, 1983 Page 11 would be taking place in the Chapter 509 Watershed Management Planning. Election of Officers With the appointment of Manager Andre to the board, it was noted that the position of Secretary was presently vacant. Noting that Manager Thomas had previously served in that capacity, Manager Carroll moved, seconded by Manager Andre, that Manager Thomas be elected Secretary of the board. Upon vote the motion carried. Commendation for Barbara R. Gudmundson Chairman Cochran stated that the Board wished to express its sincere and deep appreciation for the years of service Barbara R. Gudmundson had given to the board as a manager, to express its appreciation for the countless hours she had spent on Watershed District matters to the benefit of all residents of the District and to express its.deepest thanks to her for her years of public service as a manager of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the regular meeting, Chairman Cochran declared the meeting adjourned at 12.02 a.m. John E. Thomas, Secretary 00890 Independent School District No. 277 WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 5600 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 SCHOOL BOARD MINUTES SPECIAL/ELECTION M~ETING TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1983 ATTENDANCE - LOCATION ELECTION RESULTS The special/election meeting of the school board was called to order at 9:40 p.m. in the Lecture Hall of the Westonka Community Center. In attendance were: School Board Members: Chelberg, Goblirsch, Haefele, Mayer, Peliett, Pitsch and Tuttle; Assistant Super- intendent Brandenburg; staff, press and members of the community. Election judge Lemuel Sprow presented the official results to Chairman Mayer. Chelberg moved, and Tuttle seconded: "RESOLVED by the School Board of Ind. School District No. 277 of Hennepin County, MN, that the annual election held in this district on this date--May 17, 1983--was in all respects duly called, noticed, and conducted, and returns thereof have been duly made to the board, and this board has Canvassed the votes and hereby finds and declares that at said election of two members of the school board for the term of three years each, the following per- sons have been duly proposed as candidates for said offices by applications filed by them or in their behalf, and the votes was as follows: VOTE JAMES C. BERG 233 WILLIAM M. GOBLiRSCH (.Incumbent) 418 ALAN J. RITCHIE 357 WRITE-IN GARY MAYER 4 HORACE MANN 1 JAMES JUST 1 KAREN A. EVANS 1 Total number of voters Total number of ballots counted Total number of defective ballots 540 540 0 ELECTION RETURNS (continued) AND that the largest number of votes cast for two school board members for the three year terms beg- inning July 1, 1983, and ending June 30, 1986, were received by: 'WILLIAM GOBLIRSCH 418 votes ALAN J. RITCHIE 357 votes OTHER BUSINESS With all board members present, a roll call vote was called and all responded aye with the motion being approved unanimously. Mayer asked if there was any further business. Mr. Brandenburg asked to talk about the Sunnyfield Road Project.* He received a letter from the city of Mound notifying him of an open meeting to the public on June 6, 1983 at 7:45pm regarding this bid project. The board decided not to sign a waiver to eliminate -this meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Patricia C, Chelberg, Clerk Gary K. Mayer, Chairman *Complete documentation will be included in the permanent minute books. General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359 REVIEW A Metropolitan Councd Bulleun for, Cgmr~umty, Leaders For more information on it~?~.this.publica~ib~,coll the Public Informution Office at 2~1-6464. . ~ ~ ~7~ ~ NS. F~AN CLARK CITY OF OU, D '~a"l~ 1983 ~'r ~ "~ MOUND MN 55~ ' ~ :~..'~'/ Board-June 15, 7 p.m., Council Chambers. A joint public RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (May 2-13) ~~ hearing to receive comments on a task force repo~, Prescription for Change: Balancing Compethive, Community and Regulatory Forces in Twin Cities Area Health Care. The report contains recommendations to strengthen market in- centives, maintain voluntary community initiatives and main- rain or improve necessary regulatory controls. Call 291-6464 for free copies. ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR WASTE-TO-ENERGY PROJECT UNDER WAY The Metropolitan Council is preparing a comprehensive environmental impact statement (ELS) on Ramsay and Washington Counties' proposed waste-to-energy project. The counties have proposed a large trash-to-steam energy recovery facility to be located in Lake Elmo. The study will identify the economic, social and environmental impacts of six variations for the project. A draft of the study is expected to be available in late July. For more {nformation, or to review the study's design, call Lynne 81y Takemoto, Council planner, at 291-6412. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Housing-The Council made recommendations to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on three applications for federal mortgage insurance. -- A proposed 54-1ot housing development one mile north of Prior Lake should not qualify for insurance. The Council said the project, which was platted before the Shakopee com- prehensive plan was prepared, calls for an average lot size of 1.75 acres. This constitutes urban development in a rural area, thus conflicts with regional plans for orderly growth and development; -- A proposed 19-Iot development on the west sid; of the ciTM of Carver conflicts with Council housing review guidelines because it calls for septic systems on urban-size lots without assurance that adequate central sewer service will be provided in the future. The Council recommended the development be cted to scattered lots until central sewer service is ' available; and -- A proposal to build 22 "twin homes" in Inver Grove Heights on the eastern border of the South St. Paul Municipal airport is consistent with Council housing review guidelines. However, the Council recommended that HUD: require buyers and renters receive aircraft noise disclosure information, require housing construction that would reduce aircraft noise inside the houses, and because of aircraft takeoff and landing patterns, require that part of the site have no structures built and another part be limited to structures of restricted height. Water Quality--The Council approved a Metropolitan Waste Control Commission request to build sewage sludge thickening equipment at the Blue Lake sewage treatment plant in Shakopee, at a cost of $4 million. The Council also approved construction of a regional interceptor sewer in Medina at a cost of $1~5 million. Financing for both projects is to be 75 percent federal, 15 percent state and 10 percent ($550,000) metropolitan. In a review of proposed sewage systems for Marine on St. Croix and Lake St. Croix Beach., the Council recommended the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency add language to proposed permits that would require the cities to produce a plan to mitigate potential groundwater pollution. The Arts--The Council recommended 52 arts grant applica- tions for full funding. However, because of limited funds, 37 applic3nts will share S178,373. Comprehensive Plans-The Council said Oakdale's compre- hensive plan conforms wi[l~ regional plans for growth and development. PUBLIC HEARINGS Metropolitan Health Planning Board-May 25, 5 p.m., Council Chambers. Certificate-of-need request by Careco Homes, Inc., 6115 Carmen Av., Inver Grove Heights, to build an intermediate care facility for 15 mentally retarded adults at an estimated capital cost of S416,528. PUBLIC MEETING ON MANAGING WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACTS IS MAY 31 ;. The Metropolitan Council's Waste Management Advisory Committee has drafted recommendations for dealing with adverse impacts of new solid waste landfills and resource recovery plants in the Twin Cities Area. The Council will hold a public meeting on the rePOrt containing the recommendations on Tuesday, May 31,7 p.m., Metropolitan Council Chambers. The report recomme, nds ways of mitigating the enviroh- mental effects of waste facilities and compensating communities for related risks, costs and other adverse impacts. It also identi- fies ways of financing compensation and mitigation measures. Copies of the draft report, Recommendations for Dea/ing with Adverse Impacts of Waste D/~oosa/ Fac#it/es (no. 12433- 053), are available free of charge from the Council's Public Information Office, 291-6464. If you would like to speak at the public meeting, please call Shirlee Smith of the Council's staff (291-6421) to register. CONSUMER'S GUIDE TO AREA HOSPITALS AVAILABLE How consumers can get the most out of hospital care is the subject of a new report published by the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Hoe!th P~anning Board. The Consumer's Gu/de to Hospital Care contains a checklist for choosing a hospital and what to ask a doctor before and during hospitalization. It also tells consumers how to evaluate the care they receive in the hospital. The guide is part of an ongoing effort the Council and the board are making to get health information to consumers. For a copy of the Consumer's Guide to Hospital Care (Pub. No. 18433-028), at a cost of S1.50, call 291-6464. / ~ ? CONFERENCE TO EXAMINE MINNESOTA'S HAZARDOUS WASTEPOLICIES SET FOR MAY 23 The Minnesota Waste Management Board will hold a con- ference on Minnesota's hazardous waste policies May 23, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at the Earle Brown Center at the University of Minnesota campus in St. Paul. The conference, "Searching for Solutions," is designed to further citizen participation in the development of the state's 'hazardous waste management plan. A series of panel sessions will discuss issues including: the cost of hazardous waste man- agement, protecting the environment and the public, long-term safeguards and hazardous waste management technologies. The conference, cosponsored by the University of Minne- sota, is free but participants must preregister. For more information, or to register, call John Vollum at 373-3157. PUBLIC RISK AND INSURANCE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE The Public Risk and Insurance Management Association (PRIMA) will hold a conference June 1-4 for local government and risk managers and administrators. The conference will focus on how local governments deal with public liability and financial challenges. The conference will be held at the Radisson Hotel in down- town St. Paul. Cost is $275 for PRIMA members, $345 for nonmembers. To register, call Natalie Wasserman in Washington, D.C., at (202)737-7556. TWIN CITIES TO HOST NATIONAL SOLAR ENERGY CONFERENCE The Minnesota Solar Energy Association will host the 1983 conference of the American Solar Energy Society in the Minneapolis auditorium/convention center, May 31 to June 4. "Renewable Energy, Renewable Living" will be the theme for three days of technical presentations and more than two full days of related seminars, workshops, tours and exhibits. Topics will include wind, photovoltaics, active and passive solar engineering, architecture and construction, agricultural applications, social and economic impacts, bio-technology and chemical sciences, physics and solar radiation. For more information, call Kathleen Vadnais, (612)430-1113. NEW PUBLICATIONS Ho~oital Charges for Medicare Patients, 1979 and 1981, Twin C/des Metropolitan Area. April 1983. No. 18~3~314; 100 pp.; $2. Public 8oat Launch Guide, Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. April 1983. No. 11-83-035; no charge. Housing Vacancy and Turnover. in ~he Twin Cities Metro- po/iran Area, January-March, 1953. April 1983. No. 18~3- 070; 8 pp.; no charge. History of Incorporations in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. April 1983. No. 01-83-016; 24 pp.; $1.50. Water Conservation in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. April 1983. No. 10-83-021; 69 pp.; $2.50. Availability of Investment Capital in the Twin Cities Area. April 1983. No. 02-83-007; 28 pp.; $1. 1952 Construction Activity in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and Major Construct/on Projects, Ju/y-December 1982. April 1983. No. 01-83-061; 24 pp.; $1. Manufacturing Trends in the Twin Cities Economy. April 1983. No. 02-83-041; 30 pp.; $1.25. COMING MEETINGS (May 23*June 2) (Information be/ow is tentative. To verify, ca//291-6464.) Human Resources Committee--Monday, May 23, 3:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Executive Committee--Tuesday, May 24, 5 p.m., Conference Room A. Metropolitan Health Planning Board--Wednesday, May 25, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Physical Development Committee--Thursday, May .26, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council--Thursday, May 26, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Water Quality Management Advisory Committee-Tuesday, May 31,2:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Executive Committee--Tuesday, May 31,5 p.m., Conference Room A. Technical Advisory Committee--Wednesday, June 1, · 9 a.m., Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission Offices (Metrodome). Landfill Abatement Subcommittee of the Metropolitan Waste Management Committee-Wednesday, June 1, 12:30 p.m., Conference Room A. Waste Management Advisory Committee-Wednesday, June 1,3 p.m., Council Chambers (tentative). Chairman's Advisory Committee -Wednesday, June 1, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Physical Development Committee-Thursday, June 2, time to be determined. May 13, 1983 CITY of MOUND MEMO 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JON ELAM This month I am wondering if the Commission could discuss the wisdom of developing an accessory apartment component to our Single Family Zoning Ordinance. I suggest this because there are probably 50-1OO accessory units now in existence in the City and that this practice is growing without any control except when Jan accidentally comes across one. Enclosed is a very light copy of the recently released AMM (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) report on the subject, plus a supplemental report from Westchester County (adjacent to New York City) on the subject. This should prove an interesting problem to tackle. JE:fc · A],.~,.~ ACCESSORY HOUSING REPORT .. SECTION Housing altern'atives hav. e been and' w.iil continue to be ah issue for ·municipal .officials due to recent 'demographic and.economic, trends. The accessory :. ' ... . .' . .. .. .. '~..' .'.. ... :. --. .... .:'....~- · ..:..: -'-'~ apartmeni~: r. epreseQ.t~ a..housing.alterna, tive ~ii~ich has ~een. addressed. ~y some'.:... '',....'.:'..: communities ~nd which s~m~."destined to'be considered by many others, An . :2]"]~'.: .'"-'- ac.:_~.ce.sso, ry apartment i~ a separate dw. ell.in~.uhit with coo.~in9 and sleeping f~cil~ties, create~ by 'the conversion of space within an'ex.isting s~ngle f~mily .. d~:'ellin, g ur~it ~,ihich i's 'usually'.locatec~ ir~ an established'single famil~t ' · · · The ^i,~M has identified the need for.refereace infor'm~tion, for membe'r municipal: ' "ities, particularly-.those citie~ which d~ not.ha'ye ordinance proviSions~ but" which are consider, sh9 the allowance'for and-regulation 'of acc. essor~y'apartmen'ts. . l'nis A,,MM Report :a'nd attached ma. terials, have ·been" developed' with a..muni~ipal' :- Perspective, and designed to be re~po'nsi.ve 'to concerns and"question, s.·that are : likely to be expressed at the local level., l'his )eport d~es not pre~ent a '- · recomm_ndat~on as.to whether cities 'should or should ndt cOnsi'dei- adopting provisions for accessory apartments.. It .is the recommendati°n of this A,'4M Report that officials should become fully informed, about the ~ubject and related issues as they consider the merits of this alternative housing mode. Consideration of the s. ubje~t.is warranted not only..as a mat'ter o.f. pol.icy by.. implementing local plans to provide for hous'in§ opportunities, but also as a · matter of addrsssing the fact that a number of accessory apartments have already been converted ~nd .a)-e being, used, .. ConsideratiOn of the subj. ecI is also w'arran%ed from the perspectives.of'health,' safety,, and welfare, especially in'the contex.~ of existing accessory u~Sits .- : ~hich ha~e been converted.' Such. conversions very likely'have not been m~e ~n ~onf°r,~Ii~"~ith'. applicable.bui.ldin~.and lifesafety code~ unless c6~munit~e$ .... have provided for them 'and have issued, permits. .-. "-'': ~. : The decision as to whether any or more.regulations"should'.be established sh6uld 'be based upon knowledge of local pol.ic~es, ne~ds, and condit~'ons', lhis report..· -' provides an obtline ~f stand'ards.~hich can be cons{der~d'~n e~ta~li~'hing .' regul~tSons.'as welt as various means' of reg.ulation. 'There are merits.as }tell as potential drawbacks which need to' be fully considered from both a policy and a le§al perspective ..................... .-. SECTION III .Potential advantages'and po.~enti~l disadvant.ages, identified·in available information sources can be sun~narized as ollows: Advan_,tages.- More efficient use of housing stock; additional income source for homeowners who are faced ~th rising taxes and fuel, utility, and maintenance costs; more affordable housing aimed at the smaller household needs; and, convenient housing for extended family members or do.m.~stic employee's. Accessory apartments can increase the supply of rental units in a co:,::nunity. Disadvantages - Owners.,could expect additional expenses due to initial construction and conversion costs, financing, higher heat and utility billi s,-and, proper, ty and income taxes. Tl',ere also r,,ay be consideration of the P'o.'tential loss of privacy ,.nd the additional'landlord responsiblitY. l.lunicipal concerns would include increased cost.? fbr'providing necessary , .. services as w~ll '~s' the potential "impact. 'upon the 'capacity of the existing '" ~tilities and resources. Th'ere-woul'd be increased costs for the · .__admini st~at'i on_, '.i ns~o.e~J~to~-and-enf.'or-'cm~e~L_act~j_tie_~s· th'ese additi.onal.: .'.. ':.. costs, could'be: covered' through fees as well as 'the eventual 'realization of hi~her property .tax' revenues. .. "· ..' '.' ... · .-' :...',. ': '~"..-~" Nei~hbori'ng residents may'~oice OpPosition to proposed-access6r~ ~apartm~nts' '' 'due to.p~rceptions .of potential inegative impact'~ These per'ceived .imi~'ac~.'s'.::.''- -.¥.'.: inciu~a pack'inq' ~nd traffic .co~esti'on~" exte¢ior' appearance,I school popu ation, a d property values..-.' ,- .... · . .' It is not likely that an.acce.s'sory apartment would create traffic -..- congestion-i.n a single family neighborhood. Provisi6ns for ade'quate ".' ".:'. · parking .should be addre~_S.e.d._]n local regulations especially .~.!..here'.on-'street . 'parking is limited or prohibited. Occupants o~'an accessory apartment -.' ":' :' should l'not create any greater demand for parking on the si'te than'lWOUld equivalent drivers who might otherwise reside in the.single 'fami. ly. dwelling. Aesthetics can be addressed through local regulatioi~s and the review of permit applications. Co.~.unities ha,ye been able to provide for accessory apar~.,~.~ts~,,._,, and also as~-,n'~..._ that the essential character ~f a single family ¢ neighborhood is maintained. SECT O, zv R._e._Q, qulation Stgndards to Consider l,~unicipal Objectives ),1unicipalities should consider establishing accessory apartment regula'tions .based on community-l.and use ob.jectives and-planning po,licies. Ci'~arly'$tat~ _. municipal-inten't-in' either, the co,~prehensive ~plan·.or'-in the-acce_~sory apar. tment · : "-. regulations.-' Stating municipal objectives for accessory apartment in both' .... documents wo'Uld be 'the ideal si.tu.a, tio.n... An example statement of m..unicipal 'intent/objectives 'follows: "Accessory apartment conve~s'ien§ pro~'ilde the 'opportunity to deve.lop. ~mallI rent~l Units to meet special hPusing needs of family relatives of. r~sident ovmers. e~ficient, use of'.ex.istin~ stock, preserve and protect property values, and' ~ . provide economic support for present resident families of li~ited'i'ncome." Establis'hin~ Standards This ordinance' also intends to make mere"' Before setting standards, muni'cip'alities Should examine local p. opulation and housii~g chara'cteristics and trends. Some important factors to 'examine include: ~. ^ny. pattern of requested use variance uhich may show areas where accessory apartment conversion has started. Age and style of existing single-family housing. Older housing may need maintenance and some house styles are easier to convert - i.e., split le',,el homes. ~.lunicipalities may ~:,ish to consider the following standards in adopting regulations Access6ry Uoit Si~.~ - To gt!ar~Dtee that the accessory is subordinate tO'the-' principal ~ellin§ unit, municip.alities Shou~ set a maximum accessory unit' size (i.e., maximum of 700 square feet'but' n~t'to exceed 40 Percent of total floor area). Municipalities could also choose to leave this up to the reviewing' body. ;. . .......".. . a Lot Size .- Most lbcal..ordinanc'es.req.~ire that.the housin: holding..an.."u ,~.'. ','.. · accessory unit s'it on a lot.that meel~s minimum.zoning diStri.ct.'~tanaards "" ' o"_DengitY..-'.To 'lSrotect the basic single..fam!l.y character of a neighb6rhood,. .. ,municipalities.may wish to adopt an accessory'apar~.ment den'.sity. '~tandard." '., ... For.'ex. amPlq, an 'acces~or7.'ap.ar.tment.' ord..inance could' re'qui~e' that."only 10 . ' ' .. .percent' of single-family detach6d homes. can ¢~nvert to' acEessor'y ..:, .- .... .apartments. Given that' this approach is rather ne~.t, a city considering .i't '~' should check "all legal ramifications.· :~ . .... :-. ... :.. .. .. : Structure ACe...- Municipalities' should'c6nsid'er .restrict.i'ng accessory:." :-' .... apartments to units existing when the ordinance passes. Otherwise, new '..' homes may be developed With conv. ersion ~n mind.. Exterior Alterations -Restrictions on exterior changes helps'pr, eserve a neighborhood's single family character. Owner-Occupancy - An owner-occupancy standard fits with ~,~unicipal intent to .... ","" h:s not -'~,~ familie~ o~ limited incomes. However, this s~,,,~.,~ help resiu_.,~ been tested in com't an.d F:~ay pose constitutional questions. SECTION V 'T.~y~pes o.f Re.qulations' m . Several methods exist ~or r6gulating accessory apartments.. While some methods are basically better, the best 'approach for a-gqven community may. dope}Id on particular l~cal conditions like size; staff time, an~ housing ~ypes. The~e methods 'i nc 1 ude: · A.'Permitted Use by Right - Under permitted'use"by right', Occessory.units are ......... allowed without Special approval. Use by .ri gh%. .coul d apRly .to any.qr..all : ....... ',.. " residential di~.tr~cts. Thi~ dogs m~n the municipa~i~ g~.¥es.up mqst cont¢ol'over the .location and type of conversions. Some municipalities'do holdisome control~by requ~rin§.a site plafi review and approval before issuing a'building permit; ". "' B. Special Use Permit ~ Thi~ mathod 'allows ~n accessory use-if, the a~plic~nt meets certain established local standards. These.permit~ could be issued for a specified, time Per~d with renewal required. '....- .. C. Licensing - Similar t~ a renewable special permit, licensing would requir.e Specific approval of an accessory unit by a m~nicipai..agency. A lice~sing procedure gives the municipality the ability to revoke permission for.the accessory unit if policy changes or if the licensing provisions are not followed. However, licensing requires often complex administration and is not preferred for this reason. "Selected B~blimography A number of articles and.reports have focused on .the accessory apartments issue. Tire follo':¥ing bibliography lists a selection of those articles and reports. Thi-ee reports provide the.most comprehensive review of.the accessory. apartments issue. Those reports are: ll~e Citizen. League Study, ).faking Better Use of Existin.q"Housing; Patrick Her. e, Accessory Apartments: Us~,]'rp-~s' Space in Sin.gle-Family Houses ;_ ' and ).Jestchester County, .A Guide to Accessg~}, 'Apartment 'Retaliations. 'Ti~e' A~sociation of i:ietropolitan' i.iunicip'a[.{-~'~eS and th~': Hetropol-i~m-T~o-6~-~i--~-~ill provide any of these articles or reports dh. request. Citizens League, Makin9 Better Use of'Existin~Housin~o: .A Ren'tal Housino Connoly, Edward, "Single-Family Co~versions: 'A strategy for Increasing the .. Housing Supply." .Journal of. Housin§.' March/A~ril 1982. pp, 40-42. Cottage Grove Accessory Apartment Ordinance, Humber 391, Zoning A,.~Jndment. .: 'Adopted February 9, 1983 by the Cottage Grove City, Council.· ""' Hare, Patrick H., "~"-"~.~,~ Granny Flats .Are 'A GoOd Idea." Planning_ >~a~.azine. February 1982. pp. 15-16, Hare,' Patrick H., "Rethinking Single-Family zoning:'Growing Old in American Neighborhoods." ~Iew~-Eh. gland Journal. of- Human Services..Suminer..; 1.981~..' p~. 3~- Hare, Patrick H., "Carving Up The American Dream." P'lanni~q Magazine. July 1981. pp. 14-17. ... Hare, Patric~ H. tw~h Susan Conner and D~,~ight I,lerr:iam), Accessory Apartments: Using Surplus Space in Sinq~le-Famil$ Houses. Planning Advisory Service Report, Inskip, Leonard, "Put 'Apartments in Private Homes?". )ainneapolis Star/Tribunej.' April 29, 1982. ~ Maplewood i, lemoraPi_~u.~, "Zoning Code A,mendment." October 13, '1981'::.' · l.linneapol~s Tribune, "TaPping a Source of Rental t{qusing." Octobe'r 15~ 1981. Pierce, Neal R., "Alternate Housing 13ffers Elderly A Ne';~ Secur'ity." i.linneapolis Tribune. May 30,. 1982. St. Paul Planning, _l_ar_§e House Conversions/AccessorY Units Report. September 30, 1981. Ti:au l.!agazine, "Downsizinu An American Dream." October 5, 198!. Ti~.e,.,auaz" "' ~'n:.~, "Squeeze Play At Home." Nowmber 30, 192!. u,.--tchester Co',~nty Planning Co,:n,ission A Gu~,')e to Accessory A.~z)'t~.ent Cour,,.y, :~--_-w York. R~,'~:~l.~:'ions: ~.;eeti:m S:-:;allm' IIous::nold '.'~,.':" L,.~ ...... ~t,_'r · ~.~r~l, IU~_F. J~ pages. : APRIL 1981 1'~37 A GUIDE TO ACCESSORY APARTMENT REGULATIONS: MEETINC S}~LLER HOUSEHOLD NEEDS ' TABLE OF CONTENTS . I I~troduct ion ..... 1 II D fi ition of A ry Ap ..... I - · · . e n c'cesso artments .. . . . . . . . . . . · .: . . . . . .... j::..~-';. . ,. . · ' Number~ ' III Their Locatio and ' -. ,.... ,.:.'.' .. .. ~ -. . ~: ~'.'. .... .......... :':" ' ' ' ; :."!):' IV, Pros' a.nd-Cons of Accessory Apartment .Regulations .: 4 .. . .. · · ...-... .-- ... : .. .. ~'. .- ..:. .~. " Potent{al Advantages ' · · . 4' ~' ". . . .. . . . Po en Co ts .or' · " . · " -' ' · ' ' '- ~l'...'.'."'' '- - ' ' ' ' ~ ' - -' - ~'': · . :., ~: ';~'' ..::. . ~ --.!.., ~'...... -~ . ... · . .... ; . -.../'- ..~ .... ""' . '..L~ .'.. ..~ ..... ~ .' ,' .. .... ' sld '" ' '"' · ."'"" "'.-. ""V;.'. .Standards.. to be'. Con ered for. Regulation. ....... ~,, .. ....... -:' , ..,.'8. .- .... ...'. -. .- ........ · ...... '.'. .....'..'· ., ... .'..'.. · ...... · .... ~.-, , - L ..... · ...i: ..,' ' · VI Type's of Regulations .... 1'7 · - .... , .; ... ;'.-.. . ...:. .-._. ~.;; . · " VII.'. Treatment by West'che.ster...Commu, ni'ties' in ~h6..Abs,'e~c.e 'of Provisions ."..'-::~."..-....: , .. ......... .... · r:" ":~ ....... A~ ..... "" ' -- ' ."'.'::'"" '': '-;'":"::':::':: i~..: "':"' '.' · fo Accesso artments . · .... -.-. ,.. ...... : . :.....-..'..:. :;::.:' ... ~III Conclusion ' 20 ..... ; -. ;: --~- :'., . ..Appendix : ' ' "". ~- ' ' Compendium Charts of Muni'c'i~al Regulhtlo~s' (Adopt'ed and Proposed)', ..... 22' Potential Financial Incentives ' '- '28 Town of N~ Castle Zanlng Ordinance Provis'~ons for 'Accessory' Apartments. , . 31 Glossary ' 33 Selected Bibl io~ramhv ............................ 34 Iq3g- I. INTRODUCTION . . ', This repot: was ~':repa. r. ed in recognition of the increased interest On'the" part of a number of Communities i~ accessory apa.rgments. This .int.~r.e.st .... i~as y. arisen because., population changes resUlting in a demand for apart.m, ent units have '. '- come at the same ti~...as.a de.cllne {n the.~.~oauct!on o.~new h'ousing,. ~i~rt~cularl~ multi-~amiiy.housin'gj.._ Since .these.tren.ds. .wi.ll continue it can be expected th. at: the number of accessory'a'partmi~'nt$ ~ill :increase-;' . · . .' - It. is not: the content,.on of this report that: accessory apartments are appro- priate for. iii .single.--family n~.ighborho.od$ .or.. a. re, ~n fact,. 'need. ed... or aesi. .d' all communities. However, many ~f the p.roblems associated, with accessory apart-" . . ' ments (e'.g..,.' d.ecllni.ng pro. perry values, pa[king and tra~fic.c.onge, stion, school.... Crowding, 'and adverse visual impa'ct)can be .addressed through the establishment of' sound locational criteria ~nd proper .regu-lation. This reporg e. xamines the --~ .... ~7~. subjec~ of accessqry apar. tments with pa?tic.ular.empha~is on the' pr. os. 'and cons of "--' ' ~' . p'ermitti'ng' this type of unit and the p'lanning and zoning criteri~ which should prey{de~ the ba~is for regulating accessory apartments, ._'" We note that .experience w~th legalizing.accessory apartments, is 'not very . widespread or ~s"a reI'~tively' recent phenomenon both within ahd outside of -" .-- Westchester .Coun.t..y. As a re_suit, our research efforts have revealed that 'the .... ......... amoun~ of. accessible,, s~atistically~ significant, data .with'. respect,..to...h0usehold..... ' characteristics: traffic generation, property valUes, etc., is.severely limited. Wherever appropriate, however, we have included 'data compiled by o:her . ...... governmental or pla.n~n~ng bodies, as well 'as information obtained through staff .. . - .; ....- -'.. . ..; . · .... ...' - · ; .v ....: . . ; ..- . ;. . ..' .''. . · ..-. .-.- .., '.' review of.municipal'building d~par~ment-files and extensive d~.'scussions with-. " municipal tax assessors, building inspectors, and planning personnel within and outside of westchest~'r County. '. '"' II. DEFINITION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS Fundamental to understanding the role of accessory' apartments in the housing ~arket, ~nd in establishing standards for their regulation, is the distinction neighborhoods-with a larg'e percentage' of elderly households living on flx~d incomes and/or having an excess of living 'area being underutilized. The prospect of.additional income and a reduction in household cleaning' chores makes accessory. 'apartments an attractive and practical alternative [or many households in this · ~ituallon. It. should also ~e noted :hat ~ding an apartment.is also like!y tb .. · .occur ~n {he cas~ o[ "empty nesters"- couples o[ all inco~ groups vhose children have gro~ and no longer reside a: home. ' '" .:': ' ' '' The desire lot additional inco~ during inflationary times is, however, but one reason ~or :he ~o~:h 'of :he accessory ~i:~ ~:h ,the demand for ten:al units si~niflcan~l~ ~rea~er ~han ~he' supply' of mulCh-family housing, many youn~ ' couples o: s~n~le ~r'sons have opted ~o ~ve in~o an accessory apartment ~i:hin the house o~ a paren~ in-lay or other relative. Siailarl~ many parents '~.. .:. · (frequently li~int on ~i~e~ or retirement inches) hav~ ~aken up residence ~ ":,' th~ homes of married children in ~he so-~allg "mother-in-law" apart~nt " · ...:. .f: :.~., - . ,. ~... .' .., . . ' ,f ~.. . .... ~' .' . ' Since the reasons for the growth'of accessory ~its are not simply related to t~e homeowner's financial need, ~helr loca~ion'is hoc confined to the ~re .... marginal one-family neighborhoods ~ich ~y be showin~ signs of d~cerlora~ion.-' ~ile the.spread of ill~gal conversions was a~ one ti~.'a traditional test'of neigh%orhood bligh=, this cam no Ion~er ~''presu~d as a valid assum~tlon.' diversity of Re'ighborhood-type ~e~e a=cesso~ units might'be deemed appropriate is demomstraCed by the interesc.sho~ by Sever~I. Westchester c~munit~es Chafacterlzed by large lot zoning and/gr many lar~er, older homes. Besides the economic consldera~ions, other factors' coat'rlbuting to ~he interes~ in accessory . apartments are better space utili~tion, local housing needs or the desire to 9reserve structures of historic or arch'itectural significance. 'Just as it is difficul~ to characterize a particular ty~ of neighborhood where accessory apartments are likely to ~is=, there.is also di[ficulty obtaining data on the presenC numbers of accesso~ units. ~ile precise' figures on the number of these units are ~available, conversations with several municipal tax assessors and building insgectors sheds so~ light on the extemC to include: a more efficient use of t. he housing stock r. hrough better space · ul:iliz, al:ior~; a source of add£t, ional income.t'or~ ex£st, ing homeovnecs ',,ho ma), hard-pressed to meet r~s~ng property taxes,, fuel, utility and maintenance costs; ~h.e provision of affordable housing ~n~ch mee~s the smaller house~ol~ needs of .'- young marrieds,. ~lderly and sln~le persons, and; the provls~on o~ ~ous~ ex=ende~ fam{ly members or domestic employees. I= ~s particularly no~ewor=hy ~ha= ~n =he face o~ =he collapse o~ new cons~ruc={on ren6al ~ous~n~, accessory apar~ments'=a~ play an ~por~an~ cole ~n ~d~n~ rental ~n~s. (Acco~n~ bu~l~,~. 'pe~, da~a publ~s~e~ by ~he Ne~ York S~a~e D~v{s~on of ~ous~n~ Co~n~ ~ne~aI~ less ~han 2,~00 un~=s ~re..cons=ruJ~e~ ~n Wes~ches~er s=ruc~ures con~a~n~n~ 3' or more units over ~he ~ year per~o~ 1~6 ~=ou~h Th~s pro~uc=~n ra~e compares ~h the ~es~ches~e= County Hous~n~ Implementation Plan ~oal, as ~op~ed by ~he Coun.~y Boar~ '0~ Le~s'l{~ors~ o~ _~0,000 n~' needed housing, bo=h rental an~ o~e~-oCcup~ed~ ove'r'~he hex= ~en years). A= ~he sa~ ~me~' ~he es~abl~shmen~'of accessory a~ar~men= re~ula~o~ can also ~e an .asset to the ~n~c~pal~y', assum~nK ~a~ s~'an~ar~s and pr'oce~ures'~..as. ~ell as enforcemen= prac~ces~ are established ~ such a manner ~ha= encourages .' ~o=al or subs=an=iai co~un{~ compliance. F~rs~ ~ ~ves ~he ~n~c~pal~=y'some · means o~ control over ~a= are no~ unrecorde~ d~ell~n~s. I~ enables ~he co~un~y ~o ~,~or ~he ~umber o~ accessory apartme~ conversions as ~ as ~he~r location. The occurence o~ concen=ra=ed area~ o~ convert{on may be ~mpor~an~ as"a, ~n~ca~or o~ ~e~hborhoo~ =rends and/or municipal ~erv~=e r~q~{remen=s." Con=col ~hrou~h =egula=~on can. ~nsure comPHance ~h f~re, ana health codes; ~a~ ~heY are ~r~pe~.ly ma~n~a~ne~, an~ do no~' al~er essential character o~ ~e neighborhood. Accessory apar~men~s also encourage be=~er ~pul'a~on m~x an~ ~vers~y ~h~n commun~es by a~=rac~n~ o= re~a~n~n~ youn~ professionals an~ youn~ marr~ed~ ~ho m{~h= o~e=~{se no~ ~e able ~o f~n~ aff~r~able hous ~n~. Another municipal benefit of ma~or importance is increased tax revenue from prop.ertles containing accessory unlCs. These revenues can only' be realized vhen such units are recorded and are reflected in the increased value of p~operCy. It is true that an expected increase in property taxe~ could discourage some homeovners from creating an additional unit, and could place a b~rden on chose $ For'.the municipality,-there is the po. tentiaX previously mentioned of '' increased'muhicipal expenditures' for the. pr..ov£slon of n. ecessary services,' as well · - as a concern that the capacity of the existing infrastructure.., will not be overtaxed. In additibn, costs ~for' the processing of applications, if required,., and for the ~pansion of inspection and enforcement activitie~ ~st be accounted for~ 'Presumably, '~owe~er,. ank'a~di~i~al costsT~will.be'paTM 'for thrbugh "" ~. '".. -increased property t~ assessments and/or fees for' the filing of applications.'. " "' The".possibility of..r~si~ent'.oppositlgn. . . is .anothe~ imp6{tan~, considera=ion~..'.... ~ · The perceived ~paci of accessory apartments appearl to vary considerably ~ong c'o~unities.. S~me of the ~lleged proklem areas 'or . fe'ar's' c~un.iCy' residents''.. '= ~ . ~-'-" · "(1).: ~ropert~ Values m Homeo~ers in s~ngl~mf~m~ly neighborhoods ~y'feel' :' .sdurce 'of inco~:' to"a' purc~'aser~' however,. -an ~ccesso~ 'apartmene' c'ohld :' ". .actually increase a structu~e'~s .market"va~ue given .~he. at6rac~iveness.-.,,.'.-'-i ~of a remtal income, source to.potential buyers.' Because municipal reguT .'~ , '-lations-~rmitting accessory ~:its-are g~era!l-y a-flew :~henomena~".rel~- ... ~ ab'Ie da~a as to .' the.. effeqt on nekghbo~hood ]proRerty values~'as indi~ate .. by-~ayket sales information is aifflcul=,, if.not' imp~s%~le,-"to provide. at ~his time. .Even if s~ch sales data were' available,, the ~eight accessory' ~its in determining s~leE p~i=e' may be insignificant '~p-"... ~ared with .'other market factors (location, 'schools, access to transpor-. (2) Parking.and .Traffi~ Congestion-.Accessory apartments are not ~o generate sufficient t~affi~ to slgnific~ntly .~pac= 'a single-family nei~hb.orhood. In New Ca.st.i~ each of the households occupying one 'Of'" · ..the accessory apartments created within the last 7ear sin~ the provi-. sions were adopted posessed only one ca.~. ~oweve~ parking could become a problem, particularly ~n neighborhoods ~haracterized by small lot sizes and/or heavy on-street .parking Use, unless adequate proyi- slons are incorporated in proposed regulations. · ? unil:s; however, the add'~l:[onal unit may or'may' not be an accessory apartment to the' pr{aeipal structure as defined in this report ~[th' respect 'to mximu~ size, appearance, etc. In add'rion, 'the comun[tfes of Yorkto~, Som~rs, Moudt ' Pleasant, Bed{ord, North salem'and ~ite Plains have already'studied the questioh o[.acee,~ory aP~rt~,nr, an~ prep~re~ recommended procedure~ and stand~d~ ~or their regulation, ~ile others are likely to follow· soon. Info'mar'ion.was also o~talned..on 'the ~egulati~. of. accessory apartments by ...... · several communities outside of Westchester, including: Westport, Connectzcut; "..Wes'ton, C'onneCticut; Lincoln,-Mass. achusetts; and Babylon, Long Island...Standards . -'-'i'"".~dopted'or .p.~oposed by 'the aforementioned' ° ' ' are' commun~tzes' summarized i~' the chart 'titled Appendix I. " The establish'ment of.accessory ap~rtmgnt"r~gulations should, of course., be 'based. on overall community plann[n~ .policies and ' land. .use' objectives, ' Thes~ " policies could take th~ fo~m of a municipal o~j.e~tive set forth in 'the commu- ' '~'' · .nity's mn'stet plan or a statement o~'municipal inten~ included'in accessory·· --",. apartmen~ regulations. A good,example of such a statement of inten't is provided 'i in the Town of New Castle's provisions as. follows: . · .. ... .. It iS the sPeci'fic purpose and in. tent of allowing' accessory apartments on one~fa.mi!y properties in all one-family residence districts to provide the opportunity a~.d endouragement for .the development of small, rental hous.ing units designed, in particu'la'r[ to meet the special housing needs of single persons and 'couples of' Iow and moderate.'income, both young and old, and of relatives of .families presently.living in New Castle. Furthe~r.'.ore, it is the purpose and intent' of this' provlslo~ to 'allow' the more efficient' use of the Town's exi. sting stock of dwellings and accessory buildings, to provide economic support for present resident families of limited income, and to protect and preserve property values.' '. . ... (A copy of the Town of New Castle's Zoning Ordinance provisions regu.lating apartments is in the Appendix). Hunic~palities must also be mindful in designing regulations that the provisions are both workable and realistic. If provisions limit conversions to a very. sma. il percentage of homeowners, or are too. stringent, people, may ignore' them 9 (3) A~e of Structure - A community may wish to re'~trict accessor~. ' ' apartments to'homes tha~' ar'e'l.n existence a~ the time the o~'dinamce is". .' adopted, If. not, ~nunicipalities may find builders d.esigni~g and ~ constructing new single-~amily homes' .for the. purpose of facilitating · ' .... conversionl to accommodate a second dwelling Unit.· 'If one of the... m~'niclpallty's, objectives is to .tnt'outage. this type of traditional .. .. two-family· style housing it' w0u. ld be .more appropriately limited to a' ~' tradi'tional twO-family z0. ning' dis:t'ric.t ratherl..than a single-fa.rally "' In soma cases a community may havei'a, limited 'demand for' accessory'. . / · ' . ' ~ °-'. .. · ' · . . .-.L '~ - · '.~.' '-, .~:.. unzts but also a desire to preserve 1ts older and larger houszng stock. · ' ' ' In this case, a municipality may. require that the existing house"have.' ' "::' ' .'been built prior to. so,-e 1.ogicall. y .determin'ed year ~4nich .~eflects~'local ": '" " housing characteristics, 'e.g., :slng.!e.-f.ami'ly houses'built prior"G0" .:" ': '~- " 1940.' We emphaslze,"however, that ~sdch a restrictive ~provision ~n the '- %,~7 ...~:. age. of a structure would be rare' and b'ased'only' on very' specific..... '- '-" '-' · munlcipal objectives. (Please note.that th'is report does/not .~. : "' ' ":'" necessarily .address 'the conversion ~ iarge, °lder'-homes into ~ '." " multi-family residences si. nce,..although sOma Of the p. rbvisionS in..t~is '.-..~'~ · report may be applicable, this type-.~f conversion'may require a distinctive sar. of pla. nni~g, and izonlng criter.i.a based'on a poten.ti, aliy ':' .. dif ) · · · ' : ferent i.mpac~ .: ..- ,. : . '- .... ..-:~ E>:~erlor Alterations - To insure that the yisual'character of~a.. " single-family neighborhood is preserved, restrictions on the extent ... and/or type' of ~.xterior alterations is usually appropriate. One method .' '" is a provision simply.sCaring that exterior changes must conform single-family Enaracter of the neighborhood.. An additional provisio.n could restrict exterior alterations only to those necessary to comply'. with applicable health, building and fire codes. %~%ile so~e communi- ties may require a common entrance, others may permit outside stairways if located in che'rear of a building except on corner lots ~/nere they are .usually more visible.' As a rule, howe. ver,.no more than one front .. entrance is desirable. -. 11 · : ; (7) the provision of. off-street parking an~ aetheti¢'$ (e.g., the removal of one or several tr~es). If a generalized provision for "adequate" off- ~tree~ parking is'a~opted,, the availability and proximity of PUblic .. " transportation and neiEhb6rhood'~ppearance or development, character- --' ist[cs should be~.consldered in.reviewing a specific conversion'request.' On/the other hand a failure to Provide 'sufficien= off-s'tree= parkin§ could'result.%n.congesfion.of nei§hb0rh~od streets,.trafflc '~nd safety hazards for. vehicles and pedestrians, create snow-removal'difficulties,. a~d adver'sely impact nei§hborhood'appearance. ~o protect:nelgh~orho~d; ' appearance,· parking 'shbul~ be'provided in a fashibn that is cons[stent wlth'~he.character .of a.,~i'nglerfamily'residence..- .'.~' : .".'."::.... ..... -.."..." Water and Sewer Adequacy - In 'the'case of properties.served-by public -' Water supply and sewage disposal.'facilities, the municipality Should..., ' ascertain ~he'-abil~y of 'exipting sys~ems.~q accommodate increased. " ' · '" .:' '. ...... ' .' .. '..:"~{'·"~ :. .. 4~mand. Where private wells are used, the:ability of t~e ground"water-,'..'.. 'i~"... 'table to support .the-additional draw idowa should be determined.'. ... i.'"' '":'=. Private septic systems and prevalent soil tyPes, must also be'able to"" handle the expected increase in waste'materials· The age of a private. septic system and the possible n~ed of room'-fgr expansion''of the.system areimportant considerations. Depending upon soil. characteristic, s, the. ".....:... impact of effluent from undersized Or wor~ septic.systems on th~ ground' '' . water table can becom~ critical on lots of 1 acre ~r 'less where the lot : -'"- also relies on a well for its Water supply. . . ... '- It is our understanding that permit aPproval'is ~equlred from the County ~ealth Department when an increase in the number of bedrooms is proposed for'a residential use serviced by' a prlvat~ sept.lc system.. This requirement is most applicable ~en an accessory unit is created . by an addition to a sing!e-family residence or conversion of an acces-' sory structure. In the case of a conversion.within a on~-family structure, the total number of bedrooms or occupants may be no greater .than what the existing septic system was designed to accom~nodate. For conversions, therefore, a municipality may wish to consult'with the County Health Department wheh a potential problem is indicated. In - 13 · ~. -,/ · (~ ~-'q-~ "'".~ ":-:'"'-3 '-'"- ~~~ ' ..... "" ' ' ' ";.~',-' ~' ., t~ '~-"[-~ .~'.:~;:..";._'~?..~'---_~',, ..,--~ · ' ' ' .... ' ' ' · "" · ',: · . ~ · ._._~.. ,~. ,~,.-,-,.~.---"-,.:::,...~---..~-_,:..,--w...-=~.-.....~....,..;= .~:..,.v~'~.,,::.-;,,..~-.~ ....... -.: '."· ." · . · . ' -- '. :-." ,. --. . , - .... .. ~:_~. ..... ~.__.,,-.-._.--.--,,-.,..,_._~ ......... ..,~. ..... . .... : .. · ...... , · .. .......... ..,~,.-.-.t....~.=....~,~_."...._.,~..',..':.~.~ ...~.'~,-..o;-...,,..,. . .' . ., . ; .. · ...... · . . ...... .',. .... -.' ~.-. , · .. %.,,...,..=.,. .... . ..~.,.---- . ; . : · -. . . . . . .. ~ ;=:-.. - · ...... .....' · ., .. . . .... · , . , ...- t--..~. . .. . -... ..".. . ::.. ~.. .. .-... ~...........: .. . ~....:; . .......... ; ;-.- .. .; . .. . · .. ..... .......- . , .. . ,...~ .- . · : . . . ....... . .-..- , . ..,. . ,.o.. :·.~.-'-. .. ~.,...-... - o.;. o..·. . · ~ ' · " ' '. .. :.:' 'i ''~ .... "- ". ',".:'~.; '-.~.' · :;. , -" '.' ;~.'~;: '..: '."-.';:'.-" · ' · ' i' e:a&aP ted to cr at ace,ss-. " '"" *'* '. . O~J ~.its' wlth~ e~sting "' stz~ctures is .iZlu~trated :"'.'i , Iq - established patterns o~ rel~van~ use variance requests (evidence o~ · neighborhood t~nds o~ - style and. age of existing slngle-fam{l¥ housing stock (ease of con~ersion; need £or increased maintenance of older housing Stock); - age"and household-size characteristics o£ single-family residence property o~ners (concentrations of underutilized housing space); - slgniflcanC dliference between common loc sizes and ~rontages from :zoning dis~ict area requirements; . , :"'"' -'adequacy o[ ~ater facilities; - availabillty of on-street parking and publ'ic transportation ~here' ~developmen:' characterlsCics preclude.additional off-street pa:king; ' · ']..'~;prevalence of adap:ibIe accessory structures such as garages or barns 'in areas of large-lot zoning. ;. The extent of the need for data gathering and analysls rill vary by munlcl- pality depending on the homogeniCy vs. heterogenity, of the population and housing stock; the number and nature of residential zoning.districts, etc. Nonetheless~ the importance of.Eormulatlng municlpal o~bectices and regulations on the basis of local housing cha-racterlstics and needs cannot be overemphasized. VI. TYPES OF REGULATIONS · Several procedural methods are available to regulate accessory apartments. ~hile some methods are generally superior co others, the appropriate type for a given mUnicipality may depend on com~unlty characteris:ics (e.g. size, housing types), rather then number of or trends in single-family conversions, or ocher unique characteristics. 'These methods include: (1) Permitted Use B~r Right - This approach, .vhich per,its an accessory unit 17 Use'~a'ri~nce -According to the recent 'survey of the'Tri-State' . . Kegional Planning Commission, some communities handle aCcessory ' apartments'as use variance requests reviewed by the zoning board'of ' :' appeals on a case-by-case basis~ This method can be criticized on the ... . . grounds ·that the' typical zoning ordin~nc'e does not have. spe~if.i¢.' "" provisions relevant to controlling' conversions. In New York it would also appear to'·be dlffi'~ult for an ap~'licant to prove the"u~ecessa:7 ." "' hardship criteria stated 'in Otto' v. Ste{nhilber of uniqueness of the property, failure· to ~ealize a reasonable eco~oaic return by I'"' "' pi~ed use and ~a~abiii~'wi~h neighborhood"~aracter,~'"-l'use variance, by'its legal definition,' runs'with the.land, not th~ o~'er. ";v': ' ' A use variance ~anted for an accessory apartmenm: ~uld .likely, ""~' however, be based on a personal hardship ratMer than circums~ance~ or '. ' '' characteristics 'related to th~ property itself. Therefore~ given its very llmi{ed applica:io~, ir'should not ~ considered an acceptable ,.L .... method to regulate uses ~ich are a~propriate in ~ pRrticula~ area or';-'~' to accomplish social obj~c:i~s es~ablishM by municipal policy.' ' --" ~o' ~tter ~ich procedural '~chanism' is established, the ~o~nt of material required for sub~i~'sio~ ~r ~he applicant ~hould be lialc~ tha: n~cces~ary for the reView{ng agent to ~ke a proper de~.e~inatiOn (e.g., site .a~d floor plans~ p~operty su~ey, etc.) In the case of proposed structural alteration or buil'ding ~ditions, established' building p~rmi: procedures must also be adhered Co. '- VII. TREATMENT BY tv'ESTCHESTER COMmUNITiES IN. THE'ABSENCE OF PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY APARTMZNTS . -'. The approach taken by many communities With respect to unrecorded accessory units can be divided into two major categories, i.e., either to overlook their existence or to vigorously pursue the elimination of illegal units. In the case of "benign neglect", the municipality usually responds to-a neighbor's complaint or dome other incident. In many cases, this approach stems from :he ~elief ~hat this' 'type of. unit meets the need of local homeowners or is an inevitable response oo · 19 O0 0 0 C) O0 available to lower the cost of ~rivate financing for these improvements. Owner occupants of buildings containing one-Co-four units'can rdceive an'effecitve interest rate'on, their loans of Low income owners may'be eligible for non-repayable grants for ,County. | · - Contact: Under .the We~tchester Co~peratlve Weathe~iz~tion Program, .the federal .goyernmen: provides for funds .for low-to-moderate income property ~wners for materials'and for labor (CETA)' for weatherization ilmprovements to one-to-four family units'located in Westchester.- Wegtchester Co-op WeatherizAtion Prog{am. 17 .Wyoming A~enue ...... . .. ~ite Plains, New .York .10601 (914) 9~8~3960 · . .... (5) 'Municipallties may develop their own incentive programs ~hroug~ the use of one or more federally funded' programs available at the tim~. In 1980, Plainfield, New J~rsey used' a combination of Secti~'n 8, Section 312 and demonstration grant f~nding for the conversion of 3 one.-family ho~ses. The municipality made th~ repairs, and granted the homeowner an interest free loan to repay the costs o~ conversion. I~ exchange,' the'homeowne'rs agreed to acc. ept a qualified needy tenant from the list of prospective tenants maintained by the'Town. The Town of Babylon, Long Island; intends to gffer low-interest loans to home- owners willing to legalize existing conversions to aid in th~ costs of upgrading a structure to the Town's standards. Funding'is to be . provided through the use of the Town's Co,.-=nunity Development Block- ~rant funds. Under m~st municipal loan programs, collected ~.mnies are placed in a revolving fund to finance additional conversions. APPENDIX III ACCESSORY APARTMENT ZONING ORDINANCE ?RO\rlSIONS TOWN OF NEW CASTLg. · 60-417.5. ' Accessory apartments in.one-fam'ily residence distr~cts. It is the .s~ecific purpose and intent of.allow.ing' ~ccessory'apartments " on one-family properties in all one-family residehce districts to provide the opplortunity and encouragement for the development of ".. ...smmll, rental housing units designed, in par'uicula, r,' to meet the · special housing 'needs' of. ~in~ie ~ersons an, d couples'of loQ. and' -" 'moderate income, bari{ young and o"d, and of relm~ives of families presently living in New. castle Furthermore, 'it'is the "... purpose and intent of this provision to allow the m6re' 'efficient'"-' .. use of the' Towu'sl existing stO6k Of.dw~llin~s..and.'ac'cesgory.build~'~ ings, to provide economic-support for present resident .families..:: . of limited income, and to .protect a6d preserve' property lV.~lues.. To help achieve, these gomls and to promote the-other Objectives ~: of..this, chapter and of the Tow6 Plan, the ..f. ol!owing.s.~ecific... . · . ..: stand,-rds .~re set forth for'suCh accessory .%p-~rtn:ent uses: ' ..>"' -'.' .'' ~0-417:51.. Owner occupancY., required'"'T~{e ow. ner(~)'of the one-- family lot upon.which-the"mccess~ry',~p~rtmen% is'located s}:a~l'" occupy mt least one' (1) of the dwelling units on '.the premises. .. -. ~ ~ . . .. . .' . . .. -'.- '~.'.. . · ~ ·.'.. · 60-4t7.52. Location. on the ..lot:. An' accessory.upar.tment m~y b6.:':"-.j... acd~ssory building, provided suc~' accessory building, exist.ed .. '-':p_~ior-'to' July I, 1979' and conforms' with .the'"other rets%ire-. ~ .. merits of this chaptar'~ unless.a variance ~cherefor'sha!l ha:,&. · . . 'ueun granted ~? ~he ~,Cning Board of A~pe'als. 60-417.53, .A~rtment size. The minimum floor area for an accessory. ~.partment wi~hi.n, a pri~qipa.1 .dwelling b.u. ilding..s~.i~ll be three-.%.undred (300) square feet, but in no czse shall it'" e::cecd twenty-five percent (25.'Y,) of the ~rea of the dwelling building in which it is. located, unless, in the. opinion of the Planning Board, a'greater or lesser emount of floor area is warranted by the specific circumst~nnces o~'thc particu!,-r ~uilding. For accessory apurtmunts located in exis3ting three-hundred (300) squmre fee.t per upartment and there be no more than two (2) bedrooms per apartment. 60-417.54. Number ,)i :~c. ccssory ,np~nrtme~%ts per !oh. There one-fomily builf~[n,4 lot, except in thc cnsc of:a lo~ 31 GLOSSARY · ACCESSORY APARTMENT - A dwelling unit which is subordinate to a permitted princip.al one-.family res.ldence use in terms o~ size, locat{on, and appearance and located,on the same lot. therewith· (Note: This definition may be refined,'- .based on municipal objectiv.es, to allow only conversions within existing one-family'structufe'~ or to in=lud~ additions ~o existing residences and/or' convers'ions of 'accessory' buildings).. . ........ '". ACCESSORY BUILDING -A building subordinate in area, extent, or purpose to the prin¢ipa~ building on the ~ame lot and used for purposes customarily incidental to that of the principal building. .. BUILDING - A ?tructure,' of more or less permanent construc.tion, having· a roof- and in'tended to be.usdd for sheltering people,' .animal's or property. - :. DWELLING -A building' containing gna or more dwelling units. - : DWELLIHG, OhZ FAMILY - A dweili&g co~ini~g a si~gl~"p, rincipal dweiling unit. DWELLING~ TWO F~MILY.- A dwelling 'containing two .principal .d~alling units., .'. "- - DWELLING UNIT -.'A building or port[on thereof providing complete h0u~ekeeping .:: .~.. ~ facilieies-for one -fa'milT~ inc. luding independent cooking,, sanitar~ .and. sleeping . :..'.-, facilities and physically separate and/or providing separate= access 'from any '" other dwelling unit ~ether or not 'in the same building.. .'' .. '. · PRINCIPAL BUILDNG - A' buildin~ in which is c~nd~cted the principal .use'of the .-. lo~ on ~ich such building is situated. .. 33 Metropolitan Council 300 Metro Square Building Seventh and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone i612) 291-63~ May 11, 1983 TO: All Interested Persons FROM:' James Uttley, Local Planning Assistance S.~JECT: Meeting to. Discuss' ~ccem=ory Apartments The Hay 17 PLANNERS' FORUM, sponsored .by the Metropolitan Council, will focus on pla.n_ning and zoning issues associated with accessory apartments and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's accessory apartment demonstration program. The forum will be held at the Metropolitan Council, at 300 Metro Square Building, Seventh and Robert Streets, in downtown St. Paul, and. will.begin'at 9:00 a.m. · The purpose'of the PLANNERS" FORUM is .to provide'area planners, zoning. administrators, HRA. staff, and other interested persons with the. opportunity to comment on ~uch things as eligibility requirements for .the.MHFA program, relationship to local zoning and housing codes, role of the local program administrators, possible relationships with other not-for-profit.organizations and neighborhood groups, and possible marketing strategies to specific.' population groups such as the elderly, single-parent homeowners or first-time buyers. " '. The forum~ill feature: Chuck Ballentine, Metropolitan Council housing program staff person; MaFy TLugertha!, director of the MHFA's.home improvement division; and Mary. Louise Poquette,.MHFA consultant. Ballentine.~ill present %he findings and conclusions of the AM~4 Housing Technical Advisory Committee Report, %983 on Accessory Housing that he helped writ~. Tingerbhal ~ud Poquette will discuss an ~5-page MHFA report, "An Analysis of the Market and Economic Feasibility of Accessory Apartments in Minnesota," and the proposed demonstration program. RSVP to Irene Massm~% at 29116415. JPU:ln TABLE 5.1 LAW ENcORCE]vENT OFFICERS ASSALLTED 1982 Rate Per Assaults Rate Per Total 100 With 100 ASSAULTS CLEARED Municipality Assaults Officers Injury Officers Number I Percent Brooklyn Center 7 22.6 2 6.4 7 100% Brooklyn Park 3 7.7 3 7.7 - - Crystal 2 6,9 1 3.4 2 100% Deephaven/Woodl and 2 33, 3 - - 2 100% Mi nneapol i s 114 15.9 24 3.3 113 99% Minnetonka I 2.6 -1 2.6 I 100% Mound 8 72.7 4 36.4 8 100% Orono 3 23.1 1 7.7 3 .100% St. ~nthony ' I 9.1 · I 9.1 I 100% St.' Louis Park 18 37.5 I 2.1 18 100% South Lake Minnetonka I 8.3. I 8.3 i 100% Hennepin Co~ty Sheriff 11 3.7 9 3.0 11 ,100% TOTAL 171 13.6 48 3.8 167 98% leaBwe of May 10, 1983 minnesota oities TO: FROM: RE: LMC Board of Directors Helen Schendel, Associate Director Energy Savings (Building) In your packet of materials is a report of LMC's energy consumption for the past year and comparisons of our energy consumption with an office building of the same size and location. Comparisons were made using the BEPS Program (Building Energy Performance Standards) and the BOMA (Building Owners Managers Association) standards. The study indicates we saved 35%, a total of $8,482. Jacus Associates, consulting engineers, expect the percentage to increase once the building has dried out from construction; control malfunctions are corrected; and condensation problems are resolved. Our target is 65% savings. LMCfs building has received three awards (to date) for our building design: (1) Consulting Engineers Council of Minnesota First Place - our entry is now being considered for material recognition. (2) ASHRE 1982 Energy Awards (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, Electrical Engineers) First place in state competition; Second place in Regional Competition (5-state area). HS:rmm Attach. /~ I ~3 univemsiCy avenue erase, sC. paul, minnesota 5~1 01 (t~1 ~)2~7-51~00 PASSIVE SOLAR HEATING SOLAR HEAT STORAGE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 183.UNIVERSITY AVE. EAST ST. PAUL MINNESO'I'A EARTH SHELTERING SOLAR LIGHTING ARCHITECTURAL ALLIANCE ARCI-ETECTS MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA JACUS ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA INDEX Entry Form Supplemental Data Press Release Electricity Costs - 1982-1983 Department of Energy - Building Energy Performance 'S~andard Additional Check of oPeration Costs (BOMA) Photographs "1 I I I ! i I I i I '1 I I I I I Enlry Form I[ in.,,u ffi¢icnt space is available to complete an an~,,'er to any question, thc an.,,~ er may bc continued in the Supplemental Data portion or the ~ntry. Explanatory remarks may be found in ~he box b¢lo~ for Iho.~¢ ilcm.~ wl~kh -',re slurred on Ih¢ form. · " Identification ENTRY NUMBER {Leave Bionic) I. Project a. Project title League of Minnesota Cities Office Buildinq b. Cily .c:~. 1>hill Stale/Province MiBIlesota Owner l_~acjue of IV~ Ci~cie_~ Country USA c. Category (chcck one) !. X Nc~' Commercial, Institutional, Public Assembly Building Il. __.._Existing Commercial. Institutional, Public Assembly Building. iii. New Industrial Facility or Process IV. , Existing Industrial Facility or Process V. Ahernativc and/or Renewable Energy Use 2. Entrant (ASHRAE member whh significant role in project) a. Name SO]Dert W. Gish b. Address (Including country) Jacus JLssociai:es, ~o. 2 C. Phone (612) 332-2500 Chapter ~O~ Region d. Rolcinproj~l(AcmalfuncfionspcrCormcdbycmrant) ~si~ of ~~C~] S~~ ~st~ for ~e ~ld~g MembcrshipNo.&Grade. 0262791 300 .Bu~ldexs Exchanqe 3uildinq, These detailed instructions refer to thc Entry Form above and some of its numbered portions. !!-2. Size. To convert: Multiply square feet b); .0929 to obtain square mctcrs. The same floor arco should also bc used in hems II-3, 111-3, and 111-4. !i-3. Functional use of major areas. Define each major function in thc building, such as Office/Administrative: Retail; Food Service; Food Preparation; Laboratories: Guest/Patient Rooms; Laundry; Operating Rooms: Computer Rooms; Manufaauring; Proccss; Warchousc/Swragc: and Paricing. !il-3. Occupanc)'. Example answcr:."Thls office building was 50% occupied for thc first three months of measured energy .- · consumption in Section 111-~, and gore occupied for thc remaining nine months of that period." 1114 .... enerlo' use prior In relrufit....Notc that thc Btu column is ~obc completed in millions of Btu's, £e., Btu (E + 06), and then convcrlcd to gi~ajoulcs. Convcrslon factors: Muhiply Btu (E + 061 by i.0S.~ to obtain GJ Divide GJ by 1,000.000 to obtain Icj Multiply Btu/(v ft~) by II.~ to obtain IcJ/(y m2) Multiply ft- by 0.09')9 to obtain m' Multiply S/(y ft') by 10.8 to obtain $/{y 111-6. Energy sa~,ed,)'r. For a retrofit projcct, this is Item III-4 minus IIcm lll-~. For a new projccl, this requires an estimate of cncrgy which ~'ould have been used without various energy conscrvin~ features vs. thc energy actually used in hcm lll-i This data may be provided by computer simugation.'manual estimation, or "rule of thumb" compar,son ~'ith other, similar projects. Although thc applicant is not expected to dedicate large amounts of time and/or cost in completing this item, it is mandamr7 that thc basis iror comparison be clearly stated. 111.7. Energ.~ co~! a~uidance. Without escalation, this ~.ould 'be hem !ii-4 minus Item 111-5. If energy costs have escalated, or if thc project is -, nc- pwicct, state thc ha~is for thc answer to this item. Thc general comments for Item 111-6 also apply to this itcm. All criteria must be thc ~amc a~ g~cn in 111-6. IV-I. Cost of projecl. Pertinent cost information may include, but is not limited to. coq of: HVAC. Electrical. Plumbing. Gcncral Constru¢l~o~l. IV.2. Increment.,I eo~! .... If a retrofit p~o~ect, this cost ~,ill probably be that of hem Vl.l. If not. this item ma)' be determined by en.~m¢cr% estimate, uhern-',te bids. or contractor's breakdown..State the basis for the information. !1,'-.1. P'D ha~'k. If any type of economic :nal.,,'sis ~,'as performed, state the assumptions used, including escalation factors, time value of mnnc.~', lucl ¢o~1% a,,~umed life of project, eec, II. DescriPlion I. Tylw of buildin~ or pro,:ess Office Building 2 (1430 m )Stori~ 3 r..~ of Area U~ed Hou~ Used For That FuncHon P~ Week 86% 45 24% · 45 "2. Siz~--$ross Floor area of building (he: me), 15,400 ft.~ Functional Usc of .Major Areas .Office/Administrative Greenhouse/Atr~ um Des,er(be notable or innovative energy-conServing features and s.vstems (Summary or supplemental data) Heat collected in _crreenhouse space is circulated thru holl~ core floor slab when tamperature exc~ 70°F.: ~htt~ crea~_~nq a radiant floor panel. Slmlner building cooling syst~n is assisted by circulating cool outside night air thru the green- house space ar~ fl~or slab when air temperature ig less' than 75OF. 'Building .liqhtinq is controlled by aut~atic dinminq system sensing the' amount of interior light provided b_v skylights and adjustin_q artificial liqht as required to desired lighting levels. .. Brcadth of application (How s)'st,:ms/technlques are applicable to othcr project.9 ]~'x::~ savings features 6. Constraints or special rcquircmcnts affecting project energy effi¢iency Effective llse of ear,nlq shel~er~n_~r _equires a suitable site, as does efficient use of passive heating. Almost any project .... could make use of holl~ core slabs for transfer of air and thermal energy with minimal modifications to'the structural floor system. Ill. Energy Use and Cost I. Date design ~'a~ completed ]~,1.cq~C.~ 1981 2. D'-,,e or' occupanc.v or beneficial ,:omplction d3,¢ or retrofit. April 1982 ' 3. Occupanc.v (Explain full.,,' the occupancy or utiliza6on or' the project during the ~wcH'c month~ shown in hcm:~ Ill-.s and IU-$ as a pcrccntaee of it.~ designed full occupancy or utdization! The owners moved into their new building in April 1982. The utilization was 100~ for the year, he, ever, energy systems use and adjustments to the energy control _system are still being synchronized to achieve the design requirerents. · throu;h P P 4., For rcJroril projects only: T~clvc monlhs' cncr;y u~c =nd co~t prh)r IO tcirol'il (l:rom Btu/milt ~S ~ ~Y {on-line Energy Ty~. T.mi Unit~ enerEy u~e) Eleclrie Nalur=! (;a~ Oil ~ Coal Steam Hot Wa~ Chiilcd Water B~u (£ * 06) · Btu/y kJ/(y m:) Totals: Btu (E + 06) GJ Cost/()' ft2 ) Cost/(y ,n~- ) Metering description (Ho',,,' tot-',i units of energy were determined1 $. Recent twelve months' energy use =nd cost (From ..'April 1982 through Y~ 1983 instructions for Item !11-4 %o complete. Energy Type Total Units Electric 347,040 ~'Y'H Natural Gas Oil Coal Stc-',m Hol Water Chilled Water Btu/un]i 3,413 B,u.'.~ ~.: 76.9 MBTU GJ Cc, st ,'IV I't2 ) .). To be completed for all entries. Use Btu (E + 06) 1,184 Cost $16,393.00 $1.06 1,184 3/249 26,393. O0 Mc,cring dcscriptlon ElecCri¢ ]~ I i · 6. £nergy~a,'ed;y~ar (180,486 }BgH) 616 .S,u(£+06): 650 (106) (kJ) Ho~ dcri,'cd. 'Use of BEPS Tables for typical small office buildinqs at 117 MBTU/sq.ft. minus actual consumption of 76.9 MBTU/sq.ft. cost savings --- 180,486 KWH x .047 = $8., 482. Of). ' · 7. l::ncrgycostavoldanceforlwclvcmomhsJn]ll-4above ]~ not apply. How derived. i I I IV. Economics · !. Costofprojccz $9845000, Oo Base (e.g., coml:<titive bidding, contractor brrakdown) ° 2. Unit Cost ($/ft2) S65.20 General construction: $745,300; ~echanical construction = $158,500: Electrical constructi°n = $80.200 Single contract ccrapeti~ve bids. lncremcmal cosl of encrgy.-conscrving fcaturcs of project :i~e.~gy f ~=~-~ ~.~ of ~ rg-]~ ~='l ~-~r~ ng; solar panel, atrium greenhouse, and use of hollc~ core slab planks cahnot he separated frcr~ building cost. We estimate an additioD~l overaqq cost per sg. ft. of $3.00 or $46,200.00~ I i I I I Simple payback (Item IV-2/hem lll-~ 5.4 yt~-q'r's Percent savings 35 Economlcevolution Typical bldg. load = '117 MBU/sq. ft. compare~ to actual first y~r 76.9 MBU/sq. ft..; therefore savings = (Ll7-79.6) x 15,400 x 1,000 ~ 3,413 (conver- sion to lBgH) x .047 (net elec. rat~ with demand chgL~ -- $8,482/yr. savings * Fr~u BEF~ "£kqSie' .~i.3 - ~ee. supplement.. Additional annual operation and maintenance cost incurred by Iht energy-conserving features of the project. ~::)Fl~ I I I Certification I. Firm ~i~h ~hicl, cntram was a<~oci',tcd during this projcc,.: Name Jacus Associates, Inc. Address re,one (612) 332-2500 3f)f) ~]d~r.~ FJ~cha~ge ~u~ld~ng, Minneapol~s~ MN_55402; USA Entrant',, lillc/'pn..~lion in firm dura.: pruj¢c! Mschanical Engineering Manager Othcr siSnifJcant cncrgy conservation contributors to project: Architect Architectural Alliance Facilities .~anascr Encrsy Consultant None Mechanical Systems R. W. Gish J.J. Cain Electrical Systems Ccrtlficatlon by entrant: I certify that the information submltl~d"~coir¢~, and thai this entry SaliSiries Ibc ;cqulrcmcnts of ihc ASHRAE Energy Award competition. 4. Owner's release: ! certify that ! am the owner or the authorized representative of this project, and hereby sram permission Io ASHRAE to use all Ibc enclosed data and information in ttie judging and subsequent publicity of this project. ' ...... %5tle Associate Director Date April 22, 1983 Company Leaque of Minnesota Cities Address 183.. University Av~. E., St. Paul, MN 55101 1983 Energy Awards Competition-ASHRAE Robert W. Gish Jacus Associates, Inc. League of Minnesota Cities Building When planning their new office.facility, the League of Minnesota Cities wished to construct an energy efficient, pleasant appearing I I I i building with well-lighted, open and enjoyable work spaces. The now completed 15,000 S.F. office buildingat 183 University Avenue East in St. Paul, MN, has energy conservation features which are projected to use 30% of the energy consumed by an office building of similar size designed to meet the Minnesota Energy Code. The building should be a model for and encouragement to the many cities which form the League of Minnesota Cities. Construction costs were less than the budget figure of $1,000,000 and the building was completed in time for the planned occupancy date in April, 1982. I I ! I The building, designed by the firms of J~cus Associates, Inc. engineers and Architectural Alliance, utilizes a steeply sloping site to provide earth sheltering on three sides.. The sOuth building face includes an extensive window wall opening as a passive solar energy panel which includes a three-story greenhouse atrium. Ii I I The building has a total air cooling-heating system supplied from a roof-top package air handler without heating coils but with direct expansion cooling components. Other fans supply and exhaust the passive solar greenhouse atrium energy saver feature. During the heating season, extensive energy is conserved by using solar energy generated by the atrium solar window. This energy is transformed to the building mass and the occupied spaces by circulating heated air- through the hollow core structural floor slab. as a radiant heating floor and ceiling. During the cooling and intermediate seasons, energy is again conserved through the same process. The system is capable of circulating cool outside night air through the slabs and is also used to keep atrium temperature near outside environment conditions. This passive solar system coupled will% the earth sheltered con- struction of the north, west and east building walls creates a low energy cost and consumption budget estimated to be less than 38,000 BTU's per square foot per year. Supplemental heating beyond that provided by the passive solar system is furnished by electric coils within the duct system, as well as from building lights, equipment, and building occupants. The electrical power company has a ratcheting electrical demand charge which is determined by electrical consumption during %he cooling season. Electric heating operates mainly at night ana is inherently off peak,· thus electrical heating costs compare favorably to those of natural gas. Maximum use of natural light has been accomplished through use of skylights as well as the south facing atrium window. - Building lighting is controlled by an automatic dimming system sensing the amount of interior light provided by skylights and adjusting the artificial light as required. This slab then serves LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES OFFICE BUILDING Electricity Costs 1982 - 1983 Mohth Cost KWH May $ 1,393 24,000 June 927 17,920 July 1,198 16,640 August 1,225 22,560 September 1,100 18,560 Oc%ober 1~015 17,600 November 1,345 31,840 December 1,939 50,320 January 1,391 31,840 February 1,761 43,760 March 1,704 40,320 April . 1j395 31,680 Total $16,393 347,040 KWH 347,040 KWH = 1,184,447.52 MBTU 1,184,447.52 ~ 15,400 sq. ft. = 76.9 MBTU]Sq. Ft. It should be noted that this first year operation has built in higher operation costs of drying the building out, control malfunctions, and familiarization of maintenance staff with the system. I I ! I I I ! II ! ! II DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - BUILDING ENERGY PERFOR/~%NCE STANDARD ENERGY BUDGET LEVELS (in MBtu/sq. ft./yr) State" S~'ASA ' FO~ CO,.iMERCIAL'AND' I,IUL'YIFAMILY '~'ES{D'ENTIAL BUILDING DESigNS Florida ... · - ..'Georgia · Atlama' - · ~ 135 ]52 ~35 '.1% 129.'1FJ./195 335 .119., 98 ]35 212 171 168 ~ · 10~ ~s ,~ 16s '.-m") 1~'?.'~co ~3~ ~!m' ,: · I - : ' Ge p. m Idaho B(~$e d, ty - 12.q m '' ';"' ~n ' ' ' ' ' · 015 Ch,ca90 .. ~ ~: e ' .,- ' t Gtenv,ew ico 12.5 ~ 165 .123 101.-~.,~: 101:.. 98 -1~ 1~ 139. 137 .71 -.i02" 129 ~ '167'..124 103 '.161. 113. 1Dq',.103 .173 1~ lq2 lq1 75 129 10) '130 558.1~8 125. 105.. 1Gl llq '185..::10) .' ]2q l~q ik) lq) 75 { " Indiana InO.anapol,s '.:~. ".::, · Kentucky '.; Lou,sv, fle.' -. ·. · Louisiana · .. 8alon Rouge .,1~8 187 2111.:,.~53' PO. :..]22:. 109. 1E6,. n6.) 185~i~9B:::125 lB6' .lqS: l~l: GG '"'"' : t Lake CI'~-',rlQS · .'. .- . . :'., New O,le)n$ '., 1{4~ 329 Malnll Porf~and ;. ~ . ]CO Massachusetts Boslo. ~ 101 :' .' '..Michigan. Deiroil i '~2~ . ~0)a Minnesota .. M~nnef~l= .. [~ ~ MlssisslpDI ~mCk~ ' ~ ~ ' ~l ' Missouri · C~mb,a ~: ~ ~ m,,~ · . . ~ - ~.- .. ' m iqg t~. 19~ 130 ]33. leg 133-~B.'~103 :L~ 210 158 1{35 )31 . 335 1~9 ' 129. 1Ol. · 162,.- ]lq :.'107 ' J 109 ' 127, 185 lq) 1~3 86. 126 .5~ 165 ]21 102': 3.59'i '111', .102 , 99 121 .181 :,1~0 139 1~ 3.5.. 18~ -. lZ~O 110 '.1752 123 :. ~=12.7.. .~122 '1.~ 1~ ]55' ~ 93.. 35'3 ' 17q -. 126, ILl.': 1Gl. llB' 108. '~103. 127 193 1~- 1~ ?1 '." .:~:, ~ '127.".m'...~62- m'! ~".'.]cn."]m .i~l ~. Ia" m -'~;':': '. · ' ,' · · , ', ' ',4' ~ ~" · ,'~'" ~- ""~;" "" " ' -~. ~,,." -' ~ .... ' ' ~ ~ .. ',. :''~ · ~ :' ;r"" ~;, '" "{' .~% · . -- . ~ ' . t... , ~ '. I. ~ ~ "- .: .... ...,.- ,.~ ,. ~ ,. · , .- , ~ ~ '... ,.. ~.,, ~.~' ADDITIONAL CHECK OF OPERATION COSTS AGAINST "BOMA" DATA (BOMA = Building Owne.rs Managers Association) From 1981 BOMA Data Tables Office buildings under 50,000 sq. ft. (per sq. costs per year) (Minneapolis-St. Paul areas) Item Cost/Sq. Ft.]Yr. -ElectricitY $ .86 Gas .06 Oil .06 Steam .55 Chilled Water .00 Sewer-Water .13 $1~.66 To compare to figures for League of Minnesota Cities Building, subtract sewer and water for a net figure of $1.53. Therefore, $1.53 x 15,400 sq. ft. would equal $23,562.00. Savings here would equal $23,562 minus actual cost of $16,393, or $7,169.00 which compares favorably against the previous BEPS figure of $8,482.00. GREENHOUSE RELIEF AIR EARTH SHELTERING PASSIVE SOLAR PANEL GREENHOUSE/ATRIUM BUILDING EXTERIOR INDIRECT LIGHTING W/ AUTOMATIC DIMMING SOLAR LIGHTING (SKYLIGHT) RECEPTION AREA SOLAR HEAT STORAGE RADIANT FLOOR PANEL E vary IAlniHJ. V/agnOHNaa]:io l::l'qArlO"1 NOIJ. V-II"IOI:::IlO I:::IlV ! I .YaH ~V'10$ I]¥'18 ~H£ NOIJ. Vq~OI~I:D 1::11¥ rWIN CITIES · BOR MARKET FORMATION Vol 7, No. 5 May 1983 LABOR MARKET CONDITIONS The March unemployment rate in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area was 7.9 percent, down slightly from a rate of 8.0 percent in February. It appears that the decline was due to the continuing contraction of the labor force rather than any real im- provement in 1. abor market conditions. Some evidence that economic recovery has yet to make a real dent in the unemployment situation was the weak showing of employment and available indicators of job openings. (See The Job Market, page 4). The esti- mate of total employed residents dropped uncharacteristically in March while the sur- vey of establishment wage and salary jobs showed weaker than normal growth in March. Over the last twelve months, the size of the civilian labor force in the Twin Cities has decreased by 18,200. Apparently many workers have left the labor force, as the number of employed residents has dropped by 36,000 while the number of those unem- ployed but actively looking for work has increased by only 17,800. National data in- dicates that recent decreases in the labor force have taken place among adult men and teenagers. This would indicate an increase in discouraged workers or that people are leaving the State to seek work elsewhere. LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES (not seasonally adjusted) AREA CZVZLZAN LABOR FORCE TOTAL EMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT UNEMPLOYMENT RATE Mar. p Feb.~ Mar.. Mar. Feb.a Mar.a Mar.o Feb.~ Mar. Mar. Febla Mar. 1983' 1983" 1982K 1983P 1983" 1982- 1983' 1983- 1982R 1983P 1983- 1982R Minneapolis- 1,138.0 1,140.6 1,156.2 1,047.8 1,049.4 1,083.8 90.2 91.2 72.4 7.9 8.0 6.3 St. Paul County: Anoka 109,240 I09,378 110,342 99,189 99,348 102,597 10,051 10,030 7,745 9.2 9.2 7.0 Carver 20,572 20,750 20,848 18,748 18,778 19,392 1,824 1,972 1,456 8.9 9.5 7.0 Chtsa~o 14,680 14,564 14,857 13,015 13,035 13,462 1,665 1,529 1,395 11.3 10.5 9.4 Oakot~ 106,770 107,203 108,364 98,234 98,391 lO1,60g 8,536 8,812 6,755 8.0 8.2 6.2 Hennepin 514,778 515,599 522,956 476,420 477,184 492,721 38,358 38,415 30,165 7.5 7.5 5.8 Ramsey 251,284 252,190 256,157 232,683 233,056 240,679 18,601 19,134 15,478 7.4 7.6 6.0 Scott 24,606 24,791 24,884 22,158 22,193 22,919 .2,448 2,598 1,965 g.g 10.5 7.g Washington 62,036 62,175 63,632 57,475 57,567 59,450 4,561 4,608 4,182 7.4 714 6.6 Wright 33,951 33,955 34,094 29,837 22,888 30,865 4,114 4,067 3,229 12.1 12.0 9.5 City of 203,288 203,502 207,379 187,727 188,028 194,178 15,561 )5,474 13,201 7.7 7.6 6.4 MinneapOlis CitY~°f 148,064 148,723 151,097 136,755 136,975 141,455 11,309 ll.748 9,642 7.6 7.9 6.4 St. Paul Minnesota* 2,092.0 2,096.3 2,130.3 1,879.0 1,879.4 1,956.0 213.0 216.9 174.3 10.2 United States* 109,873 109,647 108,761 97,994 97,265 98,471 11,879 12.382 10,290 10.8 I1.3 95 I,, P - Preliminary R - Revised f77' U.S., MinneSota, and SMSA data in thousands. E~LOYMENT. HOURS AND [ARNINGS tn the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area PERCENT PRODUCT%ON WORKERS' HOURS & [ARN%NG~/ EMPLOY~NT CH~G[ ..... INDUSTRY (0~) F~M Average Weekly Average Hourly Average Weekl~ E~rntngs Eamtngs Hours ~r. ~nth Year ~nth Year ~r. ~nth ~r. ~nth ~r. ~nth 1983 Ago A~ Ago Ago 1983 Ago 1983 Ago 1983 Ago TOTAL ~NAGRICULTU~ 1~3.3 l~O.g 1~5.7 0.~ -2.1 XX XX XX XX XX XX ~NUFACTURING 228.S ~27.~ ~3g.l~ 0.4 -4.4 396.21 393.82 9.93 g.g2 39.9 39,7 Durable Goods 145.11 144.5 154.6 0.4 -~.1 40~.94 401.55 9.78 9.77 41.2 Lumber & Wood P~ducts 4.6) 4.2 ).5' 9.4 33.4 ~44.96 430.55 11.18 lO,gO 39.8 39.S Fu~itu~ & Fixtures 1.5) 1.5 1.5 0.7 1.6 307.07 299.04 8.39 8.40 36.6 35.6 Stone, Clay & Glass 3.~~ 3.~ 2.8 0.0 12.8 385.70 38S.43 10.15 g,66 38.0 39.9 Priory ~tals 3.8' 3.8 4.6 0.7 -17,~ 34S.07 3~.47 8.67 8.81 39.8 39.1 Fabricated ~tals 25.8 ~6.0 Z7.4 -O.S -5.8 458.71 464.34 10.87 10.90 4~.2 Non-Electrical ~achinery 58,9 S8.7 64.9 0.3 -9.3 389.35 390.17 9.59 9.61 40.6 40.6 Electrical Machinery 17.7 17.S 18.3 0.7 -3.3 3~.gZ 381.39 9.17 9.19 41.9 41.5 Transportation Equi~nt 3,3 3.3 3.S -1.5 -6.1 ,519.29 482.66 12.19 11.83 42.6 40.8 Other ~rables~/ 26.3 ~6.3 28.1 0.1 -6.5 380.58 380.52 9.04 9.06 42.1 42.0 Nondurable Goods 83.4 83.0 84.5 O.S -1.3 384.92 3~,09 10.~1 10.19 37.7 37.3 Food & Kindred Products 18.0 17.g 17.8 0.5 1.1 357.27 352,gl 9.63 9.59 )7.1 36.8 Textiles & Apparel 2.3 2.~ ~.9 ~.8 -Zl.1 ~04.26 197.61 5.99 S.g7 34.1 33.1 Paper & Allied Product~ 23.6 23.6 24.5 0.0 -3.4 432,13 42g.00 10.~4 10.19 42.2 42.1 Printing & Publishing ~4.2 ~4.3 ~3,9 -0.~ 1.5 375,35 365.30 11.34 11.38 33.1 32.1 Chemical Products 6.3 6.1 6.3 2.4 -0.9 393.46 403.37110.30 10.29 38.~ 39.2 Petroleum P~ducts 1.7 1.6 1.4 g.9 21.3 4~.31 490.8~!11.91 12.03 41,0 40.8 Rub~r & Leather Products 7.3 7.~ 7.8 1.6 -S.g 343.27 347.10 8,87 8.go 38.7 39.0 HON~NUFACTURING B14.8 813.4 826.6 ~2 -1,~ XX XX XX XX XX XX CONSTRUCT%ON 28.1 28.2 31.6 -0.2 -10.9 S49.66 557.SS 1S.44 15.75 35.6 35.4 Building Const~ctton 7.6 7.9 9.3 -3.5 -18.2 541.80 553.50 15.05 15.~ 36.0 36.9 Highway & Heavy Construction 1.9 1.7 2.2 10.8 -14.6 427.12 441.20 11.67 13.~7 36.6 33.5 Special Trades Contracting 18,6 ~8.6 ~0.0 0.~ -7.0 565.34 569.S7 15.g7 16.32 35.4 34.9 T~NSPORTATION ~.7 ~.~ 39.~ ~.4 -2.8 XX XX XX XX XX XX Railroads 6.g 6.9 6.) 0.0 2.4 45B.09 458.09 10.09 10.09 45.4 T~cking & Wa~housing 1~.~ 1~.8 13.~ -0.~ -2.8 429.62 433.30 lg.31 )2.38 34.9 35.0 PUBLIC ~ILITIES & CO~. 20.01 2Q. 1 g1.1 0.0 -5.1 ~62.47 466.41 11.95 11,99 3B.7 38.9 T~DE 255.61 253.7 258.& 0.2 -1.3 223.~0 223.5g 2.67 7.71 29.1 Retail Trade 182.3~ 180.9 184.g) 0.8 -1.4 172.~ 169.76 6.63 6.58 g6.0 General Merchandise Stores 30,3 30.4 31.7' -0.1 -4.2 168.91 167.48 6.1~ 6.18 ~7.6 27.1 Food Stores 23.8 23.5 ~4.3 1.6 -1.9 249.71 239.68 8.95 8.91 27.9 26.9 Eating & Drinking P)aces 60.4 59.6 60.6 1,3 -0.3 80.48 80.54 4.35 4.33 18.5 18.6 Wholesale Trade 23.3 72.9 23.9 0,6 -O.B 372.30 387.44 9,BO 9.96 38.5 38.9 FINANCE, INS.& REAL ESTATE 72.7 22.6 72.9 0.1 -0.3 Finance 30.7 30.6 30.6 0.4 0.5 )nsurance ~.4 ~9.~ 2g,6 -0.1 Real Estate 12.6 12.6 1~.7 -0.2 SERVICE & ~ISCCLLANEOUS ~48.0 ~47,S ~44.7 0.2 1.4 Fu~iness & Personal Services 59.1 58.8 59.1 0.5 ~.I gopair Services 12.Z 1~.3 ll.g -0.4 2.2 Medical Services 23.6 73.a 71.g 0.3 2,5 Hospitals 30.9 30.8 31.2 0.3 -0,8 Nursing Ho~s 19.9 lg.g 19.~ -0.1 ~.1 GOVERNMENT 151.5 152.5 157.( -0.6 -3.9 State 42.5 42.8 47.S -0.2 -o.g Local 86.9 87.5 92.2 -0.7 Less than .05 1._/ Includes Scientific Instruments and Miscellaneous ~anufacturing · ~,_/ Average earnings data are on a "gross" basis and are derived from reports Of payroll for full- and part-time production or nonsupervtsory workers. The payroll is reported before deductions of any kind. Bonuses, retro- active pay, tips, paynent in kind, and "fringe benefits" are excluded. Source: Current Employment Statistics Program (Figures rounded to nearest hundred) EMPLOYMENT AND ~ARNINGS CONDITIONS The number of nenagricultural wage and salary jobs in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro- Politan area increased between February and March but only by about half as much as usual. The primary reasons for the slower than average growth were soggy conditions in the construction industry and cutbacks in government jobs. The number of jobs in the other industry sectors remained at roughly the February levels reflecting the cautiousness of employers to hire at the early stages of the economic recovery. How- ever, the retail trade industry group grew at a faster than normal rate in March. Job demand in the construction industry .is expected to be stronger this Spring than in the past three years as the number of housing permits issued has increased sub- stantially. However, the number of construction jobs, on a seasonally-adjusted ba- sis, did not increase between February and March either locally or in the Nation. This could have been due to wet conditions which hampered new construction activity during the establishment survey reference week. Wet conditions throughout the coun- try in April may also influence construction figures in that month. The manufacturing sector registered a below normal increase in March, but showed fur- ther signs of recovery. The lumber and wood products industry showed continued strength due to increased demand for building supplies in the construction industry. The rest of the sector experienced either small increases or no change with only three of the fourteen manufacturing groups registering a drop in employment. This is in contrast to the employment situation in November 1982, when none of the industry groups recorded an increase in employment. CHARACTERISTICS OF PERSONS CLAIMING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE The number of unemployment insurance claimants decreased by 2,230 from a month ago. The 6.2 percent decrease from February compares to a five year average over-the-month decrease of 2.4 percent. Over half (60.3 percent) of the decrease occurred in the manufactur- ing industry, especially in the durable goods sectors of electrical and nonelec- trical machinery. There were also an additional 7,499 claimants under the Federal Supplemental Compensation (FSC) program this March; FSC claimants de- creased 1.2 percent from February. Compared to a year ago, claimants in- creased by 979. Large decreases in con- struction, nondurable goods manufactur- ing, and public administration were par- tially offset by large increases in ser- vices, trade, and durable goods manufac- turing' (particularly in the machinery sectors). CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INSURED UNEMPLOYED (Regular Benefits Program) NINN£APOLIS-SI. PAUL SMSA Week Ending 3/12/83 Industry and Occupational Attacbnent Total, All Industries Construction Manufacturing Durable Goods Nondurable Goods Trans., Com., and Public Utilities Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Fin., Ins., and Real Estate Services Public Admtn. All Other lnf. Not Available Total, All Occupations Prof., Tech., Hgt. Clerical Sales Service Fam., For., Fish. Processing Machine Trades Benchwork Structural Work Miscellaneous Inf. Not Available Percent Change From: Percent Percent l/ Month Year of Long-Term~ Number Ago Ago Total Unemployed 33,587 -8.2 3.0 100.0 27.5 8,167 -1.3 -6.7 24.3 1B.O 9,141 -12.8 -0.4 27.2 35.0 6,944 -ll.8 8.7 20.7 37.9 2,197 -15.0 -21.2 6.5 25.8 1,513 -g.1 2.4 4.5 20.2 2,646 -6.8 13.7 7.9 33.2 4,173 -2.9 18.7 12.4 2S.1 1,037 -5.2 3.7 3.1 36.7 5,112 -3.6 12.5 15.2 28.4 464 -10.9 -36,8 1.4 25.4 g86 -8.8 20.4 2.9 36.9 348 35.4 34.9 1.0 4.0 33,587 -6.2 3.0 lO0.O 27.5 4,707 -5.0 21.0 14.0 67.1 3,832 -7.0 g.g ll.4 31.3 1,397 -2.6 18.0 4.2 28.1' 2,160 -3.2 18.2 6.4 27.3 566 -7.2 -0.5 1.7 47.2 472. -11.9 -16.2 1.4 32.6 2,784 -8. g 4.7 8.3 31.7 3,419 -11.6 -7.7 10.2 32.5 8,483 -2.8 -3.3 25.3 lg.5 5,636 -B.2 -3.9 16.B 25.1 131 -2.2 44.0 0.4 17.6 NOTE: Percentages m~y not total to 100.0 due to independent rounding. l_./ Long-Term unemployed refers to unemployment insurance claimants whose current spell of unemployment has. lasted 1S weeks or longer. THE JOB MARKET Demand for labor, as indicated by both openings listed with Minnesota State Job Ser- vice Offices in the Twin Cities and the Conference Board's Help-Wanted Index for Minneapolis, did not increase significantly in March over the levels of the previous meVeral months. There were about 2,850 job openings (three or more days duration) ceived by Job Service Offices in March, considerably below the level of 3,232 re- ceived in March 1982. The Conference Board's Help-Wanted Index in March was 34 (1967=100), compared to 39 last March. Both indicators have risen slightly after bottoming out in September-October of 1982. Minnesota Department of Economic Security Job Applicant Characteristics, Applicant/Opening Condition Minneapolis-St. Paul SMSA - March 1983 Occupation~ Total, All Occupations Professional, Technical, Managerial Clerical Sales Service Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries Processing Machine Trades Benchmark Structural Work Transportation, Motor Freight Packaging-and Material Handling Miscellaneous Total Female Minority 63,181 24,246 8,674 ll ,746 4,419 864 ll ,614 9,057 1,115 2,896 988 129 8,480 4,277 1,561 755 ll8 106 1,378 316 174 5,357 702 519 4,495 2,448 729 6,345 315 519 2,583 146 184 7,004 1,308 1,488 528 152 38 Source: ESARS Table 96 Ratio of Applicants to Unfilled Job Openings 10.4 lO.1 6.5 3.0 9.2 13.2 30.6 23.2 31.7 26.0 18.1 21.6 12.0 RECENTLY AVAILABLE PUBLICATIONS Important Minnesota Occupations by Industry, 1979-1980-1981. This publication pre- sents information about the important occupations, as measured by employment size, and the industries in which they occur. 1981 Occupational Employme~5 Statistics in Hinnesota. This report covers occupa- tional employment in Minnesota's mining, construction, finance, insurance, real estate, and service industries. Comparative data from surveys conducted in 1973, 1975, and 1978 is included. Employment, Hours, and Earnings: Minneapolis-St. Paul Area, 1970-1983. This publi- tion contains monthly and annual average wage and salary employment by industry 1970 through February 1983. Also, average hours and earnings estimates by in- dustry and average female employment by industry. To order, please call or write the LMI Center. No charge for publications. / 77 American Legion Post 398 DATE MAY 31, lO8) GAM~LI NG REPORT CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE c~.oss: ~ 2935. O0 ~'10,030. O0 EXPENSES: SALES ~AX SUPPLIKS ~166.00 254.~0 PAYOUT AS PRIZES: ~16~0.00 PROFIT: ~865.00 ~3066.~3 DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: LEG. SOFTBALL FEES BABE RUTH LEG. BASEBALL UNIFORMS NURSES' S'CHOLARSHIP FUND 2 SCHOOL AEARDS MEMORI,~L DAY" EXP. ALANO ~ 175'. O0 300.00 ETC. 35 2. ~ 3 50.00 26,38 163.26 25. O0 ~ ] ORO. 07 CHECKING ACCOUNT 2589.51 t 'for. bUsinesses'.{!! Y II · :' ' . .' ~oulhern Minnesota Correspondent 'L_.:__-J ~, C~n~,da · J There'ls a"dlstlnctly biblical air J \" Mil'ln~_Rot~ ' "El about the gesture when Dave Mocol, ': J J Islanding on a windy ridge overlook- .' J [ .. · lng Winonn,'sweeps his hand across J [ ' _ m ~ J Jibe landscape below to show ~ visitor I k , I ~... I ~ :, . ' .'" ' . wigeons n ~ ,o I q' ~arsa.., ~. ' ' · I~.L _.; ,~:,.. , ..i "T~e worOs ~re pret~ common In ~ ~O~itlon~l H~ B mlllio~ In busi~' :.:... ;:.,:,'. ::~:.~',.~:.~: ,?':.::~. ..:.t~- the ~r~esl ~ln~ ~n j~ey'r~ ~tlln~ to"be'~ommon In city., W~ao~ ~l~ctrlc Co;.In Ih~l ~, th~, · 'Jmen~ an~ the Jobs I~I ~o ~i~'... ~ ,mo~.t~n SbO0,O00' n ..them. That m~ch ot the s~cc~ h~: .t. mp~ovemen~ lot Ih~ project wh ~h4 ' .tow~ such ~ ~Jnon~ m~2 be dge In:.~'new Jobs..::,~"' . '::, ;~ ~ :. i "'~' "~hy .-~'; , :.~ ,-~-.~ ";~ ' - , '. ' .'.~ '"When ~ ee~nom2 w~s ~i I~ w°~t ' . '~: : . . . ~ t..~..,., ~. '..~..., :;~ .. ' .. ' : : · ' ~' ~' ~e ~ ~evtr S~e~ t SO good MOCOJ DUI publl~ ~ffl~lals who t~'to ~ttract"; ~1~. "The word w~ out that we'd do~ ' ': ti ~y that. more often than not these ~ what w~ nec~.".~ .,:: '~; ~: community attitude -- a positlve ':4:' In ~ankat~,;where federal govern- self-Imasa combined with an aU-lm-~:~.'menta] assistance has played point wlUInsne~ to deal..'. ', · *'~Cpromlnent role In downtown redevet:: . ... . · · '*-~ ~' ~ ',":,~'opment, lo~l government.busl~, Jim Lushlne, a business development '~, pa~nemhip sppeam to be thrlvlnD ', specialist wile the stale development ',~:: .. ' : .. · '. ., ' * ~ , depa~ment ~ld that new buslnem::'~.~tant City Manaaer'Tom Melena:. [b ~methlng every ClW wan~ but": ~id their3 ~x increment district: that not ali are co~clously worklna, :. within' the. city may reprint the, .~,lorlL ',....''~>: .m~[ ~r capl~;Jn any city In the~ ::"Eve~ eo~m~nlW will ~y they're.~.'. * **..~ '-..*.. > /". . for economic development" he said. '.. ~ut he'~l~ the city actually h~ ~ "~ut when yo~ approach them with choice of re~ile~ who'wsnt to le~e~ ,~'.a pr~c~ ~ey don't know ~ price ~'. tn I~ expandln8 downtown mall..~e~ ..;.of ~e tan~, they don't know w~[.'.*.sald a ~6 million tnduslrtal revenue, ~'se~tces they can ofler~ they don't ?-.bond ~ue sold In the early t970s to~. ,~ know about transportation, they'." help Improve a No,hem Stal~ Pow-, ' don't know theavaitabie worX.lorce..~:~, er Co. plant helped attract a rece~( '~'* ...- ~'~.:', ~. '~..:: ..... : prop~al for a $10 million atcoho~ ; "~ key." Lushine .said, "b not to ' producln~ pta~t .nell to...~e ' ' be Just enthusiastic about develo~ ? plant no~ of the city. ~ .., men~ but to go out and do ~melhlng: .~ ' · ~ . '.. ~: '::?.' ' aboutlL". ;'. *.~ . ',. Melons mid that ~e power.plant ~ , . ... · .. ? .'would have closed wl/houl Ihe ia- WInona"and otheF cilia, such ~ '. provemen~, and that Mnnkalo Alclt- Mnn~alO, h~ve gotten ~eavily thio hot Produce~ now wan~ to use attracting development In recent . steam In t~ propped operation. yea~. selUng up city agenci~ and, nonprofit cor~ratio~ to Identify re- . "You need to be flexible C~oit~h .sources and development ~ont$, nnd use the toots to help developers," tO recoil new businc~.Thclr strata- ' Mclean ~i~. "We've become parl of gi~ ,ppear to be wor~ing., tile process, ii you want 1o Stow and have controlled growth, you have "When ~ came to Wtnona five yens' pluy the game." ago. the city hud been declared ~ distre~ed city by Ihe federal govern- Bringing development agencigs inlu men[," sold MocoL who grew up government and ~ivlngthem close to city government as ~he son . In recruiting develope~ and arran~ of Mankato Mayor Herb Mocol. in~ financing is the initial spark "This is a Conser'vntive town, and tended to take a slow approach to things." . "Now we're changlnR our .way of doing business." said Mocol. "I don't know how else to say lt." commercial and industrial develop. sent, according lo Mike Mulrooney: assistant commissioner of the Minne- sota Department of Ener~, Plan- ning and Development. "Some cities'believe Ihey ought nol be involved tn 'the process," said :.WIn~na,' the only .city with fewer..",. Mulrooney. "People like (a city) than 50,000 people in the state to :!~ way It Is. But the error they make have a port authority, issued more 'it. that communities are always chang- thon $2 million In industrial revenue lng. Tltere are people moving in and bonds tn 1982. They aided four bust- oul, new businesses coming and ness expansion projects, with a riel gain of 61 Jobs.., ' ?... jr'; '; ., · ...Jobs continued on.. page lB '~" .. . :,. :,.i? ~ pulled oll t~e developmental'coup of "it's imporia~t lot c~mmuntties to ~ the y~ar whe~ [t won a lak{ an ~ctive role in ~tci~tng their "maulncturing plant.over .several} own economic and ~evelopment lu. 'South Dakota rivals. turfs," he added. "it's up to the com- ~ munllies to sell Ihemse yes.". , '., ii ) ,q O~licials ~of.. Liv~tock Ener~ S~: ' leas, In~.~ o~ Whitewood, S.D., decid- I 7,1ulrooney said Winona and :fh'e "ed to expand I0 Wo~hlnglon las{ ~all~ ~lankato area have an enviable rec, i, primarily.because o~ the city's loca-i etd in Minnesota for atlracting busl~l...lion In the company's distribution nesses. For example, he ~id Thin system[ Bu't Ihey were also Film Technolo~ Co~.. ~ subsiding" pressed by the/act that membem oJ a Japanese company, recently' .[he city's commercial developmentj chose to locate a plant In North Man-, co,oration ~ew to Whitewood le~ karo r~ther than Hibblng or an Iowa ..than 48 houm after being contacted, location. '" .... ~ and .had a'financlng package pre- pare~ le~ than 24 houm alter that In no~hern Minnesota, Mulrooney.. according to company treasurer said, the current economic prob:./~ony?estber~ .. . leas are an outgrowth of the p~ti ~ '" ."~' ' ,' ' , succe~ of the mining Indust~.. The city built a buildln~ an~ b least . ins It back to the company, which "Now we've experienced a ~asl~ al'e- expec~ to employ 24 people late this proton tn that inOus[~, ahd people' year. ' are.getting act ve y involved n' at-:'~,, i,,./,.~'(~;~ ' , ' .'.' '' j J tractmg development, he added., ~eyond using city. hall and the cham:J "They realize their ~utur~ are on. bar of commerce to attract busln~ :. the line." . Wo~lngton and Le Sueur have con. ............. '"'"'""' *"; ~ ~'-- "-"-'~'-- dueled' education program- to~prm Mulrooney praised the eHor~ '1~ mote "postlive thinking" by people .Wtnona,. and .ManXato.. ' ............... ., ........ who. represent'..~ack', c ty_'"; .' ~s ~mt ;.olnt On a s~tewlde level, the state riegel- alom. Ol~iclals tried to Involve every opmen[ depa~ment has tried to eh-. wattre~es and gas~tation attendant, courage civic marketing with i~ ~ta~ 'Jla town. . ' . d~o, Fer~s'Falls, Os~kls,'~ootitello '~."I~ had one l~lloi ~me~l. lo~lh~ Delano, Coon' Eaplds C~ask~," Le. chamber"oil ce 'a~d' tell Sueur, Northfi,l~ and Faribault) been out In such.and suc~ a restau-t ~av~ qualilled ~ Sar Cities by eom- ', r~nt an~ asked ~ rect o~" ~id Lnr~ piecing an H~tep .coum¢, This,ln,~ ~';'Eaugen 's president o~J,~he' volves Identilyin~ Slron~,potn~'~nd', thin~ton"=,C~ambefi ol .~om~c~ goals, completing an area labor sar- "The waltre~ tol~ him ho~ to get ,...v and publishing promotional liter, where he w~ going. But then she j.,~z~. '" j ~ed him If there was anyplace else O-